Dell Products L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2020

14221371 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 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.
14/221,371 03/21/2014 Shree A. Dandekar DC-102645.01 1048
160816 7590 07/15/2020
Terrile, Cannatti & Chambers, LLP - Dell
P.O. Box 203518
Austin, TX 78720
EXAMINER
FAYED, RASHA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHREE A. DANDEKAR, MUNISH GUPTA, and
KEISHA DARUVALLA
____________________

Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies Dell
Products L.P. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
“providing near-real-time competitive insights associated with user
interactions within a social media environment.” Spec. ¶ 9. More
particularly, Appellant describes monitoring user interactions (e.g.,
conversations or comments) on social media platforms regarding a product.
See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 37, 41–43. The social media data is collected and
processed to categorize the user interactions along with profiling data (i.e.,
determining whether the user is particularly influential) to generate a metric
(i.e., competitive insight data) to provide a “measurement of the effects of
marketing, support, and public relation actions viewed at the enterprise,
business unit, market segment, product, sub-brand and geographical levels.”
Spec. ¶ 35.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal (see
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implementable method for providing near-
real-time competitive insights associated with user interactions
within a social media environment, the social media environment
comprising a social media server and a social network advocacy
system executing on a social network advocacy server, the
method comprising:
processing, via the social network advocacy system, first
social media data received from the social media server to
generate first social network advocacy (SNA) data in near-real-
time, the first social media data associated with first user
interactions corresponding to a first product of a first social
media participant via the social media server, the processing the
first social media data comprising associating sentiment values
for the first user interactions, the associating sentiment values
comprising determining a sentiment value based upon whether a
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

3
user interaction of the first set of user interactions is positive,
negative or neutral and weighting the sentiment value based upon
a respective influence of a social media participant providing the
user interaction;
processing, via the social network advocacy system
executing on the social network advocacy server, the first SNA
data to generate first SNA Pulse (SNAP) metric data, the SNAP
metric data comprising a first SNAP metric, the processing the
first SNA data to generate the first SNAP metric data comprising
determining a sentiment value based on the first user interactions,
determining a gravity value based on the first user interactions,
determining a domain influence value based on the first user
interactions, determining a reach value based on the first user
interactions and determining a relevance value based on the first
user interactions, the sentiment value representing a measure of
an opinion of the first social media participant of an organization,
the gravity value representing a degree of sentiment expressed
by the first social media participant, the domain influence value
representing a relative influence of a given social media venue
with respect to the first user interactions, the reach value
representing a number and quality of followers of the first social
media participant, the relevance value representing a relevance
of the social media communication to the organization;
processing, via the social network advocacy system
executing on the social network advocacy server, the first SNAP
metric data to generate first competitive insight data
corresponding to the first product, the first competitive insight
data comprising the first SNAP metric corresponding to the first
product, the competitive insight data comprising information that
can be used to provide insights on the first product;
presenting the first competitive insight data via a SNA
system user interface; and,
managing requirements associated with the first product
based upon the first competitive insight data.

Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

4
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 1–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Goeldi (US 2010/0119053 A1; May 13, 2010)
and Kvernvik et al. (US 2013/0132309 A1; May 23, 2013) (“Kvernvik”).
Final Act. 3–88.

ANALYSIS2
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 5–8. In
particular, Appellant argues the claims recite an improvement to the
functionality of a computer and improve how competitive insights are
generated. Appeal Br. 5–7. In addition, Appellant challenges the
Examiner’s findings that the claims recite computer functions that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional, asserting that such findings are not
support by evidence. Appeal Br. 5.
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office has published revised guidance

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
October 19, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed April 25,
2018 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellant did not file
a Reply Brief. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are
considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

5
for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically
with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office
Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)
then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially
recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must “look
at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the
claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.”
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257–58 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Per the Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two prongs of
analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea),
and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the
claim is patent eligible under § 101. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–
55. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a judicial
exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application),
the next step is to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217; Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, we conclude Appellant’s claims recite an abstract idea because
they recite mental processes. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

6
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps,
there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being
performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); see also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (holding that the incidental use of a “computer” or “computer readable
medium” does not make a claim otherwise directed to a process that “can be
performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” patent
eligible); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
71 (2012) (explaining mental processes are not patentable); Office
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–53 nn.14–15.
More specifically, Appellant’s claims are directed to generating
competitive insight data for a product based on social media data.3 This is
consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed embodiment. See
Spec. ¶ 9 (describing the disclosed invention as “providing near-real-time

3 Although we describe the abstract idea slightly differently than the
Examiner, the Examiner’s characterization of the claims (determining the
claims are directed to an abstract idea of “collecting and comparing and
analyzing known information” (see Final Act. 2)) is not erroneous. “An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
level of abstraction an examiner uses to describe an abstract idea need not
“impact the patentability analysis.” Apple, 842 F.3d at 1241. That is true
here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea
recited, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Cf. Accenture Glob.
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (“Although not as broad as the district court’s abstract idea of
organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.”).

Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

7
competitive insights associated with user interactions within a social media
environment”). Generating competitive insight data for a product based on
social media data is an evaluation that can be performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.
Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, we conclude that
generating competitive insight data for a product based on social media data
is a mental process and, thus, an abstract idea. See Office Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”);
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776
F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding the claimed method of
processing information from various sources (i.e., hard copy documents)
was directed to the abstract idea of “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain
data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a
memory”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d
1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding the concept of the pending claims
“related to the collection, display, and manipulation of data” to be abstract);
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (concluding “[a] process that start[s] with data, add[s] an algorithm,
and end[s] with a new form of data [is] directed to an abstract idea.” (citing
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2014))); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding claims directed to “collecting and
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

8
analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is
detected” to be mental processes within the abstract-idea category).
Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite the concept of generating competitive insight data for a
product based on social media data, emphasized in italics:
1. A computer-implementable method for providing near-
real-time competitive insights associated with user interactions
within a social media environment, the social media environment
comprising a social media server and a social network advocacy
system executing on a social network advocacy server, the
method comprising:
processing, via the social network advocacy system, first
social media data received from the social media server to
generate first social network advocacy (SNA) data in near-real-
time, the first social media data associated with first user
interactions corresponding to a first product of a first social
media participant via the social media server, the processing the
first social media data comprising associating sentiment values
for the first user interactions, the associating sentiment values
comprising determining a sentiment value based upon whether a
user interaction of the first set of user interactions is positive,
negative or neutral and weighting the sentiment value based upon
a respective influence of a social media participant providing the
user interaction;
processing, via the social network advocacy system
executing on the social network advocacy server, the first SNA
data to generate first SNA Pulse (SNAP) metric data, the SNAP
metric data comprising a first SNAP metric, the processing the
first SNA data to generate the first SNAP metric data comprising
determining a sentiment value based on the first user interactions,
determining a gravity value based on the first user interactions,
determining a domain influence value based on the first user
interactions, determining a reach value based on the first user
interactions and determining a relevance value based on the first
user interactions, the sentiment value representing a measure of
an opinion of the first social media participant of an organization,
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

9
the gravity value representing a degree of sentiment expressed
by the first social media participant, the domain influence value
representing a relative influence of a given social media venue
with respect to the first user interactions, the reach value
representing a number and quality of followers of the first social
media participant, the relevance value representing a relevance
of the social media communication to the organization;
processing, via the social network advocacy system
executing on the social network advocacy server, the first SNAP
metric data to generate first competitive insight data
corresponding to the first product, the first competitive insight
data comprising the first SNAP metric corresponding to the first
product, the competitive insight data comprising information that
can be used to provide insights on the first product;
presenting the first competitive insight data via a SNA
system user interface; and,
managing requirements associated with the first product
based upon the first competitive insight data.
More particularly, the concept of generating competitive insight data
for a product based on social media data comprises: (i) evaluating identified
social media data related to a product and assigning (i.e., rendering an
opinion on) a relative value to the data (i.e., the claimed steps of processing
first social media data corresponding to a first product, including
determining a sentiment value, weighing the sentiment value and further
determining a gravity value, a domain influence value, a reach value, and a
relevance value); and (ii) evaluating the processed social media data to
generate a competitive insight (i.e., a judgment or opinion) on the product
(i.e., the claimed step of processing the SNAP metric data to generate
competitive insight data corresponding to the product).
Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

10
application. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify
whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Here, we find the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not
recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular
machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
(iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state
(see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation
(see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Rather, the additional limitations merely provide additional detail
regarding (i) different criteria on which the social media data is evaluated
(e.g., whether an expressed opinion regarding a product is positive or
negative, and the importance of person providing the opinion); and (ii) the
environment in which the abstract idea is performed (i.e., a social media
environment comprising a social media server and a social network
advocacy system).
Moreover, limitations regarding receiving social media from the
social media server, presenting the results of the data processing (i.e., the
competitive insight data), and managing requirements associated with the
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

11
product based upon the generated insight data are the types of extra-solution
activities (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have
determined to be insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter
into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (holding the use of well-known
techniques to establish inputs to the abstract idea as extra-solution activity
that fails to make the underlying concept patent eligible); Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that “selecting information, by content or
source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes”); Elec. Power, 830
F.3d at 1354 (recognizing “that merely presenting the results of abstract
processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as
identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part
of such collection and analysis”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur.
Co. of Can., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011) (explaining that
“storing, retrieving, and providing data . . . are inconsequential data
gathering and insignificant post solution activity”) aff’d, 687 F.3d 1266
(Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Brown, 645 F. App’x 1014, 1016–17 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(non-precedential) (determining that the step of cutting hair after a desired
style has been selected is an insignificant application of the abstract idea and
fails to confer patent eligibility).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 5–7), the
claims do not recite an improvement to the functionality of a computer or
address a technological problem. Instead, as the Examiner finds (see
Ans. 4–5), the claims merely use computers and computer devices that
operate in their normal, expected manner. See also DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

12
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Additionally, as
the court in Enfish explained, “the first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks
whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As
discussed above, the focus of the pending claims is on generating
competitive insight data for a product based on social media data, and the
recited computing elements are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1335–36. Further, we note that using a computer to perform tasks
more quickly or efficiently does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise
ineligible abstract idea. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., LLC 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.”).
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to “significantly more” than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–
79). As stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to
determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” under step two
of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

13
whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical
application. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our
analysis, we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination
of limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in
the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
at a high level of generality. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. “Whether
something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan
at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Here, Appellant’s claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or
when considered as an ordered combination) that are not well-understood,
routine, and conventional. For example, Appellant describes an information
handling system used to implement the disclosed invention at a very high
level of generality (e.g., the system includes a processor; I/O devices such as
a display, keyboard, and mouse; and system memory). Spec. ¶ 34, Fig. 1;
see also Ans. 4; Spec. ¶ 37 (describing the SNA system as using an
information handling system that “may comprise a personal computer, a
laptop computer, or a tablet computer operable to exchange data”).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum,4 we agree with the

4 On April 19, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy issued a memorandum entitled: Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (i.e., “the Berkheimer Memorandum”)
(discussing the Berkheimer decision) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF). Support for a finding that an element was well-understood,
routine, or conventional may be shown by citation to one or more court
decisions noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the
element(s). See Berkheimer Memorandum 3–4.
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

14
Examiner’s findings (see, e.g., Ans. 4–5) that conventional computer
components operating to collect, manipulate, and display data are well
understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan. See Mortgage
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,”
“network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept
requirement); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a
‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing
the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the
method claims.”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a
network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”);
Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318–20; Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For similar reasons we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7 and 13, which are
commensurate in scope and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 5–
8; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Further, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–20, which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately with particularity. See
Appeal Br. 5–8; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

15
Rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
a. Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–20
Appellant asserts the claimed “SNAP metric data to generate
competitive insight data is patentably distinct from the harvesting of content
from social media sources disclosed by Goeldi.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
recites the claim language and concludes “none of which is disclosed by
Goeldi or Kvernvik.” Appeal Br. 8–9.
As an initial matter, we do not find Appellant’s conclusory assertions
persuasive of Examiner error because 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) requires
more substantive arguments in an Appeal Brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
Moreover, the Examiner provides a comprehensive response to
Appellant’s assertions by reviewing Appellant’s Specification and
determining the scope of the claimed SNAP metric. See Ans. 6–7. The
Examiner also identifies particular teachings from Goeldi and Kvernvik to
support the findings and legal conclusion of obviousness. See Ans. 7–13.
Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7 and 13, which were argued
collectively with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9. In addition, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3–6, 9–12,
and 15–20, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not
argued separately. See Appeal Br. 9; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

16

b. Claims 2, 8, and 14
Appellant asserts that “nowhere within Goeldi or Kvernvik is there
any disclosure or suggestion” of performing the steps recited in claim 2.
Appeal Br. 9.
Representative claim 2 (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) depends from
claim 1 and recites performing the same steps of claim 1 on second social
media data associated with second user interactions corresponding to a
second product to generate second SNA data, second SNAP metric data, and
second competitive insight data.
We do not find Appellant’s conclusory assertion persuasive of
reversible error. Rather, claim 2 merely repeats the generation of
competitive insight data recited in claim 1 (albeit using a different set of
social media data). See Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d
1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (concluding that performing steps more than
once would have been obvious as an inference and creative step that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ) (internal quotation and
citation omitted); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 8, and
14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2019-002935
Application 14/221,371

17
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
1–20 103(a) Goeldi, Kvernvik 1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED