Jacob Gediminskas. Kalberer et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201914095822 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) 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. 14/095,822 12/03/2013 Jacob Gediminskas Kalberer 090204-0887990 (069200US) 9544 107508 7590 09/03/2019 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/ Amazon, Inc Mailstop: IP Docketing 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER CAI, LANCE Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): ATI-Patents@kilpatricktownsend.com KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JACOB GEDIMINSKAS KALBERER, CHRISTOPHER ALAN WHEELER, LOGAN LUYET DILLARD, SAMEER RAYACHOTI, and ADAM MICHAEL DOUGHERTY1 ____________________ Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11–18, 20–23, and 25–29, which are all claims pending in the application. Appellants have canceled claims 4–6, 9, 10, 19, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Amazon Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellants’ disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to techniques for providing recommendations about an item based on attributes of interest. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (numbers in parentheses added for later reference): 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: (1) generating, by a computer system configured with executable instructions to facilitate functionalities of an electronic marketplace, a list of item attributes associated with an item offered from the electronic marketplace and reviewer attributes associated with reviewers that have reviewed the item, the item attributes describing respective characteristics of the item and the reviewer attributes describing respective characteristics of the reviewers; (2) determining, by the computer system, an interaction between the electronic marketplace and a reviewer device of a reviewer, the interaction associated with a review functionality of the electronic marketplace to review the item; (3) selecting, by the computer system, a subset of attributes from the list for review of the reviewer, the subset smaller than the list and selected based at least in part on: determining a reviewer characteristic describing the reviewer; matching the reviewer characteristic with a reviewer attribute from the list; accessing a review rule associated with the review functionality, the review rule specifying a total number of attributes for review based at least in part on the reviewer Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 3 attribute and a selection of an item attribute from the list based at least in part on the reviewer attribute; and adding attributes from the list to the subset based at least in part on the review rule such that a number of the attributes added to the subset is smaller or equal to the total number of attributes, the attributes comprising the item attribute and one or more of remaining item attributes or the reviewer attributes; (4) generating, by the computer system, a first graphical user interface configured to present the subset of attributes and to collect reviews of the attributes based at least in part on the review functionality of the electronic marketplace, the first graphical user interface generated based at least in part on: generating input fields corresponding to the attributes of the subset; generating a lay out of the input fields, the lay out separating first input fields corresponding to item attributes of the subset from second input fields corresponding to reviewer attributes of the subset; (5) providing, by the computer system, the first graphical user interface to the reviewer device; (6) receiving, by the computer system from the reviewer device, the reviews of the attributes based at least in part on input of the reviewer at the input fields of the first graphical user interface; (7) generating, based at least in part on the reviews and additional reviews of the attributes, metrics associated with the attributes, the metrics indicating that the item attribute and the reviewer attribute appear in conjunction in the reviews and the additional reviews at a frequency that exceeds a threshold; (8) receiving, by the computer system from a customer device of a customer that has not obtained the item from the electronic marketplace, an item description describing the item, the item description received based at least in part on a search functionality facilitated by the computer system for the electronic marketplace; Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 4 (9) matching, by the computer system, the item description with the item attribute; (10) identifying, by the computer system, a customer characteristic describing the customer; (11) comparing, by the computer system, the customer characteristic and the reviewer attribute based at least in part on a search rule associated with the search functionality, the search rule specifying a comparison between the customer characteristic and the reviewer attribute based at least in part on the item description being matched with the item attribute and based at least in part on the frequency of the item attribute and the reviewer attribute appearing in conjunction in the reviews and the additional reviews exceeding the threshold; (12) determining, by the computer system, a match between the customer characteristic and the reviewer attribute based at least in part on the comparing; (13) generating, by the computer system, a recommendation of the item based at least in part on the match between the customer characteristic and the reviewer attribute; and (14) providing, by the computer system to the customer device, the recommendation and a portion of reviews specific to the item attribute and to the reviewer attribute and smaller than a total of the reviews and the additional reviews, the recommendation and the portion of the reviews provided based at least in part on the search functionality facilitated by the computer system for the electronic marketplace, the search functionality causing the customer device to present the recommendation and the portion of reviews at a second graphical user interface. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11–18, 20–23, and 25–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 5– 8. Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 5 ANALYSIS “Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.2 However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk . . . .”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental 2 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the patent-eligibility inquiry under § 101. Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 6 economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 7 this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. The PTO recently published revised guidance in the Federal Register concerning the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01- 07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf). Under the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes);3 and 3 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”). Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 8 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).4 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.5 See Revised Guidance. Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11–30) and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the patent- ineligible subject matter rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11–18, 20–23, and 25– 29 on the basis of representative claim 1. Prima Facie Case Appellants contend the Examiner did not make a prima facie case of patent ineligibility because the Examiner failed to demonstrate that the alleged abstract idea is similar to concepts the courts have identified as abstract ideas previously and did not explain how the additional elements set forth a judicial exception. App. Br. 11–15. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is reviewable de novo. See 4 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”). 5 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 9 Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We are aware of no controlling authority that requires an examiner to provide factual evidence under step one of the Alice framework to support a determination that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. Instead, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that “the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The Examiner satisfied the burden of establishing a prima facie case under 35 U.S.C. § 132 by setting forth a rejection in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). If the Examiner “adequately explain[s] the shortcomings . . . the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the prima facie case with evidence and/or argument.” Hyatt, 492 F.3d at 1370. The Final Office Action adequately explains the § 101 rejection. See Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner’s statements satisfy § 132(a) because they apply the Alice analytical framework and apprise Appellants of the reasons for the § 101 rejection under that framework. Appellants have not responded by alleging a failure to understand the rejection. To the contrary, Appellants clearly identify the abstract idea identified by the Examiner. See App. Br. 15. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of patent ineligibility under § 101. Step 1 Claim 1, as a method (process) claim, recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 10 before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception? The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to mental processes and a fundamental economic practice, which is a “certain method[] of organizing human activity related to sales and marketing.” Final Act. 7. The Specification provides context as to what the claimed invention is directed to. In this case, the Specification provides an illustration of claimed embodiments. Spec. ¶ 20. The Specification describes: Joe, a photographer, may be shopping for a camera for daily use and may access an electronic marketplace to search for a suitable camera. In addition to providing consumer reviews about available cameras, the electronic marketplace may use the consumer reviews and other information to determine relevant attributes that may help Joe make a purchase decision. For example, the relevant attributes may include image resolution, level of expertise of consumers, reasons why the consumers purchased the cameras, and other attributes. For each available camera, the electronic marketplace may characterize each of the corresponding attributes (e.g., qualify and/or quantify each attribute). For example, for a camera ABC, the electronic marketplace may determine that the camera ABC has a good image resolution, that seventy-five percent of the consumers are beginner photographers, and that eighty percent of the consumer bought the camera for day-to-day use. Similarly, for a camera XYZ, the electronic marketplace may determine that the camera XYZ has a good image resolution, that eighty-five percent of the consumers are professional photographers, and that eighty percent of the consumers bought the camera for job- related reasons. Because Joe is a beginner photographer looking for a camera for daily use, the electronic marketplace may determine that camera ABC is a better match to Joe's needs compared to camera XYZ. Accordingly, in response to a search from Joe for a camera, the electronic marketplace may Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 11 recommend the camera ABC to Joe and may present the characterized attributes to help Joe assess how suitable the camera ABC may be. Id. Appellants’ Abstract further describes the invention as: Techniques for providing relevant information and/or recommendations about an item to a user participating in a transaction associated with a different or the same item may be provided. For example, attributes relevant to the item, to consumers of the item, and to reasons for obtaining the item may be determined based at least in part on answers to specific questions about the item or a category of the item. Answers associated with the attributes may be determined and characterized and such characterizations and/or recommendations may be presented to the user. Spec. 54. We agree with the Examiner that the type of activity recited in at least limitations (2), (3), (7), and (9) through (14), i.e., generating and providing item recommendations based on item and reviewer attributes, as recited in the limitations above, for example, includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet. Photography stores, for example, have long recommended cameras to potential purchasers based on attributes of the cameras and the experiences of other purchasers. Indeed, Appellants’ own example of Joe, the beginner photographer purchasing a camera, could take place in a camera store just as readily as in an electronic marketplace. See Spec. ¶ 20. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,6 we conclude limitations (2), (3), (7), and (9) through (14) recite steps that would 6 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard, Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 12 ordinarily occur when generating and providing recommendations to users based on item attributes and reviewer attributes. See Final Act. Generating and providing item recommendations based on item and reviewer attributes is abstract, whether initiated person-to-person, on paper, or using a computer. We also agree with the Examiner that the first “generating” step in claim 1 (step (1)) recites a mental process. See Final Act. 7. The limitation recites generating a list of item attributes and review attributes, which could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).7 Thus, under Step 2A(i), we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites at least a fundamental economic practice, which is a certain method of organizing human activity, and a mental process. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 7 Combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 13 Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application? If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in which we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. We find each of the limitations of claim 1 recites abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), supra, and no “additional element” integrates the recited fundamental economic practice into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The “additional elements” in claim 1 are steps (4) through (6) and (8), and the recited “computer system configured with executable instructions to facilitate functionalities of an electronic marketplace,” “graphical user interface,” “customer device,” and “reviewer device.” Claim 1 does not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites computer elements (e.g., a computer system) that are merely generic and do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. Further, generating and providing a graphical user interface (steps (4) and (5)) and receiving reviews and item descriptions (steps (6) and (8)) are not significantly more than the abstract idea because they are well-understood, routine and conventional Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 14 activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Collecting data is merely data gathering and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The steps of generating and displaying a graphical user interface do not add a meaningful limitation to the processing of information, and the output of information is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Appellants argue the claims recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims describe technical features that improve another technology or technical field. App. Br. 21–28; Reply Br. 7–9. In particular, Appellants argue that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because, like the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claim 1 recites “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology,” rather than being “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invok[ing] generic processes and machinery.” App. Br. 22. In Appellants’ view, claim 1 recites a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome. Id. Specifically, Appellants argue that the claimed technological process automates the selection of attributes, the solicitation and collection of relevant reviews, and the analysis and use of the reviewed attributes to seed a search engine and present search results to the client devices “in an accurate way” so that “a service provider (e.g., one that operates an electronic marketplace from which items are available and are Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 15 reviewed) need not manually and subjectively evaluate the thousands if not millions of reviews that are submitted on a continuous basis.” Id. at 22–23. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. As discussed above, claim 1 is generally directed to generating and providing recommendations based on item and reviewer attributes. In McRO, the claims were not abstract because they recited a “specific . . . improvement in computer animation” using “unconventional rules that relate[d] sub- sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1302–03, 1307–08, 1314–15. There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1316. Unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed invention here merely uses generic computing components to generate and provide recommendations based on item and reviewer attributes. Appellants do not direct us to any evidence that the claimed limitations correspond to unconventional rules. Rather, the generic computer implementation is not only directed to organizing human activity and mental processes, but also does not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing McRO). Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 16 Appellants further argue the claims are akin to the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which were necessarily rooted in computer technology. See App. Br. 26–28. We disagree. In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit found claims drawn to “generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a ‘host’ website with content of a third-party merchant” provided a solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” 773 F.3d at 1248, 1257. There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website apparently connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR Holdings generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented (1) product information from the third party, and (2) visual “look and feel” elements from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258–59. Given this particular Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention did not merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from the pre-Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257. That is not the case here. Indeed, the “technical problems” identified by Appellants highlight this distinction. Appellants argue that the claims improve “evaluation of attribute reviews to create the proper data seed for the search engine, where imply [sic] automating this process would result inaccurate and irrelevant attribute reviews.” App. Br. 26–27. Appellants, however, have not persuasively identified any limitations recited in claim 1 that improve accuracy in a manner other than improving the data supplied to Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 17 the algorithm, which is not an improvement to the algorithm execution itself. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Thus, claim 1 is akin to the type of claim the Federal Circuit admonished against in DDR Holdings. 773 F.3d at 1257 (differentiating the claims at issue from claims that “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet”). Moreover, merely making the practice of an abstract idea more effective by implementing the idea on a computer does not suffice to meet the inventive concept requirement of Alice. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). Thus, on this record, Appellants have not shown under the guidance of Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 2106.05(a) (“Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”) or section 2106.05(e)(“Other Meaningful Limitations”). Nor do Appellants advance any arguments in the Brief(s) that are directed to the Bilski machine-or-transformation test, which would only be applicable to the method (process) claims on appeal. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b) (Particular Machine) and 2106.05(c) (Particular Transformation). Therefore, we conclude the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 18 Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More” Under Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, we next determine whether the claims recite an “inventive concept” that “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There must be more than “computer functions [that] are ‘well- understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (second alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). Appellants contend that claim 1 recites an inventive concept because the claims solve a technology-based problem, even with conventional, generic components that are combined in an unconventional manner. App. Br. 29. Appellants argue that “a conventional arrangement of such components would result in the massive collection of reviews (e.g., in the thousands if not millions on a continuous basis), where the reviews are collected irrespectively of the relevance of the reviewed attributes.” Id. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. As explained above, Appellants’ claims focus on generating and presenting recommendations by analyzing specific information—an improvement to the abstract idea itself, not an improvement to a technological process. In other words, Appellants’ claims use a computing system to perform routine, conventional computer functions to analyze retrieved information and generate new information. Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as Appeal 2018-004341 Application 14/095,822 19 reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 33, 36, 48, 56–57. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that “any combination of the present elements lack features that can be considered directed to the operation of generic components in an unconventional manner.” Ans. 13. We conclude the claims do not recite an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claims from an abstract idea to a patent eligible application. We, therefore, sustain the patent-ineligible subject matter rejection of representative claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 7, 8, 11–18, 20–23, and 25–29. 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation