Xing Yi et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 10, 202013843504 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2020) 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. 13/843,504 03/15/2013 Xing Yi Y09321US00 7835 123510 7590 04/10/2020 Cooper Legal Group LLC 6505 Rockside Road Suite 330 Independence, OH 44131 EXAMINER DAGNEW, SABA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2020 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): docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte XING YI, SCOTT GAFFNEY, and JEAN-MARC LANGLOIS ____________ Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Xing Yi, Milpitas, CA, Scott Gaffney, and Jean-Marc Langlois (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non–final rejection of 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 23, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 22, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 22, 2018), and Non-Final Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed November 16, 2017). Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 2 claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a way of personalizing a page. Specification para. 40. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1 which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method for page personalization, comprising: [1] identifying a user operating a client device; [2] receiving, over a network, a request for page data from the client device;3 [3] determining a user profile associated with the user, the user profile defining weights indicating levels of interest for features of articles, the weights being determined from historical display times of articles previously presented to the user, the historical display time for each of the previously presented articles defining an amount of time that each article was displayed to the user via the user profile; wherein the historical display time for each article being determined by analyzing events logged to a client-side beacon during the presentation of each article to the user, the events being logged by a page event module transmitted with each article when transmitted for display to the user, 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as OATH INC. (Appeal Br. 3). 3 Construed as the request, not the page data, being from the client device Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 3 the client-side beacon for each article being received over the network from a device on which the article was presented to the user; [4] for each one of a plurality of articles, predicting a display time of the article when presented to the user, wherein predicting the display time of the article includes applying the weights of the user profile, that are determined from historical display times, to features of the article, wherein the predicted display time of the article is defined by an expected amount of time that the article will be actively displayed if rendered in a current browser session of the user; [5] prior to rendering of a page by the client device, selecting one or more of the plurality of articles to include in the page to be rendered by the client device based on the predicted display times; [6] assembling the page data, the page data defining the page when rendered by the client device, the rendered page defining references to the selected articles to include in the page; [7] sending the page data over the network to the client device; [Contextual Limitation] wherein the method is executed by a processor. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Cannon US 2002/0016736 A1 Feb. 7, 2002 Thomas US 2009/0271514 A1 Oct. 29, 2009 Plummer US 2010/0100415 A1 Apr. 22, 2010 Wu US 2013/0218679 A1 Aug. 22, 2013 Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 4 Claims 1, 3–7, 11–13 and 15–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Plummer, Thomas, and Cannon. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Plummer, Thomas, Cannon, and Wu. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Thomas shows it was predictable to use past time history data of presentation for a user to assemble content to present to a user. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Plummer 01. Plummer is directed to improving ad delivery and traffic tracking at internet publisher’s sites, and more particularly implementing a common tag format for internet ad-delivery and traffic tracking. Plummer para. 2. 02. Plummer describes an ad delivery system, a beacon system, and a management system (also referred to as a federated system). The ad delivery system serves ads to a browser visiting a publisher's web page. The beacon system collects usage data on the publisher's web site. The management system receives a service request, checks the request type of the service request, and Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 5 then forwards the request to the ad delivery system, or to the beacon system, or to both, according to the request type. The service request is originated by a common tag embedded in the publisher’s web page when loaded by a browser. The same common tag format is used for ad and tracking requests, thereby simplifying the management of the publisher’s website and simplifying the migration process to change from just tracking a website to serving, merely by changing a parameter in the tag embedded in the publisher’s page. Plummer para. 8. 03. Plummer describes receiving a service request originated by a common tag embedded in a publisher’s web page when loaded by a browser. Plummer further parses the service request to identify parameters included in the service request, such as the request type parameter. An ad is served to the user’s browser when the request type parameter indicates that an ad has been requested, and a tracking item is delivered to the browser when the request type parameter indicates that usage data has been requested but an ad has not been requested. Plummer para. 10. 04. Plummer describes a management server providing ad delivery and user tracking services to Internet users and Publishers. An Internet ad is a commercial message in one of several formats, such as graphical or rich media. An ad call is a request for an ad, sent from the publisher to the ad management platform. One or more requests are sent to the ad management platform whenever a user browses to a publisher’s web page. Each ad call includes criteria that the ad management platform can Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 6 use to select and deliver the ad or ads for the web page. The ad call is generated automatically from the ad code embedded on the publisher page. The ad code is also called an ad tag. Plummer para. 25. 05. Plummer describes an ad delivery server delivering ads to users accessing publisher's web pages, and a beacon server managing the user tracking process. An advertiser server interacts with the ad management platform to supply the ads. Plummer para. 26. 06. Plummer describes the publisher serving a tag code, embedded within a web page, to a client's browser. The client browser executes the tag and sends a request to the management server. Plummer para. 48. 07. Plummer describes a management server parsing the parameters. The management server checks whether an ad will be served to the client. If an ad is being served, then the ad is served. Plummer para. 49. 08. Plummer describes receiving a service request originated by a common tag, where the tag is embedded in a publisher’s web page being loaded by a browser. The service request is parsed to identify the parameters included in the service request. One of the parameters is the request type parameter. Plummer para. 50. Thomas 09. Thomas is directed to monitoring usage of computers and other electronic devices, and, more particularly, collecting information concerning user interaction with application programs and the host Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 7 environment in accordance with defined monitoring profiles. Thomas para. 2. 10. Thomas describes a client component installed in a client device being operative to monitor usage of the client device in accordance with a monitoring profile, and to generate corresponding usage data. The monitoring profile typically includes information specifying which application programs, and which features of such application programs, installed on the client device are to be monitored by the client component. A server component, installed on a server device in communication with the client device, provides the monitoring profile to the client device and receives the usage data from the client device. The system may also include a data management component disposed to store the monitoring profile and to store the usage data provided to the server device. A data analysis component determines usage statistics associated with application programs installed on the client device based upon the usage data. The usage statistics may include measurements of usage time, number of uses, and sequence of usage of specified ones of the application programs. Thomas para. 7. 11. Thomas describes monitoring user interaction with a web page downloaded to a client device from a remote location. Monitoring instrumentation is initially embedded within the web page in accordance with a monitoring profile. This embedding may be effected by, for example, incorporating scripting language into the web page. Events relating to such user Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 8 interaction are monitored, and corresponding usage data is generated using the monitoring instrumentation. The usage data is then transmitted from the client device to a monitoring server. Thomas para. 8. 12. Thomas describes a monitoring profile being generated designating which features should be tracked and which measures are of particular interest. The monitoring profile is then used to “instrument” (i.e., add JavaScript instructions to) the web page documents with which the user will interact. This instrumentation of web pages is performed independently of the content development process, and can even be effected in real time as the page is transmitted to a requester. The only corresponding instrumentation required at the server is incorporation of the applicable monitoring script in the page just after the tag and in the page header. Thomas para. 166. Cannon 13. Cannon is directed to advertising, and in particular to a system and method of controlling delivery of advertisements to consumers and for determining when to insert advertisements between requested content. Cannon para. 2. Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 9 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 14 Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court: set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite 4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 10 one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 1 recites identifying user data, receiving request data, determining data associated with other data, creating prediction data, and selecting, assembling, and sending page articles and page data. Identifying data, determining data associations, creating prediction data, and selecting data are rudimentary forms of data analysis. Assembling data is basic data modification. Sending data is transmission. Thus, claim 1 recites analyzing, receiving, modifying, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 11 Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts5, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity6, and (3) mental processes7. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of editing disseminated content in a web publishing context, which is a commercial context. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to select content for web publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times. The advice to select content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times involves publishing content on the web, which is a commercial act, and selecting content to publish, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of publishing commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “sending the page data over the network,” which is an activity that would take place 5 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 7 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 12 whenever one is publishing commercial content. Similarly, claim 1 recites “selecting one or more of the plurality of articles to include in the page,” which is also characteristic of managing commercial publication of content. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to providing relevant content and advertising. Final Act. 2–3. The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a method for page personalization. The steps in claim 1 result in selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitation 2 recites receiving data. Limitations 1 and 3–7 recite generic and conventional analyzing, modifying, and transmitting of user and content data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times. To advocate selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 40 describes the invention (as to the claims in the instant application) as relating to personalizing page content. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites editing disseminated content. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because dissemination of content is the primary manner of coordinating activities among businesses Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 13 and its members, and editing of such content is the way to particularize the message within the content. Alternatively, this is an example of managing personal behavior as a certain method of organizing human activity because selecting content on behalf of someone for dissemination manages the behavior of the person publishing the content. The concept of editing disseminated content by selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times is one idea for selecting content for publication. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (2016)(tailoring content); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (2015) (tailoring content). From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites editing disseminated content by selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 14 some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.8 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Step 2 is a pure data gathering step. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 7 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 1 and 3–6 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of editing disseminated content by selecting content for publication based on 8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 15 predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. No technological implementation details for measuring such prior display times are recited. The claims do no more than generically process records that represent such time data after measurement. Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different generic equipment9 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of editing disseminated content by selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply editing disseminated content by selecting content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent- eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26. None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for 9 The Specification describes a general purpose computer. Spec. para. 103. Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 16 a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of editing disseminated content by advising one to select content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 17 computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the Specification evidences that the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 100, 101, 103, 105, 123, Fig. 9A. Using a computer for analyzing, receiving, modifying, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. The step 3 wherein clause limitations of logging by a page event module and receiving client side beacons are not steps, but a recitation of how the user profile data determined in step 3 originated prior to the scope of the claim, viz. a characterization of data origination, which is aspirational rather than functional. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 18 narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the Specification evidences that the computer components of Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 100, 101, 103, 105, 123, Fig. 9A. The sequence of data analysis- reception-modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 19 We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claims 7 and 13 are substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. There are no structural claims. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of editing disseminated content by advising one to select content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Non-Final Action 2–7 and Answer 3–7 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the: Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 20 claimed subject matter includes more than “screening” and “comparing information,” but is drawn to a specific tangible application that responds to requests through assembly of page data, using specifically selected articles, and transmittal of the page data over the network to the client device to define the page when rendered by the client device. Reply Br. 3. As we determine supra, selecting, assembling, and transmitting content are conventional data operations. The claims are no more than using such conventional operations for the conceptual idea of editing disseminated content by advising one to select content for publication based on predicted display times based on weighted user data regarding prior display times. The arguments pertaining to the cases Examiner cites are similar, and are equally unpersuasive. Claims 1, 3–7, 11–13 and 15–18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Plummer, Thomas, and Cannon We adopt Examiner’s findings and conclusion from Non-Final Action 8–22 and Answer 17 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Thomas: does not disclose or suggest the Appellant's claimed features of determining dwell times of specific articles, each dwell time of an article defining a duration of time the article was actively displayed during a browser session of the user. Thomas teaches measuring the duration of usage of an application, whereas the claimed subject matter recites dwell times of specific articles Reply Br. 5. The claims assemble page content selected based on selection criteria. The criteria in the claims happen to be predictions of how long a reader will stay on content, but the criteria are just that, predictions. The issue is whether it was predictable to base such predictions on past history. Thomas describes monitoring such user interactions including past time Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 21 history as a measure of user activity. Thomas shows it was known to collect past time usage data for deciding what to add to web pages. This is sufficient to show it was obvious to use such data for assembling content for a user on a web page. Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Plummer, Thomas, Cannon, and Wu These claims are not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 11–13 and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Plummer, Thomas, and Cannon is proper. The rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Plummer, Thomas, Cannon, and Wu is proper. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18 101 Eligibility 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18 1, 3–7, 11–13, 15–18 103 Plummer, Thomas, Cannon 1, 3–7, 11–13, 15–18 9, 10 103 Plummer, Thomas, Cannon, Wu 9, 10 Overall Outcome 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18 Appeal 2018-008281 Application 13/843,504 22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation