Dhamodharan, Rajasekaran Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 27, 20202019005005 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation