CBS Interactive Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2020

15002744 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 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.
15/002,744 01/21/2016 Daniel F. Schmidt 10-386-US-C1 7119
128144 7590 09/24/2020
Rimon PC
One Embarcadero Center
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
WILDER, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2020 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.rimonlaw@clarivate.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentdocketing@rimonlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL F. SCHMIDT
____________

Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD and AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative
Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a system and method for tracking filter activity and
monitoring trends associated with said activity and more specifically a
system and method for providing information to the user of an online catalog
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

2
about patterns in filter parameter selections based on the filter parameters
that a group of previous users specified while navigating the catalog. (Spec.
¶ 3, Title).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer system designed to provide filter
parameter trend information, comprising:
at least one hardware processor; and
at least one memory operatively coupled to the at least
one hardware processor and storing instructions which, when
executed by one or more of the at least one hardware
processors, cause the one of more of the at least one hardware
processors to:
store an electronic catalog of products, wherein the
catalog comprises a taxonomy of products categories and
products within the categories, the catalog further comprising
attributes which describe products in a category and at least one
value for said attributes;
accept plural sets of filter parameters from a plurality of
corresponding users, where each filter parameter specifies at
least one of a product category, an attribute, and at least one
attribute value for the attribute;
receive the sets of filter parameters, query the catalog
based on each set of filter parameters, and present a subset of
products in the catalog corresponding to each set of the
filter parameters for display to a corresponding user;
track the received sets of filter parameters;
generate a set of user activity data, based on the received
sets of filter parameters, that indicates the sets of filter
parameters selected by said corresponding users; and
in response to a user selection of at least one filter
parameter, provide a graphical indication of the user activity
data related to previous users selecting filter parameters
that are the same or similar to the user’s selection.

Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, and 4–22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Solan (US 8,001,152 B1, iss. Aug. 16, 2011) in
view of Cancel et al. (US 2008/0189281 A1, pub. Aug. 7, 2008) (“Cancel”).

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
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, . . . 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, 217–218 (2014) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012))
(citations omitted).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit has
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

4
explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on whether ‘their character
as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” See 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.
In so doing we apply a “directed to” two-prong test: 1) evaluate
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a
judicial exception, evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, pp. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to storing a
catalog, accepting filtering parameters, querying the catalog based on the
filtering parameters to present a subset of products in the catalog and further
tracking and providing a graphical indication of user activity data. (Final
Act. 5). The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to a method
of organizing human activity in the form of a fundamental economic
practice. (Id. at 8). The Examiner finds that the claims when examined on a
limitation-by-limitation basis and in ordered combination do not include an
inventive concept. (Id at 5).
The Specification discloses that the present invention relates to
systems and methods for providing information to the user of an online
catalog about patterns in filter parameter selection based on the filter
parameters that a group of previous users specified while navigating the
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

5
catalog. (Spec. ¶ 3). The goal of the present invention is to present an
electronic catalog that is well-organized and presented so that consumers can
make good purchasing decisions and a company can purchase advertising to
market their products. (Id. ¶ 4).
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a computer system
comprising “at least one hardware processor,” “one memory. . . storing
instructions which. . . cause . . . the at least one hardware processor to,”
“store an electronic catalog of products,” “accept plural sets of filter
parameters,” “receive the sets of filter parameters,” “track the received sets
of filter parameters,” “generate a set of user activity data,” and “ in response
to a user selection . . . provide a graphical indication of the user activity
data.”
We thus agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is to
controlling the behavior of persons concerning actions in regard to
interactions with an electronic catalog. It follows from prior Supreme Court
cases, and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), in particular, that the
claims at issue here are to an abstract idea. Controlling the behavior of
persons interactions with an electronic catalog is one of certain methods of
organizing human behavior, namely, “managing personal interactions
between people but for the recitation of generic computer components”
(Ans. 4), which is not eligible subject matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–20.
In addition, as claim 1 relates to a commercial interaction through an
electronic catalog, claim 1 relates to one of certain methods of organizing
human activity according to the Guidance. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Also, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 covers something that
could be performed in the human mind including observation and judgment
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

6
of opinion that falls within the mental process grouping of judicial
exceptions. (Ans. 4). Thus, we find that claim 1 recites a judicial exception
of one of certain methods of organizing human activity and, in the
alternative, a mental process.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to test,” claim 1 requires
a “hardware processor” and “a memory.” These recitations do not impose “a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53–54. We find no indication in the Specification, nor does
Appellant direct us to any indication, that the operations recited in
independent claim 1 invoke any inventive programming, require any
specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components,
i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using
other than generic computer components to perform generic computer
functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation
of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible.”).
We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney
argument, that attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or
functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the
claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,”
as that phrase is used in the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
In this regard, the recitations of a hardware processor and a memory do not
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

7
affect an improvement in the functioning of the hardware processor or the
memory or other technology, do not recite a particular machine or
manufacture that is integral to the claim, and do not transform or reduce a
particular article to a different state or thing. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55. Thus, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception that is not integrated
into a practical application and thus claim 1 is directed to “abstract ideas.”
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
claim 1 is directed to abstract ideas, the claim must include an “inventive
concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must be an element or
combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice
amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
The introduction of a hardware processor and memory into the claim
does not alter the analysis at Alice step two.
[T]he 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
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 “implemen[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
featur[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 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

8
Instead, “the relevant question is whether [claim 1] here do[es] more
than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. It does not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is conventional. Using a computer to
retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify the data as a
result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
industry. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354
(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.”). 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 Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (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-analysis-
access/display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be
abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display,
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

9
allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was
abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the hardware processor or the memory. As we stated above, claim 1 does
not affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Thus,
claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the
abstract idea of information access 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 226.
We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 5–16; Reply Br. 1–
6) Appellant has submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims
before us that stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our
analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which
have been made. But, for purposes of emphasis, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant argues that claim 1 integrates any abstract idea into a
practical application. (Appeal Br. 9). This argument is not persuasive
because Appellant does not explain why, in their view, claim 1 integrates the
abstract idea into a practical application.
Appellant argues that the claims do not preempt the concept of
tracking users and providing guidance or any other concepts for the matter.
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

10
(Appeal Br. 9). Although preemption may signal patent ineligible subject
matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015) (“[T]hat
the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract.”). And, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose
patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in
this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa,
788 F.3d at 1379.
We do not agree with Appellant that the claims are similar to the
claims recited in Trading Technologies Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x
1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) (hereinafter “Trading
Technologies”). (Appeal Br. 10-11). In Trading Technologies, the claims
recited “dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of
locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display region
corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis.” Id. at
1003. No such dynamic positioning of data is recited in the claims at hand.
In a related precedential Trading Technologies case, also reciting a graphical
user interface, the Court held “[t]he claims are focused on providing
information to traders in a way that helps them process information more
quickly, not on improving computers or technology.” Trading Techs. Int'l,
Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Similarly, the
claims here are focused on providing information to users in a way that helps
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

11
them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or
technology.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner ignored expressly recited claim limitations. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the Examiner ignored the limitation “generate a set of
user activity data, based on the received sets of filter parameters, that
indicates the sets of filter parameters selected by said corresponding users.”
(Appeal Br. 14). However, this language was not ignored by the Examiner.
The Examiner determined that this subject matter is part of storing a catalog,
accepting filtering parameters, querying the catalog based on the filtering
parameters to present a subset of products in the catalog and further tracking
and providing a graphical indication of user activity data, and “something
that could be performed in the human mind including observation and
judgement of opinion,” which is a mental process. (Final Act. 5).
We do not agree with Appellant that the claims are necessarily rooted
in computer technology like the claims in DDR Holdings. (Appeal
Br. 14). 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.” DDR, 773 F.3d
at 1257. There, the Court 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
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

12
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, 772 F.3d a t 715–16). 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
714). 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.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted
claims recite receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting information.
This is precisely the type of Internet activity found ineligible in
Ultramercial.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner ignored all the elements of claim 1
except the use of taxonomy and a generic computer in performing the
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

13
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) analysis.
(Appeal Br. 15).
The court in Berkheimer held that “[t]he patent eligibility inquiry may
contain underlying issues of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry
‘may contain underlying factual issues.”’)). The inquiry as to whether a
claim element or combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional
falls under step two in the § 101 framework. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890
F.3d at 1374. As such, there is no genuine issue of material fact when the
only alleged “inventive concept” is the abstract idea. Id. (“Berkheimer and
Aatrix leave untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held
claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract
idea.”) (citation omitted). “When there is no genuine issue of material fact
regarding whether the claim element or claimed combination is well-
understood, routine, [and] conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant
field, this issue can be decided on summary judgment as a matter of law.”
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368. See also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green
Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A factual
allegation or dispute should not automatically take the determination out of
the court’s hands; rather, there needs to be justification for why additional
evidence must be considered—the default being a legal determination.”).
Thus, evidence may be helpful where, for instance, facts are in dispute, but
evidence is not always necessary. Here, the only recitations in addition to
the abstract ideas are the hardware processor and the memory. The
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

14
Examiner correctly identifies these recitations in analyzing the claims under
Berkheimer. (Final Act. 13).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the method of the claims cannot be performed
entirely by the human mind or with pen or paper because the steps
specifically call for operations that must be performed by a computer.
(Reply Br. 2). Although, the steps recited by independent claim 1 are
performed “automatically,” mental processes remain unpatentable even
when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have
been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes
can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”); see also In re
Salwan, 681 F. App’x 938, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims for organizing
patient health information, transferring patient health information to a
patient network, and billing insurance companies held patent-ineligible).
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument that the claims clearly do
not fit the definition of a fundamental economic practice, as it is defined in
the Guidance, because claim 1 clearly relates to an electronic catalog of
products, which relates to a commercial interaction, which the Guidance
states is a fundamental economic practice. (Reply Br. 3). We also do not
agree that the claims do not involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or
opinions, and thus are not a mental process because claim 1 recites a process
in which stored products are evaluated against a set of filter parameters
which clearly relates to evaluations and judgements. Id.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

15
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We will also sustain the rejection as it is
directed to claims 2 and 4 to 8, 11, 12, 14, 16–19 because Appellant has not
argued the separate eligibility of these claims.
In regard to claims 9, 13 and 20, Appellant argues that the recitation
that the graphical indication is displayed to the user in a subpart of a window
increases the efficiency and accuracy of locating desired products in the
catalog, and thus describe technical improvements. (Appeal Br. 10).
Although the Appellant may be correct that claim 1 recites a method that
increases the efficiency and accuracy of locating desired products in the
catalog, an improvement in efficiency and accuracy alone does not render
claim 1 patent eligible. “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. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he
fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a
computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.”); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed
to claims 9, 13 and 20.
In regard to claims 10, 15 and 21, Appellant argues that because these
claims recite that the graphical indication includes hyperlinks to filter
parameters it provides an improved catalog navigation and facilitates
location of desired products. However, any such improvement lies in the
abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement. See BSG Tech
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

16
LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this
regard, these claims do not recite an improvement to the processor, the
memory or the hyperlinks.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection as it is directed
to claims 10, 15 and 21.

REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A).
We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with Appellant
that the prior art does not disclose “an electronic catalog . . . further
comprising attributes which describe products in a category and at least one
value for said attributes” as recited in claim 1.
Appellant’s Specification discloses that the electronic catalog stores a
taxonomy that associates products with unique product IDs, then creates
tables that associate the IDs with attributes. The tables associate the IDs
within the attributes with various values. Figure 2 depicts such a table that
includes a desktop PC product 202 that includes the attribute of a RAM size
and the attribute value of 1GB.
The Examiner relies on Solan at column 3, lines 29–39 and column 4,
lines 11–23 for teaching this subject matter. Column 3, lines 29–39
describes a searchable entity which allows searching according to features
that characterize the item but does not describe a value associated with the
feature. Column 4, lines 11–23 describes a database with a repository of
items that are searchable according to features of the items but does not
describe a value associated with the feature.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We will not sustain the rejection of the remaining
Appeal 2019-004097
Application 15/002,744

17
claims for the same reason.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–22 101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–22
1, 2, 4–22 103 Solan, Cancel 1, 2, 4–22
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–22

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).
AFFIRMED