Michelle FISHER

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2022

2021001269 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2022)

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. 11/944,267 11/21/2007 Michelle FISHER 379842-991100 5012 12120 7590 02/25/2022 Michelle Fisher 2930 Domingo Ave Suite 123 Berkeley, CA 94705 EXAMINER FU, HAO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2022 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): mfisher@blazemobile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHELLE FISHER Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-7, 22, 27-31, 41-45, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68-70, and 73-94.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Michelle Fisher as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to data communications and wireless devices.” Spec., para. 1. “In general, in one aspect, this specification describes a method for sending an artifact to a mobile communication device of a user.” Id. at para. 3 Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for sending a digital artifact to a mobile communication device using a remote management server, the method comprising: receiving a transaction request including an identification code associated with a user, at the remote management server, from a non-browser based application executing at the mobile communication device, wherein the transaction request is to send the digital artifact for display within a non-browser based application generated screen running on the mobile communication device, from the remote management server storing a plurality of user profiles, a plurality of transaction related information of a user, and a plurality of digital artifacts, wherein the non-browser based application generated screen corresponds to a specific a screen, or area of the non-browser based application, wherein the non-browser based application is a mobile operating system platform non-browser based application with a graphical user interface that is preinstalled or downloaded and installed on the mobile communications device, wherein the graphical user interface includes a graphical icon, .the mobile communication device comprising a mobile communication device display, a mobile communication device processor, a mobile communication device wireless interface that utilizes at least one of CDMA, GSM, or WIFI over a wireless communication channel; retrieving, with the remote management server, personal information from a user profile of the user; retrieving, with the remote management server, the transaction related information of the user, the transaction related information of the user stored at the remote management Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 3 server including payment transactions made by the user through the mobile communication device; generating, with the remote management server, two or more targeting parameters by correlating, on the remote management server, personal information of the user and the transaction related information of the user; selecting, with the remote management server, the digital artifact to send to the non-browser based application generated screen running on the mobile communication device based on the two or more targeting parameters, the digital artifact selected by the remote management server; sending, with the remote management server, the digital artifact to the non-browser based application generated screen from the remote management; and displaying the digital artifact within the non-browser based application generated screen. Appeal Br. 45-46 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 22, 27-31, 41-45, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68-70, and 73-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially- excepted subject matter without significantly more. OPINION This application was before the Board in prior appeal 2015-004370. We issued a decision in that case that included a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We denied a subsequent request for rehearing. The claims here on appeal are narrower in scope than the claims that were before us in the prior appeal. Notably, the “receiving” step in claim 1 is Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 4 more detailed. The “receiving” step in the claim 1 that we reviewed in the prior appeal read: receiving a request from an application executing at the mobile communication device of the user, wherein the request is to send an artifact for display within a specific application generated screen running on the mobile communication device of the user from a management server storing a plurality of user profiles and a plurality of artifacts that receives the request, wherein the specific application-generated screen is a screen, scene, or area of the application, wherein the mobile application is not browser based and is preinstalled or downloaded and installed by a user on the mobile communications device; Fisher, at 2.2 Whereas the previous claim 1 called for “an application executing at the mobile communication device of the user” that “is not browser based” and, separately, “a specific application generated screen,” claim 1 here on appeal specifically requires the non-browser application to generate the screen, i.e., “a non-browser based application generated screen.” The Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br.3 7-44. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 2, 5-7, 22, 27-31, 41-45, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68-70, and 73-94 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” 2 Ex parte Fisher et al., Appeal No. 2015-004370 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2017). 3 We will refer to the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 30, 2019. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 5 In that regard, claim 1 covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.4 This is not in dispute. However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Alice step one - the “directed to” inquiry: According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (emphasis added). 4 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised 101 Guidance”). See also id. at 53-54 (“consider[] whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.”). Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 6 The Abstract Idea5 The Examiner determined, inter alia, that “the claims are directed to the result of selecting a ‘digital artifact’ (e.g., advertisement) to send to a user based on ‘targeting parameters.’ Thus, the claims as a whole are focused on targeting artifacts to specific users.” Final Act. 3. See also id. at 4 (“Given the focus of the claims as a whole is sending targeted artifacts and, in light of the Specification, the heart of the invention is providing more relevant artifacts by generating richer targeting parameters, the claims are properly characterized as being ‘directed to’ sending targeted advertisements (or other content - i.e., ‘artifacts’) to certain mobile device users based on their characteristics (i.e., ‘targeting parameters’).”). In the Answer, the Examiner added that “[t]he claims fall under the grouping of ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ [enumerated in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance], because the claims are directed to managing personal behavior by sending targeted advertisements / artifacts / contents.” Answer 3-4.6 Pages 18-35 of the Appeal Brief are devoted to explaining that the claimed subject matter improves technology. 5 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Step 2A is two prong inquiry. 6 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the [2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 7 Accordingly, a dispute over whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea is present. Specifically, is claim 1 directed to “targeting artifacts to specific users” (Final Act. 3) or a technological improvement (Appeal Br. 18-35)? Claim Analysis7 We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification at the time of filing.8,9,10 Claim 1 recites a method for sending a “digital artifact” from a “remote management server” to a “mobile communication device.” The “digital artifact” covers “e.g., advertisements, receipts, tickets, coupons, media, content, and so on” Specification, para. 18. 7 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.” Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed.Cir.2012), the court observed that ‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 8 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). 9 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims . . . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), among others. 10 Cf. 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation … .”) (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 8 The “remote management server” reasonably broadly covers a generic server. This is so because it is not defined in the claim or the Specification to any technical degree. Various implementations of a remote management server are described in the Specification. For example, in paragraph 19, it is disclosed that a mobile application is provided to a mobile communication device “through a remote server (e.g., remote server 106)” and “[r]equests to the management server 106 can also be automated.” But these implementations provide no technical insight into how the remote management server operates, within the context of the claimed method, so as to distinguish it from any generic server. Accordingly, the claim phrase “remote management server” is reasonably broadly construed to cover a generic server. The claim phrase “mobile communication device” reasonably broadly covers a generic wireless communication device. Id. at para. 17 (“The mobile communication device 102 can be a cellular phone, a wireless personal digital assistant (PDA), or other wireless communication device.”) According to claim 1, the “mobile communication device” further (1) “comprise[s] a mobile communication device display, a mobile communication device processor, a mobile communication device wireless interface that utilizes at least one of CDMA, GSM, or WIFI over a wireless communication channel” and (2) has (a) “a mobile operating system platform non-browser based application with a graphical user interface that is preinstalled or downloaded and installed on the mobile communications device” and “includes a graphical icon” and (b) “a non-browser based application generated screen” that “corresponds to a specific . . . screen, or area of the non-browser based application.” Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 9 Generic wireless communication devices include displays, processors, and wireless interfaces that utilize at least WIFI over wireless communication channels. Thus, the claim phrase “mobile communication device” is still reasonably broadly construed to cover a generic wireless communication device even though the claim requires that it (1) “comprise[ ] a mobile communication device display, a mobile communication device processor, a mobile communication device wireless interface that utilizes at least one of CDMA, GSM, or WIFI over a wireless communication channel.” Generic wireless communication devices include displays with graphical user interfaces having icons. Such devices come with preinstalled executable non-browser based applications accessible from the graphical user interface. Thus, the claim phrase “mobile communication device” is still reasonably broadly construed to cover a generic wireless communication device even though the claim requires that it (2)(a) includes “a mobile operating system platform non-browser based application with a graphical user interface that is preinstalled or downloaded and installed on the mobile communications device” and “a graphical icon.” As for (2)(b), the claim phrase “non-browser based application generated screen,” we agree with the Examiner that the phrase is reasonably broadly construed to cover screens associated with preinstalled generic applications running on mobile devices which are accessible from the device’s graphical user interface. The Specification provides no insight into what the “non-browser based application generated screen” means because it is nowhere mentioned. Thus, we must look to the ordinary and customary meaning that one of ordinary skill in the art would give the phrase, plainly Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 10 reading it in the context of the claim as a whole. In that regard, one of ordinary skill in the art reading the claim would understand the screen to be generated by “a mobile operating system platform non-browser based application with a graphical user interface that is preinstalled or downloaded and installed on the mobile communications device” (claim 1). Given that generic wireless communication devices come with preinstalled executable non-browser based applications accessible from the graphical user interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claim phrase “non- browser based application generated screen” refers to the screen associated with running a preinstalled application on a generic wireless communication device. In that regard, “[n]early every mobile device will contain mobile applications and nearly every mobile application will generate a screen, scene, or area of the application.” Answer 4 (see also Final Act. 7). Pages 16-44 of the Appeal Brief are devoted to explaining, we think, the unique aspects of the claimed “non-browser based application generated screen,” including that it provides a technological improvement (see e.g., page 21) and is not well-understood, routine, and conventional (see e.g., page 38). In support, Appellant directs our attention to three applications incorporated by reference in the Specification: (a) 11/467,441 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0156436 A1) (the “‘441 application”11); (b) 11/933,351 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0052192 A1; issued as U.S Patent 8,949,146) (the “‘351 application”); and, (c) 11/939,821 (U.S. 11 According to Appellant, the ‘411 application “has been replaced by Application No. 12/592,581 [issued as U.S Patent 10,902,399].” Appeal Br. 33 and 34. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 11 Patent Application Publication 2009/0124234; issued as U.S. Patent 8,290,433) (the “‘821 application”). The Specification incorporates the ‘441 and ‘351 applications and the ‘821 application by reference in paras. 2 and 19, respectively. The ‘441 application, discussed on pages 33 and 34 of the Appeal Brief, does not reveal the unique aspects of the claimed “non-browser based application generated screen” that would distinguish it from screens associated with generic applications preinstalled in generic wireless communication devices. Appellant cites paras. 37, 42, and 48 of the ‘441 application. Appeal Br. 33-34. We reproduce them below: [0037] If either of the transceivers 129 or 136 are not associated with the respective radio element 120 or secure element 130, and there is no direct connection between the radio element 120 an the secure element 130, then a direct communication link between the radio element 120 an the secure element 130 will not exist. As such, while ticketing and many transactions can still exist, data from a real-time transaction performed using the secure element 130 cannot be made directly available to the radio processor and the applications stored thereon, which can prevent, for example, certain redundancy checks to occur, such as a ticketing application in which, after the ticket order has been placed, the ticketing application in the memory 126 associated with the radio element 130 can be programmed to provide an alert if the ticket receipt, via the management server 180, has not been received within a certain period of time. Such an alert would not be possible to program directly (although it could be programmed indirectly via the button panel on the phone, though Such an implementation requires extra user intervention, which, if possible, one attempts to avoid in transactions such as this. [0042] Another significant aspect of the present invention is that the management server 180 has the capability of storing codes that are from a variety of different mobile devices. Thus, codes that are associated with a smart card having an RFID can be Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 12 stored, as can be codes stored from an RFID sticker, as well as codes that are associated with a Smart card that communicates using a slide reader, Blue tooth, or an NFC channel, for example. As such, the management server 180 can store user personal and credit and transactional information and history, including a code associated with the user, for a variety of different mobile devices, thereby allowing a system which can scale. [0048] An example of a typical transaction requiring Such communication between the secure element 130 and the radio element 120 is one in which the POS terminal 150 allows for the transfer of detailed purchase information from the POS terminal 150 to the secure element 130, as well as transactional information from the POS terminal 150 and/or the transaction server 170 to the management server 180. The management server 180 can then also communicate with the radio element 120 via the radio channel. This allows for the matching and reconciliation of detailed purchase information and, if the transaction fails, failure details can be matched to the purchase information, and forwarded in real-time to the user via the radio element 120. We do not see a “non-browser based application generated screen” discussed in any technical detail in these disclosures. Accordingly, the ‘441 application does not support an argument that the claimed “non-browser based application generated screen” is different from screens associated with generic applications that are preinstalled in generic wireless communication devices. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 13 The ‘351 application is discussed on pages 25-28 and 32 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant cites paras. 3412, 3513, 90, 111, 112, and 113. These are reproduced below. [0034] FIG. 9 illustrates a communication system 900 in accordance with one implementation. The communication system 900 includes a mobile communication device 902, a management server 904, a user/profile database 906, and a money management database 908. In one implementation, the management server 904 is a Blaze server. In one implementation, the mobile communication device 902 stores a mobile application 910 that uses short message service (SMS) over a connectionless protocol to transmit data to the management server 904. SMS permits the mobile application 910 to send messages of a fixed size, for example, up to 160 characters, to and from the wireless mobile communication device 902. In one implementation, the management server 904 includes an SMS aggregator 912 to aggregate each message received from the wireless mobile communication device 902 and keep track of the ordering of each message, and (in one implementation) also groups each message into a corresponding group. In one implementation, the mobile application 910 also includes an SMS aggregator (not shown). [0035] Thus, in one implementation, the mobile application 910 is not browser HTTP based, and delivers banking and money management services. The mobile application 910 also leverages a low-end communication infrastructure (also referred to herein as a "bearer service"). A bearer service that is universal on all mobile devices is the Short Message Service (SMS). SMS is a means of sending short messages to and from mobile phones to the Application Service Provider (ASP) Server "Server". It is 12 On page 25 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant cites para. 35 but quotes from para. 34. 13 On page 25 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant cites para. 36 but quotes from para. 35. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 14 inherently a connectionless communication protocol, i.e., send and forget. There is no acknowledgement to the Mobile Originating (MO) sender that the message sent was successfully received by the Mobile Terminating (MT) recipient. There is no concept of timeouts, message lost, message not received, etc. Leveraging SMS as a bearer service to support a ‘rich’ client application. The Client will listen to a specific incoming SMS port to be defined based on Network Operator/Carrier, Phone Vendor, etc. [0090] The above description introduced the concept on . The sequenceID is a rotating pool per Client, issued by the Client, used as a callback mechanism, i.e., match outgoing command messages and incoming resultset messages. Since resultsets can be long and complex, the resultset is broken into pages, where each page can fit with the allowed payload size of an SMS message. Hence, "" implies "Page 1 of 5". The Client (or mobile application) then has to wait for all to arrive before re-constructing the original resultset. Due to characteristics of SMS, the client has to handle scenarios when a message with an un-expected sequenceID arrives. In addition, if a missing page within the expected sequenceID fails to arrive within a specified time interval, the client needs to request retransmission, e.g., "retransmit 36:4:6 1234" which will instruct server to retransmit resultset 36, part 4 of 6. [0111] For example, given a situation in which a user is travelling in a region in which the user's mobile communication device does not have network access and the user needs to transfer funds into a checking account, the user can use the mobile communication device (with the Mobile Wallet Client application) to schedules a fund transfer in offline mode. Since the mobile communication device has no network connectivity, the Client (in OFFLINE mode) creates a `task` to represent the fund transfer (or any other banking service) using banking information (Banks accounts, etc.) previously cached on mobile device. The task can have an initial state (e.g., "pending"). While the Client is enabled the Client will actively monitor network Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 15 access. When the user travels into a region where network access is available, the client will identify the network and automatically re-connect to the network. The client will then negotiate with a server and any tasks having a "pending" state on the client are then uploaded to server (either in batch mode or one task at a time). The client (in ONLINE mode) will refresh states of all task from the server (including the recently added tasks) to present to the user the updated status of all tasks managed by the server. Other services possible include, for example: request schedule (or cancellation) of Bill Pay transaction, request schedule (or cancellation) of Fund Transfer transaction, request schedule (or cancellation) of Pay Anyone transaction, any other state-based banking transaction service. [0112] Using the client (or mobile application), a user can store digital artifacts (e.g., coupons, tickets, etc.) on a mobile communication device. These digital artifacts are objects that are consumed by a 3rdParty, e.g., a ticket can be redeemed at a theater, and a coupon can be redeemed at the Point-Of-Sale of a retail merchant. Hence, this is a 3-way sync: 1) mobile communication device with server, 2. mobile communication device with 3rdParty Merchant, and 3) server with 3rdParty Merchant. For user's convenience, redemption of digital artifacts by a 3rdParty must be enabled in an environment with or without network access. For example, a user with an electronic ticket on a mobile communication device may wish to redeem an eTicket at a theater. However, if there is no network access inside the theater, the user will still need access the eTicket on the client. In ONLINE mode, the client will cache (local store) the eTicket (and any other digital artifact.) In the theater, the client (in OFFLINE mode) will be able to redeem the eTicket and update the state of the eTicket on the mobile communication device (e.g., change state from ‘valid’ to ‘redeemed’). This prevents the user from re-using the eTicket. At some point when the mobile communication device re-acquires network connectivity, the client will then negotiate with the server and any artifacts with a state change (e.g., ‘valid’ to ‘redeemed’, etc.) on the client are then uploaded to the server (e.g., either in batch mode or one task at a time). Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 16 [0113] The client (in ONLINE mode) will manage and refresh states of all artifacts from the server (including the recently added tasks) to present to the user. In one implementation, the server is the master repository. In the process of redeeming the eTicket, the eTicket is uploaded to the merchant (via secondary out-of- band communication link, e.g., RFID/NFC, Bluetooth, etc.). This is necessary for theater to update their inventory systems. The 3rdParty may liaise (via an internet connection) with the server to validate eTicket and authenticate the user. We do not see a “non-browser based application generated screen” discussed in any technical detail in these disclosures. Para. 35 states that “in one implementation, the mobile application 910 is not browser HTTP based” but provides no further technical detail. Accordingly, the ‘351 application does not support an argument that the claimed “non-browser based application generated screen” is different from screens associated with generic applications that are preinstalled in generic wireless communication devices. The ‘821 application is discussed on pages 26 and 34 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant cites para. 14, which is reproduced below. [0014] In general, while effort is made to minimize storage of sensitive user information and data in a memory of a mobile communication device, in one implementation, some data is stored in the memory of a mobile communication device due to reasons of performance, usability and user experience. For example, data may need to be stored on a mobile communication device in the following circumstances. Payment credentials, coupons, tickets, and so on may have to be stored on the secure element of an NFC phone. Account balance, banking payment history, etc., may be locally cached on a mobile communication device. In one implementation, a user can opt-in to save payment method security codes in the client (or mobile application) for convenience. Tickets and/or coupons may be locally cached so that a user can redeem the tickets and/or coupons in an offline Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 17 mode. For example, a mobile communication device may be offline in a situation in which network connectivity inside a building is degraded, and storing a ticket and/or coupon in a local cache of the mobile communication device permits the user to access the ticket or coupon. We do not see a “non-browser based application generated screen” discussed in any technical detail in this disclosure. Accordingly, the ‘821 application does not support an argument that the claimed “non-browser based application generated screen” is different from screens associated with generic applications that are preinstalled in generic wireless communication devices. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the applications incorporated by reference in the Specification show that the “non-browser based application generated screen” has unique features that distinguish it from screens associated with preinstalled generic applications running on mobile devices which are accessible from the device’s graphical user interface. Thus, the claim phrase “mobile communication device” is reasonably broadly construed to cover a generic wireless communication device even though the claim requires that the device includes (2)(b) “a non-browser based application generated screen” that “corresponds to a specific [ ] screen, or area of the non-browser based application.” Given our interpretation of the various claim limitations for the server and communication device as not limiting their generic nature, claim 1 describes a method for sending a digital artifact such as an advertisement for display on a generic wireless communication device. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 18 The method has seven steps. The first step covers a wireless communication device transmitting information A to a server; the server storing information B, C, and D. The second step calls for the server to retrieve B1. The third step calls for the server to retrieve C1. The fourth steps calls for the server to generate E by correlating B1 and C1. The fifth step calls for the server to select D1 based on E. The sixth step calls for the server to send D1 to the screen of the wireless communication device. And, the seventh step calls for displaying D1 on the screen. Where, A is “a transaction request including an identification code associated with a user” “wherein the transaction request is to send the digital artifact [e.g., an advertisement] for display” on, for example, a wireless communication device; B is “a plurality of user profiles”; B1 is “personal information from a user profile of the user”; C is “a plurality of transaction related information of a user”; C1 is “the transaction related information of the user . . . including payment transactions made by the user through the mobile communication device”; D is “a plurality of digital artifacts [e.g., advertisements]”; D1 is “the digital artifact”; and, E is “two or more targeting parameters.” Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 19 Putting it together, the claimed method is reasonably broadly construed as a scheme for sending a digital artifact such as an advertisement for display on a generic wireless communication device based on user and transaction-related information.14 According to the Specification, one aspect of the invention is to provide “a method for sending an artifact to a mobile communication device of a user.” Spec. para. 3. The method includes receiving a request from an application to send an artifact to a mobile communication device of a user; retrieving personal information from a user profile of the user; retrieving a transaction history of the user, the transaction history including a history of transactions made by the user through the mobile communication device; selecting an artifact to send to the mobile communication device based on the user profile and the transaction history of the user; and sending the selected artifact to the mobile communication device. Id. In one implementation the “selected artifact can comprise one or more of an advertisement, receipt, ticket, coupon, media, or content” is sent “to the mobile communication device” based on request made by an application running on the mobile communication device. Id. at para. 4. Given the method as claimed as reasonably broadly construed above and in light of the Specification’s description of the invention, we reasonably broadly construe claim 1 as being directed to a scheme for sending a digital artifact such as an advertisement for display on a generic 14 In the prior appeal we characterized the abstract idea similarly: “a method for sending targeted advertisements to certain mobile device users based on their characteristics.” Our current characterization parallels the wording of the claim now before us. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 20 wireless communication device based on user and transaction-related information. The Abstract Idea15 Above, where we reproduce claim 1, we identify in italics the limitations we believe recite an abstract idea.16 Based on our claim construction analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations describe a scheme for sending a digital artifact such as an advertisement for display on a generic wireless communication device based on user and transaction-related information. Advertising is a well-known commercial interaction. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.17 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 15 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. 16 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. 17 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the [2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates subject matter grouping “(b):” “(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 21 Technical Improvement18 (Appellant’s Argument) Our characterization of what the claim is directed to is similar to that of the Examiner’s (“selecting a ‘digital artifact’ (e.g., advertisement) to send to a user based on ‘targeting parameters.’” Final Act. 3). We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 1 is directed to. Appellant’s main contentions are that the claimed method is not directed to an abstract idea but rather solves technical problems and provides technical improvements. With regard to solving technical problems, Appellant argues that “[a]t the time of this invention which has a priority date of 2007, there were several problems with SMS . . . .” Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis omitted). Appellant lists some of the problems, such as “SMS/text messages was [sic] limited to 160 characters which makes it not very scalable and increases the marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Id. at 52. 18 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 22 processing by the computer.” Id. There were also problems with web browsers, according to Appellant. Those skilled in the art know that when a mobile device is not connected to a network, a web browser does not work nor can display digital artifacts. So, for example, if a user wanted to redeem a digital artifact, they would not be able to do using a web browser unless they were connected to a network. Id. at 26. These problems are said to be solved by the recited “receiving,” “selecting,” “sending,” and “displaying” steps. The difficulty with the argument is that it is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The claimed method does not preclude the use of SMS messages. Thus, the claimed method does not solve problems associated with SMS messages. Nor is the claim method limited to environments without network access. In fact, the claimed method recites employing a mobile communication device comprising “a mobile communication device wireless interface that utilizes at least one of CDMA, GSM, or WIFI over a wireless communication channel.” Even though the digital artifact received from the server is meant to be “display[ed] within a non-browser based application generated screen running on the mobile communication device,” it nevertheless may utilize “WIFI over a wireless communication channel.” Thus the claimed method would have the same problem in environments without network access that Appellant argues is a disadvantage in using a web browser. The claimed method does not provide a technical solution to that problem. With regard to technical improvements, Appellant argues that Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 23 a) Unlike SMS which is "send and pray and thus unreliable, slow, requires more CPU and memory, and is not secure, a non- browser based application can send an alert when it has not received data from the server, request re transmission, encrypt data, etc which improves the computer's reliability, flexibility, security, and performance, . . . . b) In contrast to a web browser which has to reconnect to the server to retrieve a digital artifact which is time consuming, increases memory and CPU usage, and cost, a non-browser based application can be used when not connected to a network and can access the digital artifacts even when the mobile device is not connected to a network which improves the computer's reliability, flexibility, security, and performance, . . . . Appeal Br. 29. Here, too, the difficulty with the argument is that it is not commensurate in scope with what is claimed. The claimed method does not preclude the use of SMS messages. Thus, the claimed method does not provide a technical improvement over the use of SMS messages. Nor is the claimed method limited to environments requiring one to reconnect. In fact, the claimed method recites employing a mobile communication device comprising “a mobile communication device wireless interface that utilizes at least one of CDMA, GSM, or WIFI over a wireless communication channel” which may require reconnection if the network is down. Even though the digital artifact received from the server is meant to be “display[ed] within a non-browser based application generated screen running on the mobile communication device,” it nevertheless may utilize the same “WIFI over a wireless communication channel” that a web browser would connect to. Thus, the claimed method would have the same problem Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 24 that Appellant argues is a disadvantage in using a web browser. The claimed method does not provide a technical improvement over the use of web browsers. We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim analysis, claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as a scheme for sending a digital artifact such as an advertisement for display on a generic wireless communication device based on user and transaction-related information. We see no specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities recited in the claim. The method as claimed describes, in very general terms, sending a digital artifact based on certain information (via “receiving,” “retrieving,” “retrieving,” “generating,” “selecting,” “sending,” and “displaying” steps). This may improve targeting of the digital artifact. But no technology is improved. Cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26-39, not on improving computers or technology.”). Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, the claim supports the opposite view - that the claimed subject matter is directed to sending specific digital artifacts to generic wireless communication device from a generic server. See Spec., e.g., para. 17 (“a management serve 106. [Fig. 1 shows it as a black box] . . . The mobile communication device 102 can be a cellular phone, a wireless personal digital assistant (PDA), or other wireless communication device.”). The claim provides no additional structural details that would distinguish any device required to be employed to practice the method as Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 25 claimed, such as the recited “remote management server” and “mobile communication device” from its generic counterparts.19 With respect to the “receiving,” “retrieving,” “retrieving,” “generating,” “selecting,” “sending,” and “displaying” steps, the Specification attributes no special meaning to any of these operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. In our view, these are common computer processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated with generic computers. Cf. OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363: Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) . . . . For example, claim 1 recites “sending a first set of electronic messages over a network to devices,” the devices being “programmed to communicate,” storing test results in a “machine-readable medium,” and “using a computerized system . . . to automatically determine” an estimated outcome and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.], 765 F.3d [1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). 19 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the abstract idea identified by the district court.”). Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 26 We find the Appellant’s contentions that the claim presents a technical-improvement solution unpersuasive as to error in the Examiner’s or our characterization of what the claim is directed to because the method as claimed fails to adequately support it. We are unable to point to any claim language suggestive of an improvement in technology. An argument that such an improvement exists is alone insufficient. See generally In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019 (CCPA 1973); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. We have considered Appellant’s other arguments challenging the Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 27 Alice step two - Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?20 Step two is “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.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012) (alteration in original)). In that regard, the Examiner determined, inter alia, that The present claims recite a management server configured to receive request, retrieve personal information and transaction history, generating targeting parameters based on the retrieve information (i.e. analyzing data to generate new data), and transmitting a selected advertising content to a structured non- browser based application to be displayed. These generic computer components are claimed to perform basic computer functions. . . . The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computers. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Rather, their focus is on implementing an abstract concept for targeted advertising on mobile device. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, the present claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 22-23. We agree. 20 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).” Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 28 Applicant argues, inter alia, that “Claims includes specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional, whereby the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 38. Appellant then reproduces claim 1 with several limitations emphasized. Id. at 38-39. The question is whether the claim includes an element or elements sufficient to ensure that the claim when practiced amounts to significantly more than scheme for sending a digital artifact such as an advertisement for display on a generic wireless communication device based on user and transaction-related information. In that regard, the recited “remote management server” and “mobile communication device” used in conducting said scheme are well-understood, routine, and conventional. We cited the Specification in our earlier discussion. It is intrinsic evidence that the recited “remote management server” and “mobile communication device” as claimed, are conventional. There is, therefore, sufficient factual support for the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed “remote management server” and “mobile communication device” individually or in the combination as claimed. We addressed earlier in this decision the recited components for the “mobile communication device,” which we construed to cover a generic wireless communication device, finding that they do not make said device any less generic. Accordingly, we have followed “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19, 2018 (the “Berkheimer Memo”)). Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 29 No persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to transform the concept into a patent-eligible application. We have considered all of the Appellant’s arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the determinations that representative claim 1, and claims 2, 5-7, 22, 27-31, 41- 45, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68-70, and 73-94 which stand or fall with claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an “inventive concept,” we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that they are directed to patent- ineligible subject matter for being judicially-excepted from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x 991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of LendingTree’s remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-001269 Application 11/944,267 30 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5-7, 22, 27-31, 41-45, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68-70, 73-94 101 Eligibility 1, 2, 5-7, 22, 27-31, 41-45, 51, 52, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68-70, 73-94 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). AFFIRMED