David Selinger et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2020

12012452 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/012,452 02/01/2008 David Selinger 800054.406 2816
157877 7590 03/10/2020
James A. D. White
VLP Law Group
7683 SE 27th Street #145
Mercer Island, WA 98040
EXAMINER
POUNCIL, DARNELL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2020 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):
AWendel@vlplawgroup.com
JWhite@vlplawgroup.com
patents@vlplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID SELINGER, TYLER KOHN, MICHAEL DECOURCEY,
SUNDEEP AHUJA, JAMES OSIAL, and ALBERT SUNWOO
____________

Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452
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 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 8–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant invented a way of providing targeted content, such as
advertising, by analyzing the context in which the content is to be provided
in light of known attributes of the content available to be provided and the
one or more recipients of the content. Specification para. 1.
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 computer-implemented process comprising:
[1] obtaining, by a configured computer system, a rule set
that includes rules for use in identifying non-competitive
advertisements;
[2] generating, by the configured computer system, a selection
model
based on product data and user-specific data,
wherein the selection model includes a plurality of data
sets identifying relationships between products;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed October 5, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 1,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 4, 2018), and Final
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 24, 2017).
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
RichRelevance, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

3

[3] generating, by the configured computer system, a user
model
using the user-specific data,
wherein the user-specific data
includes user-specific identification data for a
specific user
and
includes user-specific activity data regarding user
behavior of the specific user that involves
interactions with a specific retailer;
[4] using, by the configured computer system, the rule set and
the selection model and the user model
to select non-competitive personalized electronic
advertising to present to the specific user from a plurality
of competitive and non-competitive advertisements,
including using a weighted scoring system identifying
correlations between the user-specific activity data
and
using the rule set to identify advertisements not
competitive to the specific retailer;
[5] transmitting, by the configured computer system and over
one or more computer networks to a client device of the
specific user, information about the selected non-competitive
personalized electronic advertising,
to cause display of the transmitted information to the
specific user on the client device as part of a displayed
Web page from the specific retailer that includes
additional information, and to allow the specific user to
initiate further activities with the specific retailer based
on interactions with the displayed Web page;
[6] obtaining, by the configured computer system and from the
interactions of the specific user with the displayed Web page,
additional information about the further activities initiated by
the specific user;
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

4

and
[7] modifying, by the configured computer system and based at
least in part on the obtained additional information, one or more
weights used in the weighted scoring system, for use in later
selection of additional non-competitive personalized electronic
advertising for the specific user.
Claims 1–6 and 8–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
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

3 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 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

5

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
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 obtaining rule set data, generating data representing two
models based on other data, using the data to select advertising, using a
weighted system and data, transmitting information about the advertising,
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

6

obtaining additional information, and modifying weight data. Obtaining
data is receiving data. Selecting data using a weighted system and data is
rudimentary data analysis. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, generating,
analyzing, transmitting, and modifying 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.
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 concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. 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
selecting advertisements. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would
ordinarily take place in advising one to use weights to modify data values

4 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 Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 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).
6 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 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

7

applied to decision criteria used to select and present an ad. The advice to
use weights to modify data values applied to decision criteria used to select
and present an ad involves presenting an ad, which is an economic act, and
selecting the ad, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “transmitting . . . information about
the selected non-competitive personalized electronic advertising,” which is
an activity that would take place whenever one is presenting an ad.
Similarly, claim 1 recites “select non-competitive personalized electronic
advertising,” which is also characteristic of managing advertising.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to selecting and
targeting personalized non-competitive advertising. Final Act. 3.
The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in selecting advertisements by using weights to
modify data values applied to decision criteria used to select and present an
ad absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer
for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 6 recite receiving data.
Limitations 2–5 and 7 recite generic and conventional generating, analyzing,
transmitting, and modifying of advertising selection data, which advise one
to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite
advice for using weights to modify data values applied to decision criteria
used to select and present an ad. To advocate using weights to modify data
values applied to decision criteria used to select and present an ad is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
providing targeted content, such as advertising, by analyzing the context in
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

8

which the content is to be provided in light of known attributes of the
content available to be provided and the one or more recipients of the
content. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites selecting
advertisements. 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 selecting
advertisements is a technique for eliciting consumer buying behavior. The
concept of selecting advertisements by using weights to modify data values
applied to decision criteria used to select and present an ad is one idea for
how to conceptually make such a selection. 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. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(advertising).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
selecting advertisements by using weights to modify data values applied to
decision criteria used to select and present an ad, 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
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e., integrated into a practical application.7

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

9

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 and 6 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps
2–4 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating,
and storing data. Step 5 recites insignificant activity, such as storing,
transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 2–4 and 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 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
selecting advertisements by using weights to modify data values applied to
decision criteria used to select and present an ad as performed by a generic
computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

10

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 Specification only spells out different
generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of selecting advertisements by using weights to modify data
values applied to decision criteria used to select and present an ad 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 selecting advertisements by
using weights to modify data values applied to decision criteria used to
select and present an ad 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
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

8 The Specification describes a PC based implementation of a central
control processing system. Spec. para. 138.
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

11

a 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
selecting advertisements by advising one to use weights to modify data
values applied to decision criteria used to select and present an ad, 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
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
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

12

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, generating, analyzing, transmitting, and modifying
data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. The limitation within limitation 5 of causing
display of the transmitted information is not a step, but a recitation of what is
hoped to occur after the recited transmission step, viz. a desire, which is
aspiration 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. LLC 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 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
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

13

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-generation-
analysis-transmission-modification is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (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 Commc’ns, 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.
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
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

14

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 commercial and
legal interaction of selecting advertisements by advising one to use weights
to modify data values applied to decision criteria used to select and present
an ad, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–4 and Answer 3–8 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
Appellant attempts to analogize the claims to those involved in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Reply Br. 4–8. In McRO, the court held that, although the processes
were previously performed by humans, “the traditional process and newly
claimed method . . . produced . . . results in fundamentally different ways.”
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (differentiating the claims at issue from those in McRO). In McRO,
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

15

“it [was] the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer,
that ‘improved the existing technology process,’” because the prior process
performed by humans “was driven by subjective determinations rather than
specific, limited mathematical rules.” 837 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation
marks, citation, and alterations omitted). In contrast, the claims of the
instant application merely implement an old practice of using decision
criteria in making advertising decisions in a new environment. Appellant
has not argued that the claimed processes of selecting ads apply rules of
selection in a manner technologically different from those which humans
used, albeit with less efficiency, before the invention was claimed. Merely
pigeon holing the objects of decision making to aid decision making is both
old and itself abstract.
The claims in McRO were not directed to an abstract idea, but
instead were directed to “a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a
particular type.” We explained that “the claimed improvement
[was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip
synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’
that previously could only be produced by human animators.”
The claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally
subjective process performed by human artists into a
mathematically automated process executed on computers.
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094.
Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims
found patent-eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics,
Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 8–12. But the Court in
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC addressed Appellant’s Core Wireless
argument.
Relying principally on [Core Wireless], TT argues the claimed
invention provides an improvement in the way a computer
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

16

operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not
improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more
efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they
recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information
that assists traders in processing information more quickly.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084,1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(citations omitted). The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the
computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological
problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assists users in processing information more quickly.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims “relate
to automated operations performed to improve system operation over time
by learning modified weighting data based on user interactions with
displayed information, to allow more efficient subsequent related activities.”
Reply Br. 12–16. None of the claims recite learning. The Specification,
particularly at paragraph 75, uses the word learning as a synonym for
storing. No learning algorithms are described in the Specification. Thus, the
argument devolves to using acquired (learned) data to further refine the data
domain being analyzed. This is the very essence of conventional data
processing. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the recited claim language of independent claim 1 includes
specific operations to implement such activities that go far
beyond that general idea. Instead, . . . , the actual recited
language of independent claim 1 includes improving the
automated operations of computing systems by using rules to
select products that are relevant for a specific user in a specific
setting in specific manners, by modifying a graphical user
interface to include the formatted information and to improve
the relevance of information displayed to a user, and by
automatically improving the operation of the system over time
by learning modified weighting to use in future automated
Appeal 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

17

activities based on user interactions with the modified graphical
user interface
Reply Br. 16. As determined supra, all of the specific operations are
conventional data processing operations. Using rules to select products is an
example of conventional criteria based selection. Modifying a web based
interface is conventional insertion of text describing fields into the HTML
code used to generate the screen. Improving performance by altering
weights used in selection is conventional use of stored data in search criteria.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the components
cannot be shown to be conventional. Reply Br. 17–18. Such showing is
provided supra, under Step 2B.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–20 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–20 101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–20

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 2018-007263
Application 12/012,452

18

AFFIRMED