CAFC affirms PTAB rejection under 101 in Bongiorno case

The Appellant Bongiorno lost an appeal of 101 issues:

In a detailed analysis, the Board rejected all pending claims under § 101. At step one of the Alice inquiry, the Board determined that the claims of each application were directed to “planning and executing a vacation or travel itinerary,” which it concluded amounted to a method of organizing human activity—an abstract idea. J.A. 8–14 (’790 application); J.A. 538–44 (’821 application). The Board also rejected Mr. Bongiorno’s argument that the claims were directed to an improvement in technology; instead, the claims amounted to a “purportedly new arrangement of generic information.” J.A. 10–13, 538–44 (citing Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The limitations recited not “inventive programming” but “simply desired results.” J.A. 11, 15, 541, 547. At step two of the Alice inquiry, the Board determined that the additional recited elements, considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. J.A. 14–16, 545–47. That is, the elements amounted simply to “apply[ing] the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions.” J.A. 15, 546. The Board was further unpersuaded that certain limitations that Mr. Bongiorno raises on appeal—e.g., mechanical buttons, a “weather detour” interface screen, a site-bysite “indoor-outdoor rating”—changed the eligibility conclusion. See, e.g., J.A. 15–28, 546–47

We agree with the Board, which addressed Mr. Bongiorno’s claims thoroughly. The claims of both applications are drawn to organizing human activity, including planning and executing a travel itinerary, in a manner that renders the claims directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 220, 226–27. (...)
Because we agree with the Board that the claims are not patent-eligible, we affirm.