Dhamodharan, Rajasekaran

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2020

2019005005 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/185,332 08/04/2008 Rajasekaran Dhamodharan 8223-1707097 9159
144885 7590 11/27/2020
The Webb Law Firm / Visa International
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAJASEKARAN DHAMODHARAN
____________

Appeal 2019–005005
Application 12/185,332
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Rajasekaran Dhamodharan (Appellant2) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 38, 41, 42, 44–46, 49, 50,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed December 10, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 11,
2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 19, 2019), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 12, 2018).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Visa
U.S.A. Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

2

52–55, and 57, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of real time marketing of goods and
services using behavioral targeted advertising techniques. Specification
para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 38, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
38. A method, comprising:
[1] processing, by a transaction processor, a plurality of
transactions
for goods or services between merchants and a consumer
to provide an account transaction history for an account
associated with the consumer,
wherein each of the transactions is executed by a portable
consumer device of the consumer;
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

3

[2] receiving, by the transaction processor, a request from a
content provider for an advertisement,
wherein the advertisement is to be targeted to the
consumer and displayed on a page with content requested
by the user through a client application on a client
device;
[3] obtaining, by the transaction processor, via a computing
device, a spending profile for the consumer using the account,
wherein the obtaining the spending profile comprises
accessing the account transaction history,
and
deriving the spending profile from the account
transaction history;
[4] selecting, by the transaction processor, via the computing
device, a first advertisement from an advertisement database,
wherein the first advertisement is selected for the
consumer based on the spending profile;
[5] sending the first advertisement to the content provider;
[6] receiving an additional request from the content provider for
an additional advertisement
in response to a determination by the content provider
that there is additional advertisement space on the page
for the consumer that is to include the requested content
and the first advertisement;
[7] sending the additional advertisement to the content
provider;
[8] fitting the content, the first advertisement, and the additional
advertisement to a plurality of spaces on the page;
and
[9] rendering the page including the content, the first
advertisement, and the additional advertisement arranged in the
plurality of spaces on the page based on the client device.
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

4

Claims 38, 41, 42, 44–46, 49, 50, 52–55, and 57 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.3
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.

ANALYSIS
STEP 14
Claim 38, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as
an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-

3 A written description rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
(Final Action 2–3) was withdrawn. Ans. 3–4.
4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

5

eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 38 recites processing transaction data, receiving request data,
obtaining profile data that includes deriving data, selecting and sending
advertisement data, receiving more request data, sending more
advertisement data, fitting content data into page data, and rendering page
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

6

data. Obtaining data is receiving data. Selecting data, deriving data, and
fitting data into data are rudimentary data analysis. Sending data is
transmitting data. Rendering data is displaying data. Thus, claim 38 recites
processing, receiving, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data. None of
the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 38 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts5, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity6, and (3) mental processes7. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 38 recites the concept of
managing advertising activity. Specifically, claim 38 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to prepare and display multiple

5 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

7

selected advertisements amidst publication content. The advice to prepare
and display multiple selected advertisements amidst publication content
involves choosing an ad, which is an economic act, and publishing an ad,
which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For
example, claim 38 recites “selecting . . . a first advertisement,” which is an
activity that would take place whenever one is performing commercial
advertising. Similarly, claim 1 recites “rendering the page including the
content, the first advertisement, and the additional advertisement,” which is
also characteristic of commercial advertising.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to “an abstract
idea inasmuch as such activity is considered to be a fundamental economic
practice (i.e., sending an advertisement to a content provider data is a
fundamental economic practice of the advertising/marketing/media
industries).” Final Act. 4. The preamble to claim 38 does not recite what it
is to achieve, but the steps in claim 38 result in managing advertising
activity by preparing and displaying multiple selected advertisements amidst
publication content absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 2, 3, and 6 recite receiving
data. Limitations 1, 4, 5, and 7–9 recite generic and conventional
processing, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying of advertising and
content data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
results. The limitations thus recite advice for preparing and displaying
multiple selected advertisements amidst publication content. To advocate
preparing and displaying multiple selected advertisements amidst
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

8

publication content is conceptual advice for results desired and not
technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
real time marketing of goods and services using behavioral targeted
advertising techniques. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 38
recites managing advertising activity. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing advertising
is the way to develop commercial business. The concept of managing
advertising activity by preparing and displaying multiple selected
advertisements amidst publication content is one idea for getting advertising
out. The steps recited in claim 38 are part of how this might conceptually be
premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (advertising).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of processing, receiving,
analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data mimic human thought processes
of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 38, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data processing,
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

9

reception, analysis, transmission, and display and does not recite an
improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 38 recites
processing, receiving, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 38 recites
managing advertising activity by preparing and displaying multiple selected
advertisements amidst publication content, which is a commercial and legal
interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in
the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 38 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.8
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that

8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

10

claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 2, 3, and 6 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 5
and 7 recite basic conventional data operations such as transmitting data.
Step 9 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or
displaying the results. Steps 1, 4, and 8 and parts of step 3 recite generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 38 simply recites the concept of
managing advertising activity by preparing and displaying multiple selected
advertisements amidst publication content as performed by a generic
computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this
concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those
parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 38 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

11

technology or technical field. The 16+ pages9 of Specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment10 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing advertising activity by preparing and displaying multiple selected
advertisements amidst publication content under different scenarios. They
do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer
functions. Instead, claim 38 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more
than an instruction to apply managing advertising activity by preparing and
displaying multiple selected advertisements amidst publication content using
some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not
enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological

9 The first page is only a title and the last page has less than five lines.
10 The Specification describes a generic server and portable digital assistant,
smart phone, cellular telephone, tablet computer, or laptop computer. Spec.
para. 45.
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

12

environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 38 is directed to achieving the result of
managing advertising activity by advising one to prepare and display
multiple selected advertisements amidst publication content, as distinguished
from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result.
This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain
methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The
claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 38 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the pre-emption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

13

Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for processing, receiving, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying
data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic,
routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’
. . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer
without special programming”). None of these activities is used in some
unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 38 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

14

are considered separately. The sequence of data processing-reception-
analysis-transmission-display is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 38 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 38 is representative. The other independent method claim 57 is
substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method
claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to
the practical application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

15

Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing advertising activity by advising one to prepare
and display multiple selected advertisements amidst publication content,
without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 3–10 and Answer 5–21 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]he Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recently held that simply stating
‘organizing human activity’ does not satisfy Prong 1 and that ‘a more
refined characterization of the abstract idea’ is required.” Reply Br. 3 (citing
In re Marco Guldenaar Holding BV, 911 F.3d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to “sending an
advertisement to a content provider data [which] is a fundamental economic
practice of the advertising/marketing/media industries.” Final Act. 4. This
in itself is more refined and specific than “organizing human activity.”
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

16

Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the
claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reply Br. 3. In DDR Holdings, the
Court evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of
retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional
functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly
transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an
advertisement and activating a hyperlink.” Id. at 1257. There, the Court
found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the
manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem
that had no “pre-Internet analog.” Id. at 1258. The Court cautioned,
however, “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric
challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. For example, in DDR Holdings the
Court distinguished the patent-eligible claims at issue from claims found
patent-ineligible in Ultramercial, supra. See id. at 1258–59. As noted
there, the Ultramercial claims were “directed to a specific method of
advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and
never employed on the Internet before.” Id. at 1258 (quoting
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715–16). Nevertheless, those claims were
patent ineligible because they “merely recite[d] the abstract idea of
‘offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,’ along
with ‘routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a
request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and
use of the Internet.’” Id.
Appellant’s asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible
in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings.
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

17

The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited “providing [a] media product
for sale at an Internet website;” “restricting general public access to said
media product;” “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a]
sponsor message;” and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message,
presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer
access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one
query.” 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted claims recite
processing, receiving, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data. This is
precisely the type of Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “no reasoning [is]
provided for how or why fitting and rendering data in a specifically claimed
manner is ‘extra solution activity.’ This term is intended to cover the
display or printing of a mathematical calculation as-is and is being severely
misused in the Answer.” Reply Br. 4. The Examiner clearly means that no
solution is recited in the claims. That is, the limitations of fitting and
rendering are recited as functional results with no implementation details.
As such, the limitations are no more than conceptual advice to somehow
perform such operations. Such functional recitation cannot confer
eligibility.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than
describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any
limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution
to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the
claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a
concrete embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

18

Appellant cites Berkheimer for the proposition that evidence of
something being conventional is necessary. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 4. Support for this finding is
provided under Step 2B supra.
Finally, Appellant contends the Examiner did not provide sufficient
detail as to dependent claims. Reply Br. 5. Appellant does not argue the
Examiner entirely failed to explain those claim rejections and more
critically, does not argue specific reasons why any of the dependent claims
are eligible. Thus there is no argument to respond to.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 38, 41, 42, 44–46, 49, 50, 52–55, and 57 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 38, 41, 42, 44–46, 49, 50, 52–55, and 57 is
affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
38, 41, 42,
44–46, 49, 50,
52–55, 57
101 Eligibility 38, 41, 42,
44–46, 49, 50,
52–55, 57

Appeal 2019-005005
Application 12/185,332

19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED