DynamicLogic, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 13, 2020

14244491 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 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.
14/244,491 04/03/2014 Ronit Aviv 280665 9162
23460 7590 02/13/2020
LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON AVENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
BRADY, MARIE P.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2020 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONIT AVIV, PETER DIETRICH, and SHIMON SCHWARTZ
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 DynamicLogic, LLC,
appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–21, which are all
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on December 10, 2019.
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dynamic
Logic, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to a tracking on-line advertisement exposure
via mobile wireless device browsers. See Spec. (Title). In particular:
The invention generally relates to systems and methods
for gauging on-line advertisement campaign effectiveness.
More particularly, the disclosure herein relates to effectively
maintaining a record of user exposure to on-line advertisements
via mobile wireless device browsers. Such information is used
by integrated networked systems to selectively present on-line
surveys to on-line users (both previously exposed to particular
ads and “control” groups who have no previous exposure to
particular ads relating to a survey).
Spec. ¶ 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis and labeling added to dispositive prior-art limitation):
1. A method for administering on-line advertisement
campaigns on a network including a user device having a
unique identification (UID), a survey participant server and an
advertisement server, the method comprising:
[L1] creating, on the survey participant server, a
database element associated with the UID of the user device,
the database element including information corresponding to
on-line advertisements previously executed on the user device;

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Nov. 13, 2017); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 22, 2018); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 22, 2017); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed May 10, 2017); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Apr. 3, 2014) (claiming benefit of US 61/807,953 filed Apr. 3, 2013). An
oral hearing was held on December 10, 2019, and the hearing transcript
(“Tr.”) was made of record on January 6, 2020.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

3
receiving, by the survey participant server, an on-line
advertisement exposure notification from the user device, the
on-line advertisement exposure notification including the UID
and an on-line advertisement identifier corresponding to an on-
line advertisement provided by the advertisement server,
wherein the on-line advertisement is provided in an on-line
advertisement block downloaded to the user device from the
advertisement server, and wherein the advertisement block
further includes a tracking tag that, when executed by the user
device, causes the user device to issue the on-line advertisement
exposure notification to the survey participant server; and
updating, by the survey participant server, the database
element associated with the UID in accordance with
advertisement exposure on the user device associated with the
on-line advertisement identifier.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Walsh et al. (“Walsh”) US 2003/0177364 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Aviv US 2005/0132267 A1 June 16, 2005
Banga et al. (“Banga”) US 2006/0271690 A1 Nov. 30, 2006
Dierks et al. (“Dierks”) US 2011/0239243 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Rejections on Appeal
R1. Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Final
Act. 2.
R2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Aviv and Apple.
Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

4
R3. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Aviv, Apple, and Dierks. Final
Act. 24.
R4. Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Aviv, Apple, and Walsh. Final
Act. 26.
R5. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Aviv, Apple, and
Banga. Final Act. 28.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
For the reasons set forth below, we find particular arguments set forth
by Appellant with respect to obviousness Rejections R2 through R5 of
claims 1–21 are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we
reverse these rejections over the cited prior art of record.
However, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments concerning subject
matter eligibility Rejection R1 of claims 1–21 and, unless otherwise noted,
we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

5
1. § 101 Rejection R1 of Claims 1–21
Issue 1
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 4–6) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Under the USPTO’s Revised Guidance, informed by our governing
case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, is claim 1 patent-ineligible under
§ 101?
Principles of Law
A. 35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it is a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.3
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)

3 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four
statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the USPTO’s patent-
eligibility analysis under § 101. MPEP § 2106.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

6
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we
first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk . . . .”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853)));
and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v.
Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory
does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical
formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view
respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

7
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is
now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical
formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and
mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under
this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what
the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one
inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘“inventive
concept”’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

8
B. USPTO Revised Guidance
The PTO recently published revised guidance in the Federal Register
concerning the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter
“Revised Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-
07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).
Under the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings
of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes);4 and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).5
See Revised Guidance 52–53.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional”
in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

4 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”).
5 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

9
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.6
See Revised Guidance 56.
Step 2A(i) – Abstract Idea
Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and
synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain
that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject
matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity —
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Revised Guidance 52 (footnotes omitted).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-

6 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

10
eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis,
except in situations identified in the Revised Guidance.7
However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea
enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim
requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception
in Step 2A(ii).
Step 2A(ii) – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A(i), we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
The seven identified “practical application” sections of the MPEP,8
cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are:

7 In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation
that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in
of the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Revised
Guidance, Section III.C.
8 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer
to revision [R-08.2017]. Sections 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) are indicative
of integration into a practical application, while §§ 2106.05(f), (g), and (h)
relate to limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

11
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of
a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical
Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An
Exception
(6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological
Environment
See Revised Guidance 55.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited
above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-
eligibility inquiry ends. See Revised Guidance 54. If not, then analysis
proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
Under our reviewing courts’ precedent, it is possible that a claim that
does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is
nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional
elements that render the claim patent eligible even though one or more claim
elements may recite a judicial exception.9 The Federal Circuit has held
claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B)
because the additional elements recited in the claims provided “significantly
more” than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional

9 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

12
elements were unconventional in combination).10 Therefore, if a claim has
been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step
2A, we must also evaluate the additional elements individually and in
combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more
than the exception itself).11
Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an
additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance,
Section III.B.12

10 See, e.g., Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288,
1300, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR
Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
11 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
12 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner’s finding that
an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood,
routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four
specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer
Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning evaluation
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

13
In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in
writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the
specification or to a statement made by an applicant during
prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . .
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions
discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s). . . .
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official
notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the additional element(s). . . .
See Berkheimer Memo 3–4.
If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the
element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the
exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility
analysis.

of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d),
as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (USPTO
Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018, “Changes in
Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (hereinafter
“Berkheimer Memo”).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

14
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination
of elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the
claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for lack of
subject matter eligibility.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1, as a method (process) claim, recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue
before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more.
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined that claim 1 is
directed to administering online advertisement campaigns by
creating a survey based on a unique identification of a user and
a notification of user being exposed to an advertisement,
creating an element associated with a unique identification,
receiving an advertisement exposure notification, updating the
element based on the unique identifier of the user and the
exposure notification, and designating survey for presentation
based on the information in the element, which is considered an
abstract idea.
Final Act. 2.
We conclude claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either
natural phenomena or laws of nature. We evaluate, de novo, whether
claim 1 recites an abstract idea based upon the Revised Guidance.
First, we look to the Specification to provide context as to what the
claimed invention is directed to. In this case, the Specification discloses that
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

15
the invention “generally relates to systems and methods for gauging on-line
advertisement campaign effectiveness. More particularly, the disclosure
herein relates to effectively maintaining a record of user exposure to on-line
advertisements via mobile wireless device browsers. Such information is
used by integrated networked systems to selectively present on-line surveys
to on-line users (both previously exposed to particular ads and ‘control’
groups who have no previous exposure to particular ads relating to a
survey).” Spec. ¶ 2.

Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

16
Appellant’s Abstract provides the following description of the
invention:
A system and method are described for tracking on-line
advertisement exposure information for particular user devices.
Alternative approaches are proposed as alternatives to using
cookies on user devices to maintain a summary of previous on-
line advertisement exposure. A survey participant server
maintains a database including elements containing the
summary of previous on-line advertisement exposure, each
element being associated with a unique identifier value assigned
to a particular user device. Such information is subsequently
used to administer on-line surveys presented to users via the
user devices.
Spec. 19 (Abstract).
With respect to this step of the analysis, Appellant argues (Appeal
Br. 6–7) that patent eligibility should be conferred based upon the Federal
Circuit’s holding in Thales.13 In Thales, the court held the claims survived
the Alice Step 1 analysis because
the ‘159 patent claims at issue in this appeal are not directed to
an abstract idea. The claims specify a particular configuration
of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data
from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the
position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The
mathematical equations are a consequence of the arrangement
of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame
in order to calculate position and orientation. Far from claiming
the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the
application of physics to the unconventional configuration of
sensors as disclosed. As such, these claims are not directed to
an abstract idea.
Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349.

13 Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

17
We conclude the claims on appeal, directed to gauging on-line
advertisement campaign effectiveness, are not analogous to the claimed
unconventional configuration of sensors in Thales.
In TABLE 1 below, we identify in italics the specific claim
limitations in claim 1 that we conclude recite an abstract idea. We
additionally identify in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations
that are generic computer components and techniques, and underline
limitations representing extra or post-solution activity:
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 1 Revised Guidance
A method for administering on-line
advertisement campaigns on a
network including a user device
having a unique identification (UID),
a survey participant server and an
advertisement server, the method
comprising:
A process (method) is a statutory
subject matter class. See 35
U.S.C. § 101.
[L1] creating, on the survey
participant server, a database
element associated with the UID of
the user device,
the database element including
information corresponding to on-line
advertisements previously executed on
the user device;
Creating an element including
information is an abstract idea,
i.e., an “observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion” which, aside
from the computer-related
aspects, could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised
Guidance 52.
[L2] receiving, by the survey
participant server, an on-line
advertisement exposure notification
from the user device,
the on-line advertisement exposure
notification including the UID and an
Data gathering is merely
insignificant extra-solution
activity that do not add
significantly more to the abstract
idea to render the claimed
invention patent-eligible. See In
re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

18
Independent Claim 1 Revised Guidance
on-line advertisement identifier
corresponding to an on-line
advertisement provided by the
advertisement server,
wherein the on-line advertisement is
provided in an on-line advertisement
block downloaded to the user device
from the advertisement server, and
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d
on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593
(2010) (“[T]he involvement of
the machine or transformation in
the claimed process must not
merely be insignificant extra-
solution activity”); see also
MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (computer receives and
sends information over a
network).
[L3] wherein the advertisement block
further includes a tracking tag that,
when executed by the user device,
causes the user device to issue the
on-line advertisement exposure
notification to the survey
participant server; and
A “tracking tag” is merely data
in the form of an identification
or instructions to be executed,
which we find to be well-
understood, routine, and
conventional computer activity,
as described in the Specification
(“the tracking tag 22 includes a
unique identifier (UID) for the
user device 8” (Spec. ¶ 22); “the
tracking tag 22 is a JavaScript
instruction containing a
reference (e.g., a URL) to a file
containing the instructions to be
executed by the browser.
Alternatively, the tracking tag
22 includes the instructions to be
executed by the browser on the
user device 10 (thereby avoiding
a further call to a server
maintaining the file containing
the executable instructions).”
Spec. ¶ 23.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

19
Independent Claim 1 Revised Guidance
[L4] updating, by the survey
participant server, the database
element associated with the UID in
accordance with advertisement
exposure on the user device
associated with the on-line
advertisement identifier.
Updating information, i.e.,
updating an information element
is an abstract idea, i.e., an
“observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion” which could
be performed as a mental
process. See Revised Guidance
52.
Claims App. 13.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,14 we conclude
limitations L1 through L4 recite steps that would ordinarily occur when
gauging on-line advertisement campaign effectiveness. See Final Act. 2–4;
Ans. 4–7. For example, creating an element that includes information
corresponding to on-line advertisements previously executed on the user
device is an operation that would generally occur at least as an initial step in
evaluating the effectiveness of an advertisement campaign. Further,
updating information (e.g., “updating . . . the database element”) based upon
subsequent exposure to the advertisement is similarly abstract, whether
initiated person-to-person, on paper, or using a computer.

14 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

20
We determine that claim 1, overall, recites a mental process that may
also be performed by pen and paper. This type of activity, i.e., gauging on-
line advertisement campaign effectiveness, as recited in limitations L1
through L4, for example, and aside from any computer-related aspects,
includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of
computers and the Internet, and could be carried out by a human 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.”).15
Thus, under Step 2A(i), we agree with the Examiner that claim 1’s
“method for administering on-line advertisement campaigns on a network
including a user device having a unique identification (UID), a survey
participant server and an advertisement server” recites a judicial exception.
We conclude claim 1, under our Revised Guidance, recites a judicial
exception of gauging on-line advertisement campaign effectiveness, i.e., a
mental process, and thus is an abstract idea.

15 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does
not, “impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241. Further, “[t]he Board’s
slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability
analysis.” Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract ideas does not
render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math)
to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see
also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

21
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, as we conclude
above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in which we
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
With respect to this phase of the analysis, and responsive to the
issuance of Revised Guidance after filing the Appeal Brief, Appellant
argues:
Appellants’ currently appealed claims address a problem
succinctly summarized in the background of the application.
See Appellants’ Application, paragraphs [0004-6]. Appellants’
claims initially recite “administering on-line advertisement
campaigns” in the preamble. However, each currently appealed
independent claim recites a particular/improved networked
infrastructure for acquiring and preserving recorded on-line
advertisement exposure information for a set of networked user
devices. Appellants’ currently appealed claims recite
combinations of structural/functional elements of physical
networked computer systems that define a particular way of
preserving on-line advertisement exposure information for
identified users. Such particularization, of the mechanism
for rendering the notification information rendered by user
devices in association with processing of downloaded on-line
advertisement Mocks containing tracking tags~ provides a
specific solution to a technological problem of preserving
on-line advertisement exposure for particular user
devices—i.e. overcoming a tendency of user devices to either
block or delete cookies from the user devices which prevents
accurately identifying ‘exposed’ and ‘control’ group
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

22
participants of an on-line survey relating to a particular on-
line advertisement. The claimed invention defines a particular
way to persist such information (by generating the exposure
data at the user devices when on-line ad exposure occurs,
generating an ad exposure message (identifying the ad and the
exposed user by unique identifications), and storing the
properly identified exposure data on a remote server’s exposure
database that is not subject to user devices’ cookie/history
clearing actions).
Thus, Appellants’ claimed invention, when viewed as a
whole (as opposed to individual elements in isolation) recites a
particular technology-based solution, including specific
recitation of computing and network/communication hardware,
to a technological problem relating to a lack of persistence of
online exposure information on individual users’ devices due to
browser cache cleaning and cookie blocking technologies.
Reply Br. 4–5.
We have reviewed the cited portions of the Specification cited by
Appellant, and note paragraph 6, in particular.
[0006] Identifying devices that previously received and
displayed particular on-line advertisements is facilitated, for
example, by modifying a file on a user device (e.g., a cookie)
when a particular on-line advertisement is played, the modified
file includes one or more elements identifying information
relating to previously executed/displayed online
advertisements. Use of cookies is less desirable in certain
environments where either cookie data is frequently deleted to
maintain adequate memory space on a device where
downloadable advertisements are potentially executed/
displayed.
Spec. ¶ 6.
We do not find, nor does Appellant identify, that this statement of the
relative undesirability of using cookie data in certain environments provides
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

23
an adequate nexus to any particular claim limitation or to the claim as a
whole that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As to the specific limitations, we find limitations L1 (“creating”) and
L4 (“updating”), as quoted in TABLE 1 above, recite abstract ideas, whereas
limitation L2, i.e., “receiving . . . an on-line advertisement exposure
notification,” recites insignificant data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Data gathering, as performed by the steps or function in Appellant’s claims,
is a classic example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re
Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
We also find limitation L3 (“tracking tag”) and recitations of a
“network,” “user device,” “survey participant server,” “advertisement
server” throughout claim 1 recite conventional components. On this record,
we are of the view that Appellant’s claims do not operate the recited generic
computer components in an unconventional manner to achieve an
improvement in computer functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
We find each of the limitations of claim 1 recite either abstract ideas,
extra-solution activity, or conventional components as identified in Step
2A(i), supra, and none of the limitations integrate the judicial exception of
gauging on-line advertisement campaign effectiveness into a practical
application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited
above. The claim as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a
tool to perform the abstract idea.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

24
Under analogous circumstances, the Federal Circuit held “[t]his is a
quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent: it acknowledges that [such] data
. . . was previously collected, analyzed, manipulated, and displayed
manually,[16] and it simply proposes doing so with a computer. We have
held such claims are directed to abstract ideas.” Univ. of Fla. Research
Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see
also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond
requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a
particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting
them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an
advance over conventional computer and network technology.”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole merely uses instructions to implement
the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a
tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, on this record, Appellant has not
shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP
section 2106.05(a) (“Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to
Any Other Technology or Technical Field”) or section 2106.05(e)(“Other
Meaningful Limitations”). Nor does Appellant advance any arguments in
the Brief(s) that are directed to the Bilski machine-or-transformation test,
which would only be applicable to the method (process) claims on appeal.
See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b) (Particular Machine) and 2106.05(c) (Particular
Transformation). Appellant’s representative argued during the Oral Hearing
that “the claims are directed to [a] particular problem . . . . of the frequent

16 See Spec. ¶¶ 4–8 (discussing prior art methods of gauging on-line
advertisement campaign effectiveness).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

25
purging of cache data and the loss of such data . . . . And what this claimed
invention provides is an assurance that important information that was
previously handled by the browser is accessible at a later time, and not
subject to purging on a user computer.” Tr. 8, ll. 21–26. However, we are
unable to identify, nor did Appellant’s representative clearly identify any
specific claim limitation or limitations, or that the claim as a whole
specifically addresses this purported improvement, such that an inference
could be made of the integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application under prong 2 of the analysis.
Accordingly, we conclude the abstract idea is not integrated into a
practical application, and thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, and not integrated
into a practical application, as we conclude above, we proceed to the
“inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we must “look with more specificity
at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify
an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to
which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258.
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
we must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply
describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into
patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any “additional
features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby
rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

26
abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Those “additional features” must be
more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 566
U.S. at 79.
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as
“significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words “apply it” (or an
equivalent) with an abstract idea17; mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer18; or requiring no more than a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry.19
Evaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we conclude it lacks an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea of
gauging on-line advertisement campaign effectiveness into a patent-eligible
application of that abstract idea.
The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325. In particular, “[t]he question of whether a
claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.”
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.

17 Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–23.
18 Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23, e.g., simply implementing a mathematical
principle on a physical machine, namely a computer.
19 Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (explaining using a computer to obtain data, adjust
account balances, and issue automated instructions involves computer
functions that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

27
As evidence of the conventional nature of the recited “network,” “user
device,” “survey participant server,”, “advertisement server,” and “database
element” in method claim 1; and similarly for medium claim 8 and system
claim 15,20 the Specification discloses:
[0027] The described functionality of the survey participant
server 15 is implemented, in executable software modules and
hardware, in potentially many different ways in accordance
with alternative embodiments. The survey participant server 15,
while illustrated as a single entity in FIG. 1, can in fact be
implemented as multiple distinct servers at distinct network
addresses. There is no intention to limit the manner in which
the functionality of the survey participant server 15 is carried
out in server software and hardware. In another illustrative
embodiment, the functionality of the survey participant server
15 is embodied in multiple distinct server applications that
reside at a same network address.
[0028] A survey presentation server 16 is configured to carry
out a variety of functions relating to administering completion
of surveys by users, such as user 8 of user device 10. The
survey presentation server 16 is configured to administer
conducting actual surveys, reporting completions of such
surveys, and maintaining survey results. The survey
presentation server 16, while illustrated as a single entity in
FIG. 1, can in fact be implemented as multiple distinct servers
at distinct network addresses. There is no intention to limit the
manner in which the functionality of the survey presentation
server 16 is carried out in server software and hardware. In
another illustrative embodiment, the functionality of the survey
presentation server 16 is embodied in multiple distinct server
applications that reside at a same network address.
[0029] Historically, the user device 10 is typically a computer
(e.g., desktop, laptop, netbook) connecting to the Internet via a
wired or local wireless connection. However, more recently, the

20 Computer system claim 15 further recites “”one or more programmed
processors” and “computer-readable medium.”
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

28
user device 10 is often a mobile wireless device (e.g., smart
phone, tablet computer) connecting to the Internet via a mobile
wireless data network. Substantial differences between the
operating systems and networking protocols used by mobile
wireless devices on the one hand, and computers (e.g., desktop,
laptop, netbook) on the other hand, lead to a need to develop
multiple schemes for carrying out on-line advertisement
campaigns, recording on-line advertisement exposure by users,
and administering on-line surveys relating to the on-line
advertisement campaigns. One particular example is the
presence of browser application extensions typically found on
computers that facilitate executing JavaScript associated with
Web pages downloaded from the Web server 12 via a network
11 (e.g., the Internet). Such JavaScript extensions are often not
supported/present on mobile wireless devices. As such, a multi-
pronged multi-scheme approach to on-line advertisement
administration is described herein.
Spec. ¶¶ 27–29.
Thus, because the Specification describes the additional elements in
general terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim
limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional
computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellant’s
Specification, as quoted above.21
The MPEP, based upon our precedential guidance, provides additional
considerations with respect to analysis of the well-understood, routine, and
conventional nature of the recited computer-related components.
Another consideration when determining whether a claim
recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether

21 Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as
understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

29
the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the
words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on
a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to
transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application,
the additional element or combination of elements must do
“‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding
the words ‘apply it’”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. __,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014)
(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example,
claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply
the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an
abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110
USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at
1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on “the
draftsman’s art”) . . . .
In Alice Corp., the claim recited the concept of
intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.
The Court found that the recitation of the computer in the claim
amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a
generic computer. 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The Supreme Court also discussed this concept in an earlier
case, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673,
676 (1972), where the claim recited a process for converting
binary-coded decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary
numbers. The Court found that the claimed process had no
substantial practical application except in connection with a
computer. Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72, 175 USPQ at 676. The
claim simply stated a judicial exception (e.g., law of nature or
abstract idea) while effectively adding words that “apply it” in a
computer. Id.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) (“Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception”).
With respect to the Step 2B analysis, we conclude, similar to Alice, the
recitation of a “method for administering on-line advertisement campaigns
on a network including a user device having a unique identification (UID), a
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

30
survey participant server and an advertisement server” is simply not enough
to transform the patent-ineligible abstract idea here into a patent-eligible
invention under Step 2B. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (“[C]laims, which
merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform [an]
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).22
We conclude the claims fail the Step 2B analysis because claim 1, in
essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along with no
more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea using
the computer-based elements.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Revised
Guidance, that each of Appellant’s claims, considered as a whole, is directed
to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical
application and does not include an inventive concept. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of representative independent claim
1, and grouped claims 2–21 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping,
supra.
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19
Issue 2
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 6–9) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Aviv and Apple is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:

22 Independent system claim 15 additionally recites “one or more
programmed processors” and “a computer-readable medium” which we also
find are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

31
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] method for administering on-line advertisement campaigns
on a network including a user device having a unique identification (UID), a
survey participant server and an advertisement server,” that includes, inter
alia, the dispositive limitation of [L1] “creating, on the survey participant
server, a database element associated with the UID of the user device,” as
recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Limitation L1 – “creating . . . a database element”
The Examiner finds Aviv paragraph 23 teaches or suggests limitation
L1, i.e., “[w]hen the ad server passes the IP address of the computer to the
survey logic server, it is creating a database element on the survey
participant server.” Final Act. 5. Aviv discloses:
The ad server 14 then contacts the survey logic server 16 to
request that the survey logic server 16 determine whether to
consider soliciting the user 8 to take an on-line survey (arrow
D). In making the request, the ad server 14 passes the IP
address of the computer 10 to the survey logic server 16. The
survey logic server 16 contacts the computer 10 to request that
the computer 10 send cookie data, if there is any, regarding
previous on-line survey solicitations (arrow E).
Aviv ¶ 23.
Appellant argues, “[a]t no point does Aviv describe the survey logic
server 16 creating/maintaining a database element that stores ‘information
corresponding to on-line advertisements previously executed on the user
device’ (per the creating and updating operations recited in each of
Appellants’ independent claims).” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

32
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and agree that there is no
teaching or suggestion of a “database element” that is either created
(limitation L1) or updated (limitation L4) in the Aviv reference. We are
further persuaded by Appellant’s representative’s arguments during the oral
hearing:
MR. JOY: . . . . Now, I want to flip and switch over to the
obviousness aspect of this appeal. And, in that regard, I really
have just a couple of real important points to make.
One, first of all, the Aviv 267 publication — and I'm very
familiar with that because I prosecuted that application and
patent — there is absolutely nothing in there whatsoever that
suggests that the user exposure data to be stored on anything
other than the user computer.
In fact, that's what that invention was all about. That
disclosure was 100 % about that. In fact, Paragraph 23, that's
referenced by the Final Office Action and the Answer, actually
which relates to the survey solicitations, not the ad exposure.
But even in that instance, if you read Paragraph 23, you'll
see that the survey server itself doesn't even have information
about past solicitations. It actually has to go and access the user
computer to even find out whether that survey solicitation had
previously occurred . . . . Aviv is equivocal.
JUDGE HUME: So, which particular limitation are you
saying, the creating limitation?
MR. JOY: Oh, absolutely, yes. Creating on the survey
participant server a database element associated with the User
ID of the user device. The database element including the
information corresponding to online advertisements previously
executed on the user device.
Okay, so that's my first point, is that I just want to make
sure that everybody understands that the 267 Patent doesn't
even have the most minute suggestion that you should put
information that was generated by the user computer on a
server.
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

33
It’s just that is not the way it works, and that is actually
the antithesis of the current invention.
Tr. 9:12–10:14. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.23
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior
art combination to teach or suggest the dispositive limitation of claim 1, such
that we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest
the dispositive limitations of independent claims 8 and 15, which are
essentially identical in scope to claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness Rejection
R2 of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19
which variously depend therefrom.
3. § 103 Rejections R3–R5: Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20,
and 21
In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1, 8,
and 15, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejections R3 through R5 under
§ 103 of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 21, which variously
and ultimately depend from claims 1, 8, and 15 and which contain the
dispositive limitation in commensurate form. On this record, the Examiner
has not shown how the additionally cited secondary Dierks, Walsh, and

23 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a
single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

34
Banga references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies with the
combination of Aviv and Apple, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 4–10) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position
in the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Under our Revised Guidance, governed by relevant case law,
claims 1–21 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we sustain the
rejection.
(2) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R2
through R5 of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

Appeal 2018-003785
Application 14/244,491

35
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References
Affirmed Reversed
1–21 101 Subject
Matter
Eligibility
1–21
1, 4, 5, 8, 11,
12, 15, 18, 19
103 Obviousness
Aviv, Apple
1, 4, 5, 8, 11,
12, 15, 18, 19
2, 9, 16 103 Obviousness
Aviv, Apple,
Dierks
2, 9, 16
3, 10, 17 103 Obviousness
Aviv, Apple,
Walsh
3, 10, 17
6, 7, 13, 14, 20,
21
103 Obviousness
Aviv, Apple,
Banga
6, 7, 13, 14,
20, 21
Overall
Outcome
1–21
FINALITY AND 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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED