Steven Tedjamulia et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2020

2019006857 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/951,592 11/22/2010 Steven Tedjamulia DC-18669 1038
160816 7590 10/19/2020
Terrile, Cannatti & Chambers, LLP - Dell
P.O. Box 203518
Austin, TX 78720
EXAMINER
ZARE, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEVEN TEDJAMULIA, CHRISTOPHER CRAIG COLLINS,
RONALD VINCENT ROSE, and MANISH C. MEHTA
____________

Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed May 20, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 20,
2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 23, 2019), Advisory
Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed February 20, 2019), and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed December 11, 2018). Appellant identifies Dell
Products L.P. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention “relate[s] generally to information handling
systems” and, more specifically, to “a method and system for conducting
electronic commerce within a social media environment” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implementable method for conducting
electronic commerce within a social media environment, the
social media environment comprising a social customer
relationship management system executing on a social customer
relationship management server and interacting with a social data
repository, a vendor ecommerce system executing on a vendor
ecommerce server and interacting with a repository of
ecommerce data provided by the vendor ecommerce system and
a social media system executing on a social media server and a
repository of social media member data, the method comprising:
[(a)] receiving input data from a first user, wherein the
input data comprises activity data associated with an activity
performed by the first user at a social commerce site provided
via the social media system, the social commerce site comprising
a social commerce storefront embedded within a social media
site, the social commerce storefront being provided via the
vendor ecommerce system;
[(b)] processing, via the social customer relationship
management system the activity data to generate a social
commerce activity value, the social commerce activity value
comprising a subject tag activity value, the subject tag activity
value comprising a quantitative value assigned to a subject tag
activity, the subject tag activity comprising a social media
activity performed in association with a subject tag, the social
media activity being associated with the social media site;
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

3
[(c)] processing, via the social commerce relationship
management system, the social commerce activity value with an
existing social commerce reputation score associated with the
first user to generate a current social commerce reputation score
for the first user; and
[(d)] displaying, via a vendor affiliate system, the current
social commerce reputation score for the first user within a
vendor affiliate social customer relationship management system
user interface.
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 4–6). We
select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claim is patent eligible if it claims a “new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

4
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This 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.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019 for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the
USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that
[are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not
“directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e.,
Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to

2 The USPTO issued an update on October 17, 2019 (the “October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) clarifying the
2019 Revised Guidance in response to public comments.
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

5
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following
three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic
principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental
processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Only then,
is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determined here that the claims are directed to “an
abstract idea that may be categorized a[s] a method of organizing human
activity (rating a user to determine a social commerce reputation score)” or
as a “mental process[ ] (e.g., processing the activity data to generate a social
commerce activity value, pricing the social commerce activity value with an
existing social commerce reputations score to generate a currency social
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

6
commerce reputation score),” and that the claims do not include meaningful
limitations that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application
(Adv. Act. 2).3 The Examiner also determined that the claims do not include
additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself (Final Act. 6–7).
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal
Br. 4–6; see also Reply Br. 1–3). The Federal Circuit has explained that
“the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in
light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether
the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology
or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the
Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an
abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical
field.
The Specification is titled “SOCIAL REPUTATION,” and describes,
in the Background section, that social commerce has emerged as a subset of

3 After the 2019 Revised Guidance was issued, which was after the Final
Office Action was mailed, the Examiner, in the February 20, 2019 Advisory
Action, reconsidered the claims under Step 2A of the new guidance, i.e.,
step one of the Mayo/Alice framework (Adv. Act. 2).
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

7
electronic commerce, i.e., “ecommerce,” and uses social interactions and
user contributions to assist in the online buying and selling of products and
services (Spec. ¶ 4). The Specification explains that “social commerce can
be thought of as the use of social media in the context of ecommerce,” and
includes “customer ratings and reviews, user recommendations and referrals,
private and public forums and communities, and social advertising” (id.).
Another form of social commerce is “user-generated advertorial
content,” which provides online shoppers with advice from trusted
individuals and assistance in finding recommended goods and services
(Spec. ¶ 5). The Specification describes that this type of content, once
restricted to ecommerce sites, is becoming available within social media
environments; however, purchasing recommended goods and services
typically requires leaving the social media environment and accessing the
vendor’s ecommerce site, where users often are overwhelmed by the number
of choices, which can lead to confusion, indecision, and abandoned shopping
carts (id.). Therefore, according to the Specification, “there is a need to
seamlessly extend social commerce to provide complete ecommerce
functionality from within a social media environment” (id.).
The present invention is intended to address this need by providing a
method and system for conducting electronic commerce within a social
media environment (Spec. ¶ 6). The Specification describes that, in various
embodiments, a relationship management system (“RMS”) is implemented
to manage social commerce reputation ratings associated with a user of a
social commerce site (id.). In these embodiments, a social community
member performs social media interactions (e.g., reading or posting
comments, uploading photographs, etc.) and, in the course of performing
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

8
these media interactions, may elect to perform an activity associated with a
social commerce site (id.). Once the user has performed the social
commerce activity, its corresponding value is processed, with the user’s
associated social commerce reputation data, to generate a social commerce
reputation score for the user; this score is compared to the requirements for
various social commerce reputation badges, and the reputation badge that
matches the user’s reputation score is displayed as a graphical image within
the social commerce site (id. ¶ 7).
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a method for
conducting electronic commerce within a social media environment
comprising: (1) receiving activity data from a first user regarding a social
commerce activity that the user has been performed at a social commerce
site, i.e.,
receiving input data from a first user, wherein the input
data comprises activity data associated with an activity
performed by the first user at a social commerce site provided
via the social media system, the social commerce site comprising
a social commerce storefront embedded within a social media
site, the social commerce storefront being provided via the
vendor ecommerce system
(step (a)); (2) determining a value for the performed activity, and adding the
activity value to the user’s existing social commerce reputation score to
generate a current social commerce reputation score for the user, i.e.,
processing, via the social customer relationship
management system, the activity data to generate a social
commerce activity value, the social commerce activity value
comprising a subject tag activity value, the subject tag activity
value comprising a quantitative value assigned to a subject tag
activity, the subject tag activity comprising a social media
activity performed in association with a subject tag, the social
media activity being associated with the social media site; [and]
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

9
processing, via the social commerce relationship
management system, the social commerce activity value with an
existing social commerce reputation score associated with the
first user to generate a current social commerce reputation score
for the first user
(steps (b) and (c)); and (3) displaying the user’s current social commerce
reputation score, i.e., “displaying, via a vendor affiliate system, the current
social commerce reputation score for the first user within a vendor affiliate
social customer relationship management system user interface” (step (d)).
Appellant notes that “[u]nder the 2019 Guidance, mental processes or
steps are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” (Appeal Br. 4).4
And Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea at least
because the steps, as recited in claim 1, cannot be practically performed in
the human mind (id. at 5–6).
Reproducing the claim language, including the preamble, Appellant
argues that “[h]umans do not practically conduct electronic commerce
within a social media environment,” and that humans in their minds cannot
“practically provide a social commerce site via a social media”; “practically
provide a social commerce storefront embedded within the social media site
and provided via a vendor ecommerce system”; “practically process activity
data to generate a social activity data to generate a social commerce activity

4 In describing the 2019 Revised Guidance, Appellant acknowledges that
the groupings of abstract ideas include methods of organizing human
activity, and Appellant characterizes “methods of organizing human
activity” as including mental processes (Appeal Br. 4). In fact, as the
Examiner points out, the 2019 Revised Guidance lists certain methods of
organizing human activity and mental processes as two distinct groupings
(Ans. 3). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

10
value where the social media activity is associated with a social media site”;
or “display a social commerce reputation score within a vendor affiliate
social commerce relationship system user interface” (Appeal Br. 5–6). Yet,
as the Examiner observes, although the preamble recites conducting
electronic commerce within a social media environment comprising a social
customer relationship management system executing on a social customer
relationship management server and interacting with a social data repository,
as well as a vendor ecommerce system and a social media system, the
processing steps only recite that the steps are performed “via the social
commerce relationship management system” (Ans. 4). Thus, although the
vendor ecommerce system and social media system describe a social media
environment in the preamble of the claim, those elements are not positively
recited in the method steps, and none of the method steps actually involves
conducting electronic commerce or requires the specific structure recited in
the preamble in order to be performed (id.).
Referencing step (a) of claim 1, Appellant argues, for example, that
“[h]umans in their minds cannot practically provide a social commerce site
via social media system” and additionally “cannot practically provide a
social commerce storefront embedded within the social media site and
provided via a vendor ecommerce system” (Appeal Br. 5). Yet, step (a), i.e.,
“receiving input data from a first user,” does not require providing a social
commerce site or social media system; instead, the social commerce site and
social media system only describe the activity with which the input data are
associated (Ans. 4–5). In other words, the step only requires receiving input
data comprising activity data from a first user — something that a human
can perform in his or her mind.
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

11
Specifically referencing steps (b) and (c), recited in claim 1, Appellant
further argues that “[t]he processing being performed via a social customer
relationship system makes clear” that neither of these elements is a mental
step (Appeal. Br. 5–6). We, however, agree with the Examiner that, except
for the social customer relationship management system, i.e., a generic
computer system, there is nothing in either of steps (b) and (c) that
forecloses them from being performed by a human mentally or using pen
and paper (Ans. 5–6).
Step (b) merely requires evaluating social activity data to determine a
social commerce activity value associated with an activity performed by a
user — a determination that requires no more than human observation and
evaluation (Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 62 (“[T]he subject tag activity ‘write a
blog’ may have a value of ’10 points.’”))). And step (c), i.e., “processing . . .
the social commerce activity value with an existing social commerce
reputation score . . . to generate a current social commerce reputation score
for the first user,” requires nothing more than adding a point value for a
given activity to an existing reputation score for the user (id. at 6 (citing
Spec. ¶ 76)) — a step that clearly also can be performed in the human mind.
In sum, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a mental
process, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, including an
evaluation or judgment, and therefore, an abstract idea.5 See 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,

5 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 also can be interpreted
reasonably as reciting “a method of organizing human activity (i.e.[,]
updating a user’s rating based on the user performing a particular actions),
and . . . a mathematical concept (i.e.[,] current reputation score + awarded
points = new reputation score)” (Ans. 6).
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

12
654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that method steps that can be
performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, are
unpatentable mental processes). See also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom,
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the Federal
Circuit treats “analyzing information by steps people go through in their
minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental
processes within the abstract-idea category”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1308 (Fed. Circ. 2016) (“[W]ith the
exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose[s] them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that
required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-
ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s
mind.”).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1
recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception, i.e., the
recited abstract idea, into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two
(Appeal Br. 6).
The 2019 Revised Guidance references MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at
https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-08.2017.) § 2106.05(a)–(c) and
(e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional
element or combination of elements may have integrated the recited judicial
exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55. The Guidance, thus, describes that an additional element may have
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

13
integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, for example,
the additional element (1) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a
computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
(2) implements the judicial exception with, or uses the judicial exception
with, a particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim; or (3) effects
a transformation or reduction of an article to a different state or thing. Id.
At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-
solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use
of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field
are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Id.
Appellant argues that, even if the claims recite an abstract idea under
Step 2A, Prong One, “the steps of the claims[,] as a whole[,] result in the
practical application of displaying, via a vendor affiliate system, a current
social commerce reputation score for a user within a vendor affiliate social
customer relationship management system user interface” such that the
claims, are “[patent] eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019
Guidance” (Appeal Br. 6). But, that argument is not persuasive at least
because, as the Examiner observes and we agree, displaying data, i.e., a
user’s current social reputation score, within a user interface, as recited in
claim 1, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (Ans. 6–7), which,
as described above, the 2019 Revised Guidance makes clear is insufficient to
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

14
We also are not persuaded of Examiner error to the extent that
Appellant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible because the claim “as a
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [judicial]
exception” (Reply Br. 2–3). Although the Supreme Court has described “the
concern that drives [the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent-eligible
subject matter] as one of pre-emption,” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216,
characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not
the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the
basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason,
questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.”
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216). “[P]reemption may signal
patent ineligible subject matter, [but] the absence of complete preemption
does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
mental process, i.e., an abstract idea, which is not integrated into a practical
application. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or
combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

15
exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in
the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant argues for the first time in its Reply Brief that even if
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the claim is nonetheless patent eligible
under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance (Reply Br. 3). Appellant notes
that “[i]n the [D]ecision on Appeal dated January 25, 2018, the claims as a
whole were found to distinguish over the cited art” (id.). And Appellant
argues “[t]hus, the claims are directed to an inventive concept and should be
found to be eligible under step 2B of the revised guidelines” (id.).
Appellant’s argument is untimely, and is waived here in the absence
of any showing of good cause why the argument could not have been timely
presented in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373
(Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the
Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not
timely presented in the Principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in
a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted,
the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not
been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”).
However, even if the argument were not waived, it is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

16
Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, neither a finding of novelty nor a
non-obviousness determination automatically leads to the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is patent eligible. Although the second step in the
Mayo/Alice framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the
analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a
search for “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 Corp., 573 U.S. at 217–18
(citation omitted). “Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery
does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). A novel and non-
obvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent
ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 188–89 (1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or
even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the
subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly
patentable subject matter.”).
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–20, which fall with
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
Appeal 2019-006857
Application 12/951,592

17
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