Yahoo!, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2021002320 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/513,935 10/14/2014 Doug Sharp Y10725US00 1066
123510 7590 12/13/2021
Cooper Legal Group LLC
1388 Ridge Road, Unit 1
Hinckley, OH 44233
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
VZPatent123510@verizon.com
docketing@cooperlegalgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUG SHARP, VARUN BHAGWAN, and MIHAJLO
GRBOVIC
____________

Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Doug Sharp, Varun Bhagwan and Mihajlo Grbovic (Appellant2) seeks
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–20, 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 predicting a real-time economic
indicator. Specification para. 3.
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, comprising:
[1] extracting a first piece of economic data comprising a first
sales receipt for a first purchase by a first remote device of a first
user from a first electronic message comprising a first email
received by an email server associated with the first user;
[2] extracting a second piece of economic data comprising a
second sales receipt for a second purchase by a second remote
device of a second user from a second electronic message
comprising a second email received by the email server
associated with the second user;
[3] in response to determining that the first piece of economic
data and the second piece of economic data are associated with a
first product,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed August 27, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February
16, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 15, 2020),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed November 25, 2019).
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).
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

3

aggregating, using one or more processors, the first piece
of economic data and the second piece of economic data
to obtain a set of extracted economic data;
[4] determining a scale factor based upon a comparison of
historical extracted economic data associated with the first
product for a first time period with historical economic data
associated with the first product for the first time period, wherein
the scale factor corresponds to a ratio of:
a first quantity of the first product determined to have been
sold based upon the historical extracted economic data,
wherein the first quantity is representative of
purchases for which electronic messages were
identified,
to a second quantity of the first product determined to have
been sold based upon the historical economic data,
wherein the second quantity is representative of
purchases in a market as a whole,
wherein the historical extracted economic data comprises
a plurality of sales receipts, for sales in a first geographical
region, extracted from a plurality of emails received by the
email server and aggregated into one or more categories
based upon one or more internet protocol addresses in each
of the plurality of emails,
wherein the historical economic data comprises records of
sales of the first product in the first geographical region;
[5] determining a real-time economic indicator based upon the
set of extracted economic data and the scale factor;
[6] predicting, using the one or more processors, an increase or
decrease in an economic measure associated with the first
product based upon the real-time economic indicator;
and
[7] controlling, using the one or more processors, transmission
of the predicted increase or decrease in the economic measure
via a network connection to one or more remote devices based
upon one or more terms of access of a license agreement.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

4

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.3

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.

ANALYSIS
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-

3 Rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Final Action 19–61)
were withdrawn. Ans. 3.
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 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

5

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
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 extracting and aggregating economic data, determining scale
factor data based on mathematical division, determining indicator data,
predicting economic change data, and controlling transmission of data.
Extracting data is analyzing and receiving data. Aggregating and
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

6

determining are rudimentary data analysis. Controlling transmission is data
analysis and transmission. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, and
transmitting data. None of the limitations recites technological
implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results
desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical 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 fundamental
economic principles or practices. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the
concept of analyzing economic data. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations
that would ordinarily take place in advising one to selectively distribute
economic data predictions based on analysis of sales data. The advice to

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 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

7

selectively distribute economic data predictions based on analysis of sales
data involves transmission of a predicted increase or decrease in a economic
measure, which is an economic act, and determining a real-time economic
indicator based upon a set of extracted economic data, which is an act
ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1
recites “transmission of the predicted increase or decrease in the economic
measure,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
predicting economic data. Similarly, claim 1 recites “determining a real-
time economic indicator based upon the set of extracted economic data,”
which is also characteristic of economic data analysis.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to predicting a
real-time economic indicator. Final Act. 14. The preamble to claim 1 does
not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 1 result in analyzing
economic data by selectively distributing economic data predictions based
on analysis of sales data absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–7 recite generic and
conventional receiving, analyzing, and transmitting of economic data, which
advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations
thus recite advice for selectively distributing economic data predictions
based on analysis of sales data. To advocate selectively distributing
economic data predictions based on analysis of sales data is conceptual
advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 3 describes the invention as relating to
predicting a real-time economic indicator. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

8

shows that claim 1 recites analyzing economic data. This is consistent with
the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of fundamental economic principles or
practices as a certain method of organizing human activity because
analyzing economic data is a fundamental practice of financial analysis. The
concept of analyzing economic data by selectively distributing economic
data predictions based on analysis of sales data is one idea for collecting and
distributing such analysis. 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. See Bilski above.
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, and
transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, ananlysis, and
transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).
As such, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data, and not
a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

9

From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
analyzing economic data by selectively distributing economic data
predictions based on analysis of sales data, which is a fundamental economic
principle or practice, 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
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. Steps 1–7 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

8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

10

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
analyzing economic data by selectively distributing economic data
predictions based on analysis of sales data as performed by a generic
computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this
concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those
parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 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 23+ pages of specification only spell 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 analyzing economic data by selectively distributing
economic data predictions based on analysis of sales data under different
scenarios. They do 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 analyzing economic data by
selectively distributing economic data predictions based on analysis of sales
data 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.

9 The Specification describes a computer, a smart phone, or a tablet. Spec.
para. 38.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

11

None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
analyzing economic data by advising one to selectively distribute economic
data predictions based on analysis of sales data, as distinguished from a
technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This
amounts to fundamental economic principles or practices, 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.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

12

Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

13

some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception- ananlysis-
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.
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.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

14

REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the fundamental
economic principles or practices of analyzing economic data by advising one
to selectively distribute economic data predictions based on analysis of sales
data, without significantly more.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

15

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 14–19 and Answer 3–20 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that a
technical solution includes an improved use of electronic
communications (e.g., corresponding to sales receipts in email
messages received by an email server) that allows for more
accurately and efficiently predicting real-time economic
indicators and more accurately and efficiently providing the real-
time economic indicators based upon terms of access of a license
agreement
Reply Br. 3. The claims recite only using particular pieces of data and
generic analysis of that data. No technological implementation details are
recited.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe
a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting
detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an
identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim
confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete
embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
the use of electronic communications can allow for purchasing
information to be determined, and real-time economic indicators
to be predicted and provided, in an improved manner that does
not require the labor-intensive, time- consuming and infeasible
manual collection of relevant data over weeks, months or years,
which in turn mitigates the labor-intensity and inaccuracy of
predicting economic indicators without knowledge of what users
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

16

are purchasing. Thus, a technical solution is being provided for
the existing technical problem.
Reply Br. 4. The claims recite using computer hardware and software to
improve speed and efficiency. But this is the very purpose of generic
hardware and software. This alone does not confer eligibility.
Here, the focus of BSG Tech’s claims is unrelated to how
databases function. Under the claimed methods, information
inputted by users into a database is stored and organized in the
same manner as information inputted into conventional
databases capable of indexing data as classifications, parameters,
and values. The claims do not recite any improvement to the way
in which such databases store or organize information analogous
to the self-referential table in Enfish or the adaptable memory
caches in Visual Memory. While the presentation of summary
comparison usage information to users improves the quality of
the information added to the database, an improvement to the
information stored by a database is not equivalent to an
improvement in the database’s functionality. BSG Tech’s
claimed invention results in better user input, but the database
serves in its “ordinary capacity” of storing the resulting
information. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Thus, at step one, the
’699 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of having
users consider historical usage information while inputting data.
BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the
claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reply Br. 10–12. In DDR Holdings,
the Court evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of
retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional
functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly
transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an
advertisement and activating a hyperlink.” Id. at 1257. There, the Court
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

17

found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the
manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem
that had no “pre-Internet analog.” Id. at 1258. The Court cautioned,
however, “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric
challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. For example, in DDR Holdings
the Court distinguished the patent-eligible claims at issue from claims
found patent-ineligible in Ultramercial. See id. at 1258–59 (citing
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
As noted there, the Ultramercial claims were “directed to a specific
method of advertising and content distribution that was previously
unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” Id. at 1258
(quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715–16). Nevertheless, those claims
were patent ineligible because they “merely recite[d] the abstract idea of
‘offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,’ along
with ‘routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a
request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and
use of the Internet.’” Id.
Appellant’s asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible
in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings.
The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited “providing [a] media product
for sale at an Internet website;” “restricting general public access to said
media product;” “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a]
sponsor message;” and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message,
presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer
access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one
query.” 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted claims recite
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

18

receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data. This is precisely the type of
Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are not
abstract in view of Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). Reply Br. 12–15.
As the opinion in SAP America stated,
Similarly, in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States . . . the
improvement was in a physical tracking system. The use of
mathematics to achieve an improvement no more changed the
conclusion that improved physical things and actions were the
subject of the claimed advance than it did in Diamond v. Diehr.
Here, in contrast, the focus of the claims is not a physical-realm
improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas—the
selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by
reporting or display of the results.
SAP Am., 890 F.3d at 1022 (citations omitted). As with SAP, the instant
claims select and analyze information, and then transmit results.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
The claims do not merely provide for implementing an abstract
idea on a generic computer. Rather, the claims provide for
technology that uses electronic communications (e.g.,
corresponding to sales receipts in email messages received by an
email server) that exist in the realm of computer networking to
more accurately and efficiently predicting real-time economic
indicators and more accurately and efficiently providing the real-
time economic indicators based upon terms of access of a license
agreement. As discussed in the instant application, this is a
technical solution
Reply Br. 15–16. Again, the claims recite no technological implementation
details. Using generic hardware and software, even e-mail messages, is
insufficient to confer patentability.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

19

At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe
a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting
detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an
identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim
confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete
embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims
must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-
eligible. No such inventive concept is present here. Instead, the
claims “add” only generic computer components such as an
“interface,” “network,” and “database.” These generic computer
components do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–
1325 (2016)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
the instant claims clearly provide for a non-conventional and
non-generic technique of predicting real-time economic
indicators using electronic communication technologies that
extracts pieces of economic data from sales receipts in email
messages received by an email server, aggregates the pieces of
economic data, predicts an increase or decrease in an economic
measure, and controls transmission of the predicted increase or
decrease via a network connection based upon terms of access of
a license agreement. The instant claims provide for a technical
improvement by reducing and/or mitigating the need to perform
labor-intensive, time-consuming and infeasible manual
collection of relevant data over weeks, months or years, which in
turn mitigates the labor-intensity and inaccuracy of predicting
economic indicators without knowledge of what users are
purchasing, and improves the accuracy and efficiency of
predicting real-time economic indicators and providing the real-
time economic indicators based upon terms of access of a license
agreement.
Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

20

Reply Br. 18. Again, reducing labor needed and improving efficiency are
what generic computer equipment does. This does not confer eligibility.
The claims here, in contrast, are not directed to an improvement
in the way computers operate, nor does FairWarning contend as
much. While the claimed system and method certainly purport
to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
computer, rather than the patented method itself. Thus here, as
in Electric Power, “the focus of the claims is not on . . . an
improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently
abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”
FairWarning, 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(citations omitted).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–20 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

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).

Appeal 2021-002320
Application 14/513,935

21

AFFIRMED