Hellal, Faten "Fay". et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

2019004211 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 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.
13/620,510 09/14/2012 Faten "Fay" Hellal 19487.70.1.1.2 2785
107193 7590 06/10/2020
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
HAQ, NAEEM U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
ljohnson@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte FATEN “FAY” HELLAL, FLETCHER JONES,
KAMAL ACHARYA, PETER GREMETT,
JAI-JEN CHANG, and MATTHEW CRAMPTON1
________________

Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, JOHN G. NEW, and
MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.142. Appellant identifies Facebook, Inc. as the real party-in-
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

2
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 32–35, 37, 40–44, 46–49, and 51–
57 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory
subject matter.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method that provides an
Internet wish list for deferred purchasing. Abstr.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A method comprising:

maintaining, at a server, an electronic list associated with a user,
wherein the electronic list includes a plurality of items added to
the electronic list from different websites for deferred purchasing
that the user is interested in, and wherein each of the plurality of
items is linked with an associated product information page from
a respective website;

identifying, using at least one processor and for each of the
plurality of items in the electronic list, a stock keeping unit that
identifies each respective item irrespective of which website an
item is from;

providing, using the at least one processor, an option for the user
to share the electronic list with one or more additional users;

Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

3
providing a viewable user profile associated with the user to at
least one other user;

utilizing, for each of the plurality of items in the electronic list,
the stock keeping unit to validate a corresponding product
information page for the item;

providing, to the at least one other user and using the at least one
processor, access to the electronic list by way of the viewable
user profile associated with the user; and

presenting the electronic list to the at least one other user.

App. Br. 17.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We adopt the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusion that the
claims on appeal are directed to nonstatutory subject matter. We address the
arguments raised by Appellant below.

Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that independent
claims 1, 41, and 46 are directed to nonstatutory, and therefore patent—
ineligible, subject matter.2 App. Br. 6, 12.

2 Appellant makes no arguments in the Appeal Brief concerning dependent
claims 32–35, 37, 40, 42–44, 47–49, and 51–57. We therefore consider
these claims as standing or falling with claims 1, 41, and 46, from which
they severally depend.
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

4
Analysis
The Examiner first finds that the claims are directed to one of the four
statutory categories of invention. Final Act. 3. The Examiner also finds,
however, that the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without adding
significantly more. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that claims 1, 41, and 46 are directed
to maintaining a list of items for deferred purchase by a user, identifying a
stock keeping unit (“SKU”) for each item in the list, and sharing the list with
at least one other user. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that these claims
are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information (viz., a list of
items), analyzing it (i.e., identifying a SKU for each item), and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis (i.e., sharing the list with at least
one other user). Id. The Examiner finds that the independent claims are
directed to an abstract idea similar to that at issue in Electric Power Group,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (2016) (i.e., collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis) and
that Appellant’s claims are therefore similarly directed to “a method of
organizing a human activity.” Id.
The Examiner further finds that the claims also recite “providing a
viewable user profile” and “utilizing … the stock keeping unit to validate a
corresponding product information page.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds
that these limitations are directed to obtaining and comparing intangible
data, and thus are directed to an abstract idea similar to that at issue in
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (2011), i.e.,
obtaining and comparing intangible data. Id. The Examiner finds that a
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

5
stock keeping unit (“SKU”) is nothing more than data, and that using such
data to validate other data amounts to no more than obtaining and comparing
intangible data. Id. at 4.
The Examiner next turns to an analysis of whether the claims recite
additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that claims 1, 32–35, 37, 40, and
51–57 recite the additional limitations of a processor and a profile. Id. The
Examiner finds that a “processor” is a generic computer component that
performs the basic function of processing and storing data through a
program that implements the abstract idea. Id. The Examiner finds that a
“profile” is a collection of data, and that the use of a profile is routine and
conventional in the art. Id.
The Examiner finds that claims 41–44 and 46–49 recite the additional
limitations of a processor, a computer medium and a profile. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that a processor and a computer medium are generic
computer components that are claimed to perform their basic functions of
processing and storing data through a program that implements the abstract
idea. Id. The Examiner finds that a profile is a collection of data, and the
use of profiles is routine and conventional in the art. Id.
The Examiner further finds that claims 1, 32–35, 37, 40–44, 46–49,
and 51–57 also recite the additional limitation of an electronic list that
includes items added from different websites. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
finds that this limitation is routine and conventional. Id. at 4–5. In support
this finding, the Examiner cites M. Masterson, BuyWiz Unveils Universal
Shopping Cart, E-COMMERCE GUIDE 1–2 (1999), downloaded from:
http://ecommerce.intemet.com/opinions/print/0.1282.3551_187441.00.html
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

6
(“Masterson”). Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Masterson teaches that
BuyWiz unveiled a universal shopping cart that allowed a shopper to add
items from different websites to a single shopping cart. Id.
The Examiner concludes that, taking the additional elements
individually, the computer components perform purely generic computer
functions, and that, taking the additional elements in combination, the claims
as a whole are directed to an abstract idea that is implemented using generic,
routine and conventional computer components. Final Act. 5. The
Examiner therefore concludes that there is no inventive concept sufficient to
transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application,
because the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Id.
The Examiner also concludes that, when considered separately and as
an ordered combination, the claim elements do not: (1) provide an
improvement to another technology or technical field; do not provide an
improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; (2) do not apply the
judicial exception by use of a particular machine; (3) do not effect a
transformation or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; and
(4) do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood,
routine and conventional in the operation of a generic computer. Final Act.
5.
Appellant argues that, applying the first step of the analysis set forth
by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S.
208 (2014), the claims are directed to an improvement in computer
functionality in a manner similar to that of the claims found to be patent
eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

7
F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). App. Br. 6. According to Appellant, in Core
Wireless, the claims were directed to an improved user interface that
implemented a particular manner of accessing data and application
functionality on electronic devices. Id. (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
1359).
Specifically, Appellant argues, the claims in Core Wireless recited an
“application summary” that provides access to a limited list of data offered
within one or more applications, and where the application summary is
displayed when the one or more applications are in an “unlaunched state.”
Id. at 7 (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359). Appellant contends that
the claims on appeal in Core Wireless recited limitations that addressed
specific problems existing in conventional user interfaces, including
providing the application summary that enabled a user to access data or
functionality of unlaunched applications. Id. Appellant asserts that the
claims in Core Wireless were directed to an improvement over conventional
systems that required users “to scroll around and switch views many times to
find the right data/functionality.” Id. (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
1359). Appellant notes that the Core Wireless patent explained that prior
conventional user interfaces required users “to drill down through many
layers to get to desired data or functionality,” thus resulting in a process that
could “seem slow, complex, and difficult to learn.” Id. (citing Core
Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363). Therefore, Appellant argues, the claimed
invention in Core Wireless permitted a user to access the data or
functionality of an unlaunched application directly from the recited
application summary, which resulted in a computer navigation improvement
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

8
that “is far faster and easier than conventional navigation approaches.” Id. at
7–8 (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359, 1365–66).
Appellant contends that, in holding that the Core Wireless claims
were patent eligible, the Federal Circuit explained that, because the claimed
invention increased the speed and ease that a user could navigate to data and
functionality “improves the efficiency of using [an] electronic device.” App.
Br. 8 (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363). Appellant argues that the
Federal Circuit held the claims to be patent eligible because the claimed
invention efficiently and easily “allows the user to see the most relevant data
or functions,” and therefore, the claimed invention improved the “speed of a
user's navigation through various views and windows” by reducing the
number of steps needed to access the desired data or functionality. Id.
Similarly, Appellant argues, the claims presently on appeal improve
the functioning of computers by increasing the ease and efficiency of user
navigation in accessing data and functionality related to digital online
shopping lists. App. Br. 8. Appellant points to the Specification as
explaining that shopping lists of conventional systems work only on single
websites and therefore require users to maintain and navigate between
multiple shopping lists. Id. (citing Spec. 2). Appellant asserts that, as in the
prior art in Core Wireless, conventional shopping list systems require the
user “to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right
data/functionality,” or “to drill down through many layers to get to desired
data or functionality,” and provide a process that is “slow, complex, and
difficult to learn.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363).
Appellant argues that claims on appeal recite unique user interface elements
that reduce the number of user actions required to access data and or
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

9
functionality related to an electronic shopping list. App. Br. 9. Appellant
asserts that the claims recite unique interface features and processes that
allow a user to manage items from several distinct websites within an
electronic list of a single user interface, thereby reducing the number of user
actions required to manage shopping list items online. Id. Appellant
contends that, for purposes of patent eligibility, the claimed “electronic list”
here mimics the “limited list of ... commonly accessed stored data” held to
be patent eligible in Core Wireless, because the electronic list shortens and
obviates navigation in a user interface. Id. (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
1363. Appellant asserts that the claimed “electronic list” similarly shortens
user navigation, albeit in a summary list of “items added to the electronic list
from different websites for deferred purchasing,” as recited by the
independent claims. Id.
Appellant argues further that the claims on appeal recite a unique
user-interface element that increases the “speed of a user's navigation” to
desired data and functionality by reducing the number of steps needed to
access the desired data or functionality. App. Br. 11 (citing Core Wireless,
880 F.3d at 1363). Similarly, Appellant contends, the electronic list “saves
the user from navigating to” an “application, opening it up, and then
navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or
a function of interest to be activated.” Id. Therefore, Appellant reasons, and
consistent with the reasoning and holding in Core Wireless, the claimed
electronic list is a unique interface element that increases the ease and
efficiency of accessing data, and these increases in ease and efficiency of
managing online products “clearly indicate[s] that the claims are directed to
an improvement in the functioning of computers.” Id.
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

10
Finally Appellant argues, the fact that the data presented in the user
interface element comprises an “electronic list” does not doom the claims to
ineligibility. App. Br. 11. Appellant points again to Core Wireless, arguing
that claims reciting user interface elements that present common data in a
new way can still be patent eligible: “the disclosed invention improves the
efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together ‘a limited list
of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,’ which can be
access directly from the main menu.” Id. (citing Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
1363) (quoting the ’020 patent)). Appellant argues that the claims in Core
Wireless recited an “application summary” that was patent eligible despite
the conventional nature of the underlying data displayed within the
“application summary,” which is itself a type of list. Id.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. In performing an
analysis of patentability under Section 101, we follow the framework set
forth by the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). We are also mindful of, and guided by, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84(4) Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (the “2019
Guidance”).
Appellant’s independent claim 1 recites: “A method comprising….”
Independent claim 41 recites: “A non-transitory computer readable medium
storing instructions thereon….” Independent claim 46 recites: “at least one
server device comprising….” Following the first step of the Mayo analysis,
we find that the claims are directed either to a method (claim 1) or a
“machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” (claims 41 and 46), and
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

11
therefore fall into one of the broad statutory categories of patent-eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the next step of the Mayo, we determine whether the claim at issue
is directed to a nonstatutory, patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, a
phenomenon of nature, or an abstract idea. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70–71. If the
claim is so directed, we next consider the elements of the claim both
individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. Id. at 78–79; see also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Specifically, the Supreme Court
considered this second step as determining whether the claim recites 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.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73.
More specifically, in this second step of the Mayo analysis, we look to
whether the claim recites one of the judicially-created exceptions to Section
101, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. See
2019 Guidance 54 (Step 2A, Prong 1). If we determine that the claim recites
a judicial exception, we then determine whether the limitations of the claim
reciting the judicial exception are integrated into a practical application. Id.
(Step 2A, Prong 2).
Finally, if we determine that the claim is directed to a judicially-
created exception to Section 101, we evaluate the claim under the next step
of the Mayo analysis, considering the elements of each claim both
individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

12
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79; 2019 Guidance at 56 (Step 2B).
Claim 1 recites the steps of: (1) maintaining, at a server, an electronic
list including a plurality of items added to the electronic list from different
websites associated with a user; (2) identifying a stock keeping unit that
identifies each item on the list; (3) providing an option for the user to share
the electronic list with other users; (4) providing a viewable user profile
associated with the original user; (5) utilizing the stock keeping unit to
validate a corresponding product information page for each item; (6)
providing access to the electronic list by way of the user profile; and (7)
presenting the electronic list to the at least one other user. Claims 41 and 46
rely upon functional claiming to recite essentially the same steps recited in
claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims recite a series of abstract
ideas, culminating in the creation of an electronically-maintained shopping
list for a given user that lists items obtainable from different websites. As
such, the claims are directed to a means of organizing human activity, i.e.,
the creation and sharing of a shopping list of items listed for sale by various
different vendors.
Appellant’s Specification is elucidative in this regard, disclosing:
Throughout the history of man, there has been the desire to
acquire possessions. At the early point of man’s existence, the
main focus was acquiring such necessities as food and water. As
man has developed over the eons, the constant drive to possess
necessities has evolved to possessing non-necessities such as big
screen TV’s [sic] and cellular phones. One method for acquiring
such non-necessities has been the shopping list. Typically a
shopping list is created by a person walking through a mall,
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

13
finding things that they like, and physically writing them down
onto a piece of paper.

Spec. 1–2. The making of shopping lists is, therefore, a simple, well-known
and conventional economic practice. Appellant’s Specification thus
demonstrates that “the claimed systems and methods of screening messages
are abstract ideas, ‘fundamental … practice[s] long prevalent in our system’
and ‘method[s] of organizing human activity.’” Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (2016) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219 (2014) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Appellant argues at length that the claims are directed to an
improvement in computer functionality, pointing to Core Wireless as
controlling in this case. See, e.g., App. Br. 6. We disagree. In Core
Wireless, the patents-in-suit “disclose[d] improved display interfaces,
particularly for electronic devices with small screens like mobile telephones.
The improved interfaces allow a user to more quickly access desired data
stored in, and functions of applications included in, the electronic devices.”
880 F.3d at 1359. In its analysis, the Federal Circuit enquired whether “the
claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of
computing devices, or, instead, ‘a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. at 1361–62
(emphasis added) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In determining that the claims at issue were the
former, the Federal Circuit held that “[t]he specification confirms that these
claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices,
particularly those with small screens” and that “[t]he disclosed invention
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

14
improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together
‘a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,’
which can be accessed directly from the main menu.” Id. at 1363 (quoting
US 8,434,020 col. 2, ll. 55–59). The court therefore concluded that “the
claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers,
particularly those with small screens.” Id.
We find that Appellant’s claims are not “directed to a specific
improvement in the capabilities of computing devices,” but are directed,
rather, to ‘a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1361–62 (quoting
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). As acknowledged by Appellant’s Specification,
shopping lists are well-known and conventional means of organizing human
activity, and Appellant’s claims are thus directed to a method of
implementing that abstract idea electronically as an application for
increasing the ease and efficiency of online shopping. As such, it represents
an electronic implementation of an abstract idea, rather than a specific
improvement in the capability of a computing device.
Having identified the judicial exceptions recited by the claims, we
determine whether the limitations of the claims reciting the judicial
exceptions are integrated into a practical application. 2019 Guidance 54
(Step 2A, Prong 2). The Guidance provides additional context for this
analysis, stating that: “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a
practical application will 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.” Id. at 53.
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

15
We conclude that the claims are not integrated into a practical
application, because the claims recite no additional limitations that extend
the scope of the claims beyond the abstract idea itself. In other words, the
language of the claims provides no meaningful limitation upon the abstract
idea of organizing a well-known and conventional human activity, viz.,
constructing a shopping list by electronic means, and merely claims the
abstract idea itself. We consequently conclude that the claims are not
integrated into a practical application.
Claims directed to a judicial exception may be patent eligible if they
recite additional elements that provide “significantly more” than the judicial
exception. 2019 Guidance 56 (Step 2B). Appellant argues that, because the
claimed technology maintains an electronic list of items from different
websites to solve an exclusively online problem with an unconventional
validation process, the claims are patent eligible according to the Federal
Circuit’s reasoning in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (2014). App. Br. 12. According to Appellant, the independent claims
cover a concrete invention that addresses “a problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks” and presents a solution “necessarily rooted
in computer technology,” similar to the claims in DDR. Id. (quoting DDR,
773 F.3d at 1257).
Appellant asserts that the independent claims address a problem that
could not exist outside of a computer network application, viz., managing
and maintaining an electronic shopping list that includes items added from
different websites. App. Br. 13. Appellant acknowledges that shopping lists
are not necessarily tied to a computer network environment and exist on
paper, “[i]t is not enough … to merely trace the invention to some real-world
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

16
analogy” or to ask “whether anyone has ever used” shopping lists. Id.
(quoting Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2017-1135, slip op. at
20 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018)). Appellant asserts that, in contrast to paper
shopping lists, the claims on appeal are “directed to” a solution for a
problem created specifically by Internet-based lists that did not exist before
the Internet, i.e., prior online shopping lists that, by their nature, required
excessive online navigation and computer management of independent lists
for each individual website. Id. Appellant contends that the claimed
“electronic list” bridges the gap created by conventional electronic list
systems by providing a single list capable of maintaining online
products/items added from multiple websites in a single, unified electronic
interface. Id. at 13–14.
Appellant argues that, to maintain the “items added ... from different
websites,” the claimed invention recites that the electronic list includes links
to a “product information page” for a “respective website” for each item in
the list. App. Br. 14. For each of the items in the list, the independent
claims recite identifying a “stock keeping unit” that identifies each
respective item “irrespective of which website an item is from.” Id.
Appellant asserts that the claimed technology uses the stock keeping unit to
“validate” a corresponding “product information page” for an item. Id.
Appellant asserts that, with each item linked and corresponding product
information validated against respective websites, the claimed technology
provides and presents the electronic list. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The method claimed
by the patent-in-suit in DDR permitted a host website to display a third-party
merchant’s products, but to also retain its visitor traffic by displaying this
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

17
product information from within a generated web page that “gives the
viewer of the page the impression that she is viewing pages served by the
host” website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259. In holding that the claims were
eligible, the court stated:
We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address
Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent. For example,
in our recently-decided Ultramercial opinion, the patentee
argued that its claims were “directed to a specific method of
advertising and content distribution that was previously
unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” But this
alone could not render its claims patent-eligible. In particular, we
found the claims to merely recite 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. at 1258 (internal citations omitted). The court continued:
The ’399 patent’s claims are different enough in substance from
those in Ultramercial because they do not broadly and
generically claim “use of the Internet” to perform an abstract
business practice (with insignificant added activity). Unlike the
claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired
result—a result that overrides the routine and conventional
sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
hyperlink.… When the limitations of the ’399 patent’s asserted
claims are taken together as an ordered combination, the claims
recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional
use of the Internet.

Id. at 1258–59. The court concluded that the claims of the patent-in-suit:
[D]o [not] recite a commonplace business method aimed at
processing business information, applying a known business
process to the particular technological environment of the
Internet, or creating or altering contractual relations using
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

18
generic computer functions and conventional network
operations, such as the claims in Alice, Ultramercial, buySAFE,
Accenture, and Bancorp.

Id. at 1259.
We conclude that Appellant’s claims on appeal are more similar to the
latter cases cited supra than to the claims at issue in DDR. Like the claims
in those cases, Appellant’s claims apply a known business process, viz.,
making a shopping list of products from different websites, to the particular
technological environment of the Internet. Furthermore, the claimed method
is accomplished using generic computer functions and conventional network
operations, e.g., “identifying a stock keeping unit that identifies each
respective item irrespective of which website an item is from,” as well as
providing a viewable user profile and the ability to share the profile and list.
Moreover, unlike the claims in DDR, Appellant’s claims do not
“overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. The desire for and generation of a
single shopping list containing items from multiple stores arose long before
the internet. Indeed, Appellant’s own Specification provides the illustration
of “a person walking through a mall, finding things that they like, and
physically writing them down onto a piece of paper.” Spec. 1–2. The mere
fact that Appellant’s claims are directed to making a list for products
available at multiple electronic, as opposed to brick and mortar, storefronts
does not mean that those claims are “necessarily rooted in computer
technology.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.
Finally, Appellant’s claims recite generic computer processors and
non-transitory storage media upon which the claimed method is practiced.
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

19
However, it is now well-established that recitation of generic computer
limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.
DDR, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 222). We consequently
conclude that Appellant’s claims do not recite additional elements that
provide “significantly more” than the judicial exception, and that the claims
are, therefore, not directed to statutory subject matter.
Issue 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by failing to support its
finding that using a stock keeping unit to validate a product information
page for an item from the claimed electronic list is routine or conventional.
App. Br. 15.

Analysis
Appellant contends that the Examiner cites neither evidence nor
official notice in support of finding it routine or conventional to use “the
stock keeping unit to validate a corresponding product information page for
the item,” as recited by the independent claims and that this fails to meet the
requirement set forth by the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
F.3d 1360 (2018).
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not cite sufficient evidence
in support of its assertions that the claim limitations both “individually” and
in “combination” recite computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities. App. Br. 15 (citing Final Act. 5).
Appellant acknowledges that the Examiner cites Masterson, which teaches
an instance of a universal shopping cart with items from various online
stores. Id. However, contends Appellant, neither the Examiner nor
Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

20
Masterson provides any evidence that the relevant industry found it well-
understood, routine, or conventional to use a stock keeping unit to validate a
product information page for an item from an electronic list of items added
from different websites for deferred purchasing, as recited by the
independent claims. Id. at 15–16.
We are not persuaded. Appellant’s Specification provides no express
definition of the claim term “stock keeping unit” (“SKU”). However, we
find that it is well-known in the art that SKUs are “a scannable bar code,
most often seen printed on product labels in a retail store. The label allows
vendors to automatically track the movement of inventory. The SKU is
composed of an alphanumeric combination of eight-or-so characters. The
characters are a code that the price, product details, and the manufacturer.”
A. Bloomenthal, Stock Keeping Unit, INVESTOPEDIA available at:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stock-keeping-unit-sku.asp (last
visited May 28, 2020). Furthermore, businesses create different SKUs for
its goods and services, and the SKUs for identical products vary among
businesses. Id. Consequently, “if a company provides the SKU to advertise
a certain discounted refrigerator, shoppers cannot easily view the same
refrigerator at other sellers based on the SKU alone. This stops competitors
from matching advertised prices and poaching customers.” Id.
Consequently, the use of SKUs to track merchandise from individual
sellers in e-commerce is a well-known and conventional practice in e-
commerce. We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2019-004211
Application 13/620,510

21
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 32–35, 37, 40–44, 46–49, and
51–57 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 32–35, 37,
40–44, 46–
49, 51–57
101 Eligibility

1, 32–35, 37,
40–44, 46–49,
51–57