Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2021

2021000733 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2021)

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