Ex Parte Hall et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

14673666 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/673,666 03/30/2015 Ashley Woodman Hall
45839 7590 05/02/2019
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner/ Linkedln/Microsoft
POBOX2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3080. C56US 1 5230
EXAMINER
OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHLEY WOODMAN HALL and
ANTONZADOROZHNYY
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4--6 and 14--16 were cancelled previously.
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Linkedin Corporation.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to presenting goal-related insights to a
member of an on-line social network. See generally Abstract. The
"Background" section of Appellants' Specification discloses that the on-line
social network is a platform that connects people in virtual space. Spec. ,r 2.
Each registered member of the on-line social network may be represented by
a member's profile web page. Id. The member's profile web page may
emphasize employment history and education of each registered member.
Id.
Appellants' invention determines a goal for the member, identifies
another profile that includes a feature indicative of an achievement of the
goal by the other profile, and presents a link to the other profile together
with a "so-called compare visual control," which "in one example
embodiment, is selectable to cause display of one or more features of the
further profile." Id. ,r 17.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
in an on-line social network system, detecting a search
request from a subject member represented by a subject profile
in the on-line social network system;
from the search request, determining an identification of a
desired job position;
determining that an identification of a current job position
in the subject profile is distinct from the identification of the
desired job position;
in response to the search request, selecting, from profiles
maintained in the on-line social network, a further profile
representing a further member in the on-line social network
system, the further profile indicating a current position of the
further member associated with the identification of the desired
2
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
job position and a previous job position of the further member
associated with the identification of the current job position; and
causing presentation on a display device information about
the further member and a compare visual control, the compare
visual control selectable to activate a link to a web page
representing the further profile.
REJECTI0N2
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4.
ANALYSIS
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
To resolve the question of patentability under § 101, we begin by
construing claim 1, which recites, in pertinent part, "compare visual
control." During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing claims
broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant. .. because the
applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage." Id.
The Specification discloses presenting a link to a further profile
together with a "so-called compare visual control." Spec. ,r 17. "The
compare visual control, in one example embodiment, is selectable to cause
display of one or more features of the further profile." Id. ,r 17 (emphasis
2 Claims 1-3 and 7-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter according to "a two-prong test," see
Final Act. 4--8, but the Examiner withdrew this rejection, Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
added). The Specification further discloses that activating or selecting the
compare visual control may cause presentation of a further profile web page.
Id. ,r,r 17, 21, 24--25. Figure 4 illustrates "a profile compare visual control,
in accordance with an example embodiment." Id. ,r 7 (emphasis added); see
id. ,r 24. Our emphases underscore that these forms of the term "compare
visual control" are merely exemplary. Thus, although this description
informs our construction of the term "compare visual control," it does not
limit our interpretation.
We, therefore, construe the term "compare visual control" in
accordance with its plain meaning in light of the Specification's examples.
The term "control" is defined as "[i]n a graphical user interface, an object on
the screen that can be manipulated by the user to perform an action. The
most common controls are buttons, which allow the user to select options."
MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 127 (n. def. 2) (5th ed. 2002). We
construe the adjective "visual" to indicate that the control is part of a
graphical user interface and the adjective "compare" to be a label for the
control because the selection of the control allows the user to view another
profile and, implicitly, compare that profile to their own. Thus, we construe
"compare visual control" as a user interface object, such as, for example, a
user interface button. See Spec. ,r 24 ( disclosing a compare visual control as
being a part of a user interface screen 400 and stating "[ a ]n example
compare visual control is represented by reference numeral 41 O"), Fig. 4
(illustrating button 410 contained inside a user interface screen 400).
4
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "' [L Jaws 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 Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014)
(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. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum 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 (quotation marks 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
5
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
monopolize the [ abstract idea]."' Id. (brackets 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.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that
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 activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes) ("Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 "); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018))
("Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2).
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, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
("Guidance Step 2B"). See 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
6
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
GUIDANCE STEP 1
Under the Guidance, we must first determine whether the claims fall
within the four statutory categories of patent subject matter identified by
3 5 U.S. C. § 101. Independent claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore,
falls within the "process" category of§ 101. We next apply our Guidance to
the Alice/ Mayo framework.
ALICE/MAYO STEP ONE
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
Next, we must determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial
exception, such as an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 218. To this end,
the Guidance requires us to determine whether the claim ( 1) recites a judicial
exception and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
See 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. If both elements are satisfied, the claim is
directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test,
which the Guidance refer to as Step 2A. See id.
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim's specific limitations that recite an abstract idea and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. See id. at 52-54.
Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind,
including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See id. at 52;
see Intellectual Ventures I LLCv. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); see also Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 67 (indicating
7
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
"mental processes ... are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of
scientific and technological work."). A claim is directed to the mental
process category if the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance that can be practically performed in the mind, but for the
recitation of generic computer components. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, n.14.
Claim 1 recites a method that comprises the following steps:
(A) "detecting a search request from a subject member represented by a
subject profile," (B) "from the search request, determining an identification
of a desired job position," (C) "determining that an identification of a current
job position in the subject profile is distinct from the identification of the
desired job position," and (D)
in response to the search request, selecting, from profiles ... , a
further profile representing a further member ... , the further
profile indicating a current position of the further member
associated with the identification of the desired job position and
a previous job position of the further member associated with the
identification of the current job position.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App'x) ("steps (A}-(D)").
Here, apart from the recited (1) computer implementation; (2) "on-line
social network system"; and (3) "causing presentation on a display device
information about the further member and a compare visual control, the
compare visual control selectable to activate a link to a web page
representing the further profile" recited in claim 1, claim 1 is directed to
determining or identifying, in response to a search request, a person's
desired job position and particular members of that person's network who
have past and current jobs similar to the person's current and desired jobs,
8
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
respectively, which fits squarely within at least one of the above categories
of the agency's guidelines.
First, "detecting a search request from a subject member represented
by a subject profile," as recited in step (A), could be performed mentally
merely by observing a subject member's search request. Cf Mortg. Grader,
Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(noting a limitation reciting receiving personal information of a borrower in
obtaining a loan can be performed by a human); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1372 (noting a limitation reciting obtaining credit card information relating
to a consumer's transactions can be performed by a human). Step (A) also
organizes human activity at least to the extent that an employer or
"headhunter" could detect such a search request from a subject member by
merely reading the subject member's subject profile or, alternatively, by
face-to-face communication with an applicant. Cf In re Villena, 7 45 F.
App'x 374, 375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished), petition for cert.filed,
711 F. App'x 1012 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2019) (No. 18-1223) (noting a limitation
reciting receiving user-provided information is part of a fundamental
economic practice). Therefore, step (A) falls squarely within the mental
processes and methods of organizing human activity categories of the
agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Second, "from the search request, determining an identification of a
desired job position," as recited in step (B), could be performed mentally
merely by observing, evaluating, or judging a desired job position from the
subject member's search request. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting
9
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
that a limitation reciting obtaining other transactions from a consumer's
credit card transaction can be performed by a human). Step (B) also
organizes human activity at least to the extent that the employer or
"headhunter" could determine the subject member's desired job position by
merely reading the subject member's search request (e.g., in an online site
for job postings) or, alternatively, by face-to-face communication. Cf
Villena, 745 F. App'x at 375-76 (noting a limitation reciting producing
"automated valuation method" values using received user-provided
information is part of a fundamental economic practice). Therefore, step (B)
falls squarely within the mental processes and methods of organizing human
activity categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an
abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Third, "determining that an identification of a current job position in
the subject profile is distinct from the identification of the desired job
position" as step (C) recites could be performed mentally merely by
evaluating or judging that the observed subject profile's current job position
is distinct from the desired job position previously identified. Step (C) also
organizes human activity at least to the extent that the employer or
"headhunter" could determine the job applicant's desired job position is
different than the job applicant's current job position by comparing the
desired job to the user's current job on a resume or profile or by face-to-face
communication. Therefore, step (C) falls squarely within the mental
processes and methods of organizing human activity categories of the
agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
10
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
Fourth,
in response to the search request, selecting, from profiles ... , a
further profile representing a further member ... , the further
profile indicating a current position of the further member
associated with the identification of the desired job position and
a previous job position of the further member associated with the
identification of the current job position,
as recited in step (D), could be performed mentally merely by evaluating or
judging that a profile representing another member indicates (1) the other
member's current position is associated with the subject profile's desired job
position and (2) the other member's previous job position is associated with
the subject profile's current job position. Step (D) also organizes human
activity at least to the extent that the employer or "headhunter" could select
comparable employees' profiles (1) having current job positions that match
the job applicant's desired job position and (2) having a previous job
position that match the job applicant's current job position. Cf SkillSurvey,
Inc. v. Checkster LLC, 178 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D. Pa. 2016), aff'd 683 Fed.
App'x. 930 (Mem) (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting a limitation reciting analyzing
responses from references and making hiring recommendations on the basis
of the references' answers is a well-known method of organizing human
activity). Therefore, step (D) falls squarely within the mental processes and
methods of organizing human activity categories of the agency's guidelines
and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these mental
processes and methods of organizing human activity, we must determine
whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely
11
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner
that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See 84
Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To do this, we evaluate the "additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application, using one or more of the
considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit." Id. at
55.
Here, the recited (1) computer implementation; (2) "on-line social
network system"; and (3) "causing presentation on a display device
information about the further member and a compare visual control, the
compare visual control selectable to activate a link to a web page
representing the further profile" are the only recited elements beyond the
abstract idea. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application when reading claim 1 as a whole.
First, we are not persuaded that "an automated process to determine a
goal that a member of an on-line social network system is trying to achieve
and, based on that determined goal, present the member with an option to
examine profiles of other members who have achieved the same goal," as
recited in claim 1, addresses and resolves a technical problem. Appeal Br.
9; Reply Br. 3. We note the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that
"'implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion' will 'automatically
fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of§ 101. "' Alice, 573 U.S. at 222
(quoting Flook, 437 U.S. at 593) (alterations in original). "[T]he mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
12
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id. at 223. "[I]f a patent's recitation of
a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implemen[t ]' an abstract idea
'on ... a computer,' that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Id.
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84) (alterations in original) (citation omitted).
Second, we are not persuaded claim 1 improves computer
functionality. Claim 1 recites presenting a member's profile representing a
member who currently holds a job desired by a searching user and who
previously held a job currently held by the searching user, which Appellants
argue improves computer functionality by presenting information
automatically determined to be of benefit to the searching user in response to
a search request indicating the desired job position. Reply Br. 4. According
to Appellants, the improvements address problems that arise within
computer networks and specifically, to processing search requests performed
on the Internet. Id. at 5. Appellants contend leveraging information
available from profiles maintained in an on-line social network have only
been possible with the advent of the Internet. Reply Br. 5.
We disagree this is a case involving eligible subject matter as was the
case in DDR. There, the court determined that the claims addressed the
problem of retaining website visitors who, if adhering to the routine,
conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be
transported instantly away from a host's website after clicking on an
advertisement and activating a hyperlink. DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court further
determined that the claims "specify how interactions with the Internet are
manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and
13
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
hyperlink." Id. at 1258. Thus, the court held that the claims eligible because
they claim a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
Id. at 1257. Here, the claimed invention does not address a problem
retaining website visitors or an Internet hyperlink protocol and, thus, is not
necessarily rooted in computer technology in the sense contemplated by
DDR where the claimed invention solved a challenge specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks.
Third, we are not persuaded "causing presentation on a display device
[ of (1 )] information about the further member and [(2)] a compare visual
control ... selectable to activate a link to a web page representing the further
profile," as claimed, transforms the claim's abstract idea into a patent-
eligible concept. Appeal Br. 9--10. According to Appellants, claim 1
"requires a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a
prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's
structure that addresses and resolves a specifically identified problem in the
prior state of the art." Appeal Br. 10. Although the Federal Circuit has
found certain claims including graphical user interfaces may recite eligible
subject matter, the high-level and generic recitation of a graphical user
element in Appellants' claims does not render the claimed subject matter
eligible.
In Trading Technologies, the court held that claims reciting a method
and system for displaying market information on a graphical user interface
did not solely claim displaying information on the graphical user interface,
14
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
but rather required "a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with
a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's
structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in
the prior state of the art." Trading Techs. Int'! v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x
1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished). Notably, the court held the
prescribed functionality, which directly related to the graphical user
interface's structure, reduced the time it takes traders to place a trade on an
electronic exchange. Id. at 1003.
Appellants' user interface offers no such equivalent functionality.
Although Appellants' claimed invention displays ( 1) information about
another member and (2) a button (the claimed "compare visual control")
selectable to activate a link to a web page representing a profile of the other
member, Appellants' claims merely recite displaying graphical user interface
element s. Contra id. at 1004 ( explaining that the eligible claims did not
"simply claim displaying information on a graphical user interface").
Appellants analogize the claimed user interface with the interface
claimed in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880
F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants,
the claims are directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices-
a user interface that provides a user searching for a particular job with
(1) information about a member who transitioned to that job from a job
currently held by the searching user and (2) a compare visual control
selectable to activate a link to a web page of a profile representing that
member. Id. We disagree.
15
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
The facts of Core Wireless are distinguishable from the facts and
arguments in the cited record on appeal. The claim in Core Wireless was
directed to "an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly
those with small screens" where the improvement was in "the efficiency of
using the electronic device by bringing together 'a limited list of common
functions and commonly accessed stored data,' which can be accessed
directly from the main menu." Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The
Specification supported these improvements over "the prior art interfaces
[that] had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer,
requiring a user 'to scroll around and switch views many times to find the
right data/functionality." Id. The Court found that the disclosure in the
Specification regarding the speed of a user's navigation through various
views and windows was improved and that this disclosure "clearly indicates
that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of
computers, particularly those with small screens." Id.
That is not the case here. Appellants do not identify any disclosure in
the Specification demonstrating that claim 1 is directed to an improvement
to the display of an electronic device. The claims here are not directed to an
improved user interface and are not analogous to the claims in Core
Wireless, but instead "[use] conventional user interface methods to display a
generic index on a computer." Id. at 1363; cf Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240-43 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting a user interface that
generates and displays selectable user interface elements from other
selectable user interface elements does not transform an otherwise abstract
idea into eligible subject matter); Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
16
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting use of a generic computer
element like a user interface is not patent-eligible subject matter);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342
(2017) (noting a user interface that provides little more than an unspecified
set of rules for displaying and organizing elements does not recite eligible
subject matter).
Thus, despite Appellants' contention to the contrary ( Appeal
Br. 9--11; Reply Br. 3-5), a user interface presenting (1) information about
the other member and (2) a button (the claimed "compare visual control")
selectable to activate a link to a web page representing a profile of the other
member merely recites using generic computing components to achieve that
end and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24.
In addition, the recited "causing presentation on a display device
information about the further member and a compare visual control, the
compare visual control selectable to activate a link to a web page
representing the further profile" is insignificant post-solution activity that
merely outputs the result of identifying one or more other members. See
Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (insignificant post-solution activity held insufficient
to impart patentability); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371 (discussing
Flook). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application.
17
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
ALICE/MAYO STEP Two
Guidance Step 2B
Because the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application, we determine whether additional elements of the claim,
individually or in combination, provide an inventive concept. See id. at 56.
To this end, we determine whether the additional elements (1) add a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that is not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive
concept may be present; or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and
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. Id.
The Examiner concludes under step two in the Mayol Alice framework
that the additional elements of claim 1 (i.e., those elements other than the
abstract idea) amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer
components performing functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known in the pertinent industry. Final
Act. 6-7. According to the Examiner, viewed as a whole, these additional
elements do not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 7.
We agree. The claims recite the additional elements at a high level of
generality and the disclosure describes the elements in generalities. See,
e.g., Spec. ,r,r 36-42. Appellants do not persuasively argue that these
elements operate in an unconventional manner. Thus, "the claims at issue
amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to apply the
18
Appeal2018-004393
Application 14/673,666
abstract idea ... using some unspecified, generic computer." Alice, 573
U.S. at 225-26 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Appellants present shorter versions of substantially the same
arguments for claims 11 and 20. Appeal Br. 12-13. Thus, for the same
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 11 and 20. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 3, 7-10, 12, 13, and 17-19, not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 7-13, and
17-20.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
19