Ex Parte Rivera de la Vega et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 201814537612 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/537,612 11/10/2014 22918 7590 09/18/2018 PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General P.O. BOX 1247 SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Manuel Antonio Rivera de la Vega 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. l 12353-8001.US02 3328 EXAMINER LE, LINH GIANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2018 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): patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MANUEL ANTONIO RIVERA DE LA VEGA, and CECILIA GUADALUPE CORRAL Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection of claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31. 2 Claims 20, 27, and 30 are cancelled. See Claims, filed May 23, 2016; see also the Examiner's Jan. 10, 2017, "Index of Claims." We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Caremessage, which is the assignee of the present application. App. Br. 2. 2 We note the Examiner rejects claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 in the Final Action (3), but incorrectly lists claims 1-19, 21-26, and 31 (omitting claims 28 and 29), as being rejected on the "Office Action Summary" page of the Final Action, mailed March 23, 2016. Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention generally "relates to text messaging campaigns, and more particularly, to interactive text messaging campaigns." Spec. ,r 2. Exemplary Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a computing system, a health goal for a user enrolled in a campaign program, the campaign program specifying a set of tasks to be performed by the user to achieve the health goal; generating, by the computing system and based on the health goal for the user, a plurality of messages having information related to a campaign program, the messages being customized for the user, the plurality of messages stored in a plurality of interaction components generated using an interaction component creation tool executing at a computer, wherein each of the interaction components includes an entry link and an exit link, the entry link specifying a previous interaction component of the interaction components that precedes the corresponding interaction component in the sequence, the exit link specifying a next interaction component of the interaction components which follows the corresponding interaction component in the sequence; and sending, by the computing system, the messages to a mobile computing device of the user in a sequence, at least one of the messages eliciting the user to respond, wherein a next message of the sequence sent to the user is based on a response received from the user for a previous message of the sequence, wherein the sending includes: determining, by the computing system, a first interaction component corresponding to the previous message, wherein the first interaction component 2 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 includes a plurality of exit links, each of the exit links linked to one of the interaction components, determining, by the computing system, a first exit link of the exit links that corresponds to the response received from the user, retrieving, by the computing system, the next message from a second interaction component of the interaction components to which the first exit link is linked, and sending, by the computing system, the next message to the mobile computing device. App. Br. 22, Claims Appendix. Rejection Claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. 3 Final Act. 3-5. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed a judicial exception without significantly more? ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. 3 See MPEP § 706.03(a), form paragraph 7.05.015. 3 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 Mayo/Alice Analysis under 35 USC§ 101 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent- eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an abstract idea. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). We consider the question of 4 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of the computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We, therefore, decide under step two whether the claims: (a) set forth an inventive concept that provides a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, or (b) are directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. The Examiner's Rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 Regarding the first step of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 are directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, because: [ A ]n abstract idea is recited in the claims. The abstract idea is identified as: generating and determining customized messages sent to a user based on user responses and in relation to a health goal. Sending personalized messages in relation to a health goal is an abstract idea as described by the claimed invention because it uses categories to organize, store and transmit information, and compares new and stored information and uses rules to identify options, such as what messages to send to the user. User responses are categorized to make a determination on what text messages are sent back to a user. Furthermore, user responses ( new information) are compared to health goals (stored information) and a decision tree or algorithm (rules) are applied to determine what messages are sent to a user. 5 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 Final Act. 3--4 ( emphasis omitted). 4 The Examiner further concludes: The use of entry and exit links is merely branching logic as a part of the decision tree. This is a mental process of managing behavior that be done by a human using pen and paper. Such a basic concept is similar to concepts the courts have found abstract such as using rules to identify options. Final Act. 4 ( emphasis omitted). Regarding the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, the Examiner concludes the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because: [T]he additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of A) generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. server, wireless telecommunications network, graphical user interface and processor). Applicant's specification discloses the computing system may include central processing units, memory, input/output devices, storage devices and network adapters. (Specification; para. 96); and B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. receiving, generating, sending exchanging, analyzing, outputting, and linking data). Final Act. 4--5 ( emphasis added in italics, emphasis in original omitted). 5 4 "Patent eligibility under§ 101 presents an issue of law .... " Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 5 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, "[ t ]he question of whether a claim element or 6 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 The Examiner further finds the claims recite "a mobile device[,] but this is used only to input and output data and thus is considered to be part of the insignificant extrasolution activity and [is] not considered to be significantly more than the abstract idea itself." Final Act. 5 ( emphasis added). For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner concludes that all claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 on appeal are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mayo/Alice Analysis - Step 1 Regarding Alice Step 1, Appellants analogize the instant claims on appeal to the database claims considered by the court in Enfzsh. App. Br. 8. In support, Appellants urge: Similar to the "self-referential table ... [which] is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory" (Id. at 18), claim 1 of the present application recites a specific process designed to improve the way a computing system generates and determines customized messages to be sent to a user based on user responses. Id. (underline omitted). In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection: Appellant further argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims like those in Enfzsh are directed to a specific implementation of a solution problem in the software arts. Applicant states that the interaction components of the claimed technology improves the efficiency of the computer by facilitating loading of a partial sequence rather than a full sequence. Again, Appellant has not pointed to combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 7 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 any support in the specification that the claimed use of "interaction components" helps the computer run more efficiently. As described in the specification para. [0040] interaction components [] represent[] a type of text message generated by the server. There is no discussion that interaction components as taught in the claimed invention improve the computer technology or functionality. One could argue that interaction components can be small or large and could use varying amounts of computer resources. Ans. 3 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants respond in the Reply Brief: As in McRO, Appellant's claim 1 recites (inter alia) a set of "rules" that improves computer-related technology by allowing a computer to automate sending of interactive messages to a user that are customized to the user in a message-based campaign program not previously performable by a computer. The set of "rules" includes "generating ... based on the health goal for the user, a plurality of messages ... [ and storing them] in a plurality of interaction components ... [ which determines a sequence in which the messages are to be sent to the user]." The "interaction components [ facilitate the sequencing of messages using] ... an entry link and an exit link ... [in which] the entry link specif[ies] a previous interaction component ... that precedes the corresponding interaction component in the sequence [and] the exit link specif[ies] a next interaction component ... which follows the corresponding interaction component in the sequence." To send the next message of the sequence to a mobile computing device of the user, the set of rules "determin[ es] ... a first interaction component corresponding to the previous message [ sent to the user,] determin[ es] ... a first exit link ... that corresponds to the response received ... , retriev[ es] ... the next message from a second interaction component ... to which the first exit link is linked, and send[ s] ... the next message to the mobile computing device. 8 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 The above set of "rules" allows a computer to automate sending of interactive messages to a user that are customized to the user in a message-based campaign program .... . . . Accordingly, the above set of "rules" improves computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of automating sending interactive messages to a user that are customized to the user in a message-based campaign program not previously performable by a computer. Reply Br. 3 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We note McRO was decided by the Federal Circuit on September 13, 2016. Appellants could have fully addressed McRO in the Appeal Brief, filed on September 26, 2016, but did not do so. Therefore, we find Appellants' citation to McRO is untimely, because McRO is not an intervening authority. Because Appellants: (1) did not raise McRO in the opening brief, and, (2) good cause has not been shown why it should be considered, we will not consider this argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not."). In the Appeal Brief, Appellants principally rely on Enfzsh in support of the contention that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality under Alice step one (see Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335): Similar to the "self-referential table ... [which] is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory" (Id. at 18), claim 1 of the present application recites a specific process designed to improve the way a computing system generates and determines customized messages to be sent to a user based on user responses. 9 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 App. Br. 8. We note the claimed self-referential database table considered by the court in Enfzsh was a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Enfzsh, 822 F .3d at 1339. Here, Appellants' claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 are silent regarding any mention of a database. On this record, Appellants have not shown that the claim language before us on appeal improves the way the recited generic computer components store and retrieve data in memory, in a manner analogous to that found by the court in Enfzsh. See claims 1, 12, 16, and 26. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention (App. Br. 8) that the claimed invention improves the recited computer system or processor functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way the claimed generic computer components function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh. We conclude each of Appellants' independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 26 is directed to, inter alia, gathering and processing data, for example: receiving, by a computing system, a health goal for a user enrolled in a campaign program, the campaign program specifying a set of tasks to be performed by the user to achieve the health goal; [ and] generating, by the computing system and based on the health goal for the user, a plurality of messages having information related to a campaign program .... Claim 1. Data gathering is a classic example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), 10 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 13 72 (Fed. Cir. 201 7) ( concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"); Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the collection of information and analysis of information are abstract ideas). Moreover, but for the recitation of a generic computer system and mobile computing device (independent claim 1 ), a generic server, wireless telecommunications network, and computing device (independent claim 12), a generic machine-implemented processing system (independent claim 16), and a generic processor and mobile computing device (independent claim 26), we are of the view that the recited steps or acts, or functions could be performed as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("While the Supreme Court has altered the § 101 analysis since CyberSource in cases like Mayo and Alice, we continue to 'treat[] analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."' (brackets in original) ( quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F .3d at 1354)); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 13 7 5 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, 11 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalkv. Benson [409 U.S. 63 (1972)]."). "[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection [and] analysis ... does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes .... " Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. Data gathering, such as receiving and analyzing ( or identifying data), by itself, does not transform an otherwise-abstract process or system of information collection and analysis. See id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he use of entry and exit links is merely branching logic as a part of the decision tree. This is a mental process of managing behavior that [can] be done by a human using pen and paper." Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted). Appellants advance no further substantive arguments regarding Alice Step 1. Therefore, on this record, we conclude Appellants' claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 are directed to an abstract idea, which is similar to the abstract ideas identified by our reviewing courts as discussed above, and that could additionally be performed as mental steps, albeit with the aid of pen and paper. Mayo/Alice Analysis-Step 2 Because we conclude claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 are directed to an abstract idea for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 2-3), we tum to the second part of the Alice/ Mayo analysis. We analyze the claims to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. 12 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 Regarding Alice Step 2, Appellants address the purported inventive concept of the claims. Appellants argue: "Even assuming arguendo that Appellant's claims are directed to an abstract idea (which Appellant denies), the limitations in each of Appellant's independent claims, viewed together as a combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself." App. Br. 11. In support, Appellants urge: "The limitations of claim 1, among others, are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, as indicated by the fact that no prior art references are cited as teaching those limitations. Accordingly, for at least this reason, claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea." App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). However, the Supreme Court guides: "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981) (emphasis added). Our reviewing court further emphasizes that "[ e ]ligibility and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that "[e]ven assuming" that a particular claimed feature was novel does not "avoid the problem of abstractness"). In the Reply Brief (7), Appellants persist in urging that the claims recite a very specific implementation that is "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea. In support, Appellants cite to Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as an 13 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 intervening authority (we note Amdocs was decided on Nov. 1, 2016, after the Appeal Brief was filed on Sept. 26, 2016, but before the Reply Brief was filed on March 10, 2017). In Amdocs, the court found claim 1 entails an unconventional technological solution ( enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). The solution requires arguably generic components, including network devices and "gatherers" which "gather" information. However, the claim's enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. Id. at 1300--01. However, in contrast with Amdocs, Appellants do not present, nor do we find, a specific technical improvement provided by the claims before us on appeal. We are of the view that Appellants' claims do not operate the recited generic computer components in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. Our reviewing court provides additional guidance: See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter."); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ( claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies]" by either requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps 14 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 (brackets in original) (citation omitted)). See also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 ("We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are 'insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application' of an abstract idea." (quoting buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); Intellectual Ventures Iv. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the claims recite both a generic computer element-a processor-and a series of generic computer 'components' that merely restate their individual functions .... That is to say, they merely describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply not enough under step two."). Appellants further urge that claim 1 does not preempt the use of the abstract idea because "[t]he alleged abstract idea of 'generating and determining customized messages sent to a user based on user responses and in relation to a health goal' (Office Action at 3) can be practiced in various ways, e.g., using if-then-else branching logic or associating sequence IDs to each of the messages." App. Br. 16. Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding the absence of complete preemption. The Supreme Court additionally guides that the "prohibition against patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or [by] adding 'insignificant postsolution 15 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 activity."' Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92). Applying this guidance here, we agree with the Examiner that "[ t ]he additional limitation of a mobile device for input and out[put] of data is insignificant [post]solution activity and does not amount to significantly more." Ans. 6; see Independent claim 1 ("mobile computing device"). Appellants further urge: Similarly to the facts in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and claim 2 of Example 21 of the July 2015 Update, claim 1 recites specific limitations that are necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The network-centric problem addressed by the claimed technology is how to enable conducting a campaign program for a large set of users and that is customized to each of the users by use of a user's mobile computing device that operates on a wireless network and implementing the solution using a text-messaging network. App. Br. 18. We do not find that Appellants' claims are similar to the claimed solution the court held to be patent-eligible in DDR. In DDR, the Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court's Alice two-step framework, and upheld the validity of DDR's patent on its web-page display technology. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1255. The problem addressed by Appellants' claims is not similar or otherwise analogous to the specific technical problem addressed by the subject claims in DDR, which were directed to retaining a website visitor when the visitor clicked on a third-party merchant's advertisement on the host website. Instead of taking the visitor to the third-party merchant's 16 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 website (and thus losing the visitor to the third-party merchant), DDR's claimed system generated a hybrid web page that: (1) displayed product information from the third-party merchant, but also, (2) retained the host website's "look and feel." Here, Appellants' claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 are not directed to a website that retains the host website's "look and feel" while displaying product information from the third-party merchant, as was the case in DDR, at 1257. Although Appellants' invention is directed to the result of "sending, by the computing system, the next message to the mobile computing device" ( claim 1 ), we find the "next message" is at best merely an improvement in the informational content (i.e., data) that is intended to be viewed and evaluated by a person as a mental step. We find the claims on appeal are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet. Therefore, we find Appellants' claimed invention does not provide a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks," as considered by the court in DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. (Emphasis added.). Further regarding the use of the recited generic "processor" ( claim 1 ), the Supreme Court held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). 17 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 Because we find Appellants have not established that claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31, are directed to an improvement in the recited generic computer system ( claim 1 ), we conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Mayo/Alice analyses, that each of Appellants' claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (under step one), and under step two, does not recite something "significantly more" to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31, as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. 6 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 18 Appeal2017-006281 Application 14/537,612 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19, 21-26, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation