Intel CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 16, 20212021000733 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2021) 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. 15/142,974 04/29/2016 Rita H. Wouhaybi 884.K15US2 9241 45457 7590 07/16/2021 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel P.O. Box 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER FISHER, PAUL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/16/2021 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): SLW@blackhillsip.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RITA H. WOUHAYBI, STANLEY MO, TOBIAS KOHLENBERG, and MUBASHIR A. MIAN ____________ Appeal 2021–000733 Application 15/142,974 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Rita H. Wouhaybi, Stanley Mo, Tobias Kohlenberg, and Mubashir A. Mian (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 28–71, 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 providing information to users about reviewers of products. Specification para. 11. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 50, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 50. A method for indicating unreliable reviews on a website, the method comprising; [1] accumulating a set of data corresponding to a review contributed to the website; [2] calculating a frequency with which an author of the review contributed reviews to the website from the accumulated set of data; [3] determining a deviation between a set of review properties and a model, the set of review properties comprising the frequency with which the author of the review contributed reviews to the website; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 9, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 2, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 1, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 9, 2020). 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 Intel Corporation (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 3 and [4] storing with the review an indication that the review is unreliable based on the deviation, the indication used by the website to modify a display of a webpage including the review. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Bezos US 7,433,832 B1 Oct. 7, 2008 Cobb US 2011/0064267 A1 Mar. 17, 2011 Tsaparas US 2011/0173191 A1 July 14, 2011 Claims 28–71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 28–71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure. Claims 61–71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 28–35, 38–46, 49–57, 60–68, and 71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bezos and Tsaparas. Claims 36, 37, 47, 48, 58, 59, 69, and 70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bezos, Tsaparas, and Cobb. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 4 ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of written description matter turn primarily on whether the Specification fully supports the scope of the deviation determination in limitation 3. The issues of indefiniteness matter turn primarily on whether the Specification describes structure for means plus function limitations. The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes the claim limitations. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Bezos 01. Bezos is directed to information processing methods for assisting users in sharing information related to transactions conducted over a network. Bezos 1:15–18. 02. Bezos describes the tally of ratings given to anonymous reviews being tracked separately from those given to non-anonymous reviews. In addition, the total tally of all ratings may also be tracked. A rating of a reviewer's anonymous review may be given less weight than that of a rating of a non-anonymous review by the reviewer. The tally or tallies discussed above may be continuously calculated in substantially real-time as new ratings Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 5 are received, or periodically, such as once every day. Bezos 11:11–27. 03. Bezos describes an online process for receiving, processing, and presenting evaluations for reviews. An evaluation in the form of a "helpful" or "not helpful" vote or the like is received. The received vote is tabulated with previous votes received for the review. Based on the tabulated votes, a review score is calculated for display with the review. The reviewer's the vote is also tabulated with votes for other reviews by the reviewer and a reviewer score is calculated. Bezos 19:10–19. Tsaparas 04. Tsaparas is directed to a review scoring model. Tsaparas para. 3. 05. Tsaparas describes the training and use of a model for the generation of scores for reviews. The model may automatically generate a score for a review based in part on a textual analysis of the review, and in part on metadata associated with the review and/or an author of the review. Tsaparas para. 15. 06. Tsaparas describes a review provider having review metadata. The review metadata may include a variety of data that describes the reviews in the review data as well as the authors associated with the review data. The review metadata may include the scores and/or the average score of the reviews associated with an author. For example, if the author has written two reviews that were both given scores of 4 by other users, this may be reflected in the review data. Other metadata may include the number of reviews submitted by an author, a date of the last or a previous review Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 6 submitted by an author, and/or a frequency with which the author submits reviews (e.g., once a week, once a month, etc.), for example. Tsaparas para. 18. ANALYSIS Claims 28–71 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 13 Claim 50, 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- 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.” 3 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 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 7 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 50 recites accumulating data, calculating frequency data, determining deviation data, and storing indication data. Accumulating data is receiving data. Calculating frequency and determining deviation data are mathematical analysis. Thus, claim 50 recites receiving, analyzing, and storing 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. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 8 From this we see that claim 50 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 concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Like those concepts, claim 50 recites the concept of managing people’s content submissions. Specifically, claim 50 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to derive a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations. The advice to derive a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations involves accumulating content submission data, which is a social management act, and indicating content reliability, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of content management. For example, claim 50 recites “accumulating a set of 4 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). 5 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). 6 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 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 9 data corresponding to a review contributed to the website,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing content submissions. Similarly, claim 1 recites “storing with the review an indication that the review is unreliable,” which is also characteristic of managing content submissions. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to the operations recited. Final Act. 6. The preamble to claim 50 recites that it is a method for indicating unreliable reviews on a website. The steps in claim 50 result in managing people’s content submissions by deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitation 1 recites receiving data. Limitations 2–4 recite generic and conventional analyzing and storing of review submission data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations. To advocate deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 11 describes the invention as relating to providing information to users about reviewers of products. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 50 recites managing people’s content submissions. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing people’s content submissions Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 10 is a form of managing personal interactions. The concept of managing people’s content submissions by deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations is one idea for identifying how to manage this. The steps recited in claim 50 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. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(collecting, recognizing and storing). Alternately this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, and storing 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 50, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, and storage 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 50 recites receiving, analyzing, and storing data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. Alternately, this is an example of a mathematical concept because the steps of calculating frequency and determining deviation amounts perform a Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 11 mathematical algorithm. The remaining steps are mere data gathering and incidental post processing steps. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 50 recites managing people’s content submissions by deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, 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 50 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.7 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 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, 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 12 devoid of implementation details. Step 1 is a pure data gathering step. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 4 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 2 and 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 50 simply recites the concept of managing people’s content submissions by deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations 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 50 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The 13 pages of specification do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing people’s content submissions by deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer 8 The Specification describes a personal computer, server or other computer system. Spec. para. 10. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 13 functions. Instead, claim 50 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing people’s content submissions by deriving a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations 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 environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 50 is directed to achieving the result of managing people’s content submissions by advising one to derive a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, 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. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 14 STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 50 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 preemption 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.” 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 receiving, analyzing, and storing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. The limitation of “the indication used by the website to modify a display of a Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 15 webpage including the review” is not a step, but a recitation of intended use, viz. a desired use of the data after the recited storing step, which is aspirational rather than functional. 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 50 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-storage 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, Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 16 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 50 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 50 is representative. 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.’ 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 managing Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 17 personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of managing people’s content submissions by advising one to derive a content submission reliability metric from frequencies and deviations, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “the claims are directed toward a narrowly tailored improvement to website review formulation and display that solves the technical issue of providing a user with efficient and effective indicia of unreliable reviews on a webpage.” Appeal Br. 10. Simply expressing an abstract idea narrowly does not make it less abstract. More to the point, providing a user with efficient and effective indicia of unreliable reviews on a webpage is a social problem solution, not a technical one. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “Appellant is unaware of any human mind that can perform such features as, for example, modifying a display of a webpage including the review.” Appeal Br. 10. Modifying a display is just an electronic analog of paper and pencil. “Indeed, the budgeting calculations at issue here are unpatentable because they ‘could still be made using a pencil and paper.’” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “Appellant respectfully submits that the instant claims do not fall into any of the three enumerated categories of abstract ideas.” Appeal Br. 10. We show how the claims fall within any of the three enumerated categories of abstract ideas above. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 18 We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Appellant's claims represent a practical application of any alleged abstract idea at least because the claims store with the review an indication that the review is unreliable based on the deviation, the indication used by the website to modify a display of a webpage including the review. The claims recite a specific technical, and practical, solution to the problem of providing a user with efficient and affective indication of unreliable reviews on a website where the user may lack insight into reviewer activity preventing the user from making an effective reliability judgment of the reviews or reviewers. Appeal Br. 11. The claims recite something specific only in the sense they are specified with words. The claims do not recite any technological implementation details. They recite functional results to be obtained by any and all possible means. 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). Finally, providing a user with efficient and affective indication of unreliable reviews on a website is an editorial improvement rather than a technological one. Claims 28–71 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure We agree with Appellant that the only two instances of the word “deviation” in the Specification are in the phrase “standard deviation” in paragraphs 12 and 21. Appeal Br. 7–9. Thus the word “deviation” in claim Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 19 50 limitation 3 is construed as a statistical computation of deviation relative to the underlying data’s standard deviation. As Appellant contends, one of ordinary skill would understand Appellant to be in possession of such subject matter. Unfortunately for Appellant, this is not the basis for the rejection. The Examiner instead bases the rejection on new matter for lack of support in the originally filed application for the recited model that might be used in computing such statistics. Final Act. 2–3 and Ans. 5–6. Appellant at best asserts that one of ordinary skill understood that the standard (e.g., average, etc.) review properties for other reviews would be such a model. Appeal Br. 8. But Appellant provides no evidence to support this and it is not clear from the record this is what the recited model refers to. Claims 61–71 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention This is a rejection based on requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) to construe means plus function claim limitations based on their structure disclosed in the Specification. The Examiner determines there is no such disclosed structure, and thus the limitations are incapable of construction. Final Act. 4. As Examiner subsequently determines, all of the portions Appellant cites in support (Appeal Brief 9–10) fail to disclose structure, but rather mirror the means plus function recitation found in the claims. Ans. 7–8. Thus, the limitations cannot be construed by a description of corresponding structure in the Specification and are therefore indefinite. After identifying the claimed function, the court must then determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 20 corresponds to the claimed function. In order to qualify as corresponding, the structure must not only perform the claimed function, but the specification must clearly associate the structure with performance of the function. This inquiry is undertaken from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Alternative embodiments may disclose different corresponding structure, and the claim is valid even if only one embodiment discloses corresponding structure. If, however, this inquiry reveals that no embodiment discloses corresponding structure, the claim is invalid for failure to satisfy the definiteness requirement of § 112, ¶ 2. Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113–14 (citations omitted). Claims 28–35, 38–46, 49–57, 60–68, and 71 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bezos and Tsaparas We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Tsaparas paragraphs [0015–0019] mention that a review metadata may include "a frequency with which the author submits reviews" in paragraph [0018] and reviewer scores. However, absent in the cited portion of Tsaparas is a discussion of creating a score based on the review metadata. Rather, the reviewer score is a data element of the reviewer metadata (and has already been created, regardless of the review metadata). Thus, there is nothing in the combination of Bezos and Tsaparas that teaches or suggests determine a deviation between a set of review properties and a model, the set of review properties comprising the frequency with which the author of the review contributed reviews to the website as recited in Appellants' claims. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner has made no determinations showing this limitation in either reference. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 21 Claims 36, 37, 47, 48, 58, 59, 69, and 70 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bezos, Tsaparas, and Cobb These claims depend from those above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 28–71 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 28–71 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure is proper. The rejection of claims 61–71 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is proper. The rejection of claims 28–35, 38–46, 49–57, 60–68, and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bezos and Tsaparas is improper. The rejection of claims 36, 37, 47, 48, 58, 59, 69, and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bezos, Tsaparas, and Cobb is improper. Appeal 2021-000733 Application 15/142,974 22 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 28–71 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 28–71 101 Eligibility 28–71 28–71 112(a) Written Description 28–71 61–71 112(b) Indefiniteness 61–71 28–35, 38– 46, 49–57, 60–68, 71 103 Bezos Tsaparas 28–35, 38– 46, 49–57, 60–68, 71 36, 37, 47, 48, 58, 59, 69, 70 103 Bezos, Tsaparas, Cobb 36, 37, 47, 48, 58, 59, 69, 70 Overall Outcome 28–71 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