George Jacob Sushil et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

2020001864 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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.
13/554,049 07/20/2012 George T. Jacob Sushil IN920120129US1 8561
75739 7590 06/22/2020
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
2425 Post Road
Suite 204
Southport, CT 06890
EXAMINER
YESILDAG, MEHMET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2020 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):
CTOFFICE@RML-LAW.COM
kmm@rml-law.com
mjc@rml-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte GEORGE T. JACOB SUSHIL and
KALAPRIYA KANNAN
________________

Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, and 23, which constitute all of
the pending claims.1 Appeal Br. 7. These claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible
subject matter (an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more. Final
Action mailed April 18, 2019 (“Final Act.”), 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Brief filed Sept. 18,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”), 1.
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Disclosed is a method, system and computer program
product for deriving marketing strategy for at least one of a
product and a service utility value from an associated utility
value by collecting feedback from a user of at least one product
or service, wherein the feedback provided by the user is available
in multiple sources associated with the at least one product or
service, computing a utility value for the at least one product or
service based on the feedback of the user, and generating an
appropriate marketing strategy for the at least one product or
service based on the utility value.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1 represents the appealed claims.2 Claim 1 is
reproduced below with formatting modified and paragraph designators
added for ease of reference, and with emphasis added to the claim language
that recites one or more abstract ideas:
1. A method for deriving marketing strategy for a product or
a service from an associated utility value, the method comprising
steps of:
[(a)] collecting, via processing at least one social network
accessed via the Internet and at least one metadata source

2 Appellant argues all of the claims together as a group. See Appeal Br. 7.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
3
accessed via the Internet, feedback generated by multiple users
on the at least one social network, wherein the feedback pertains
to at least one product or service associated with an enterprise
over a period of time, and wherein the feedback is associated
with multiple features of the at least one product or service;
[(b)] computing a utility value (𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟)(t)) for the at least one
product or service as a weighted (𝜔𝜔) sum of expected attribute
utility values (𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘,𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟 )(t)) calculated for the multiple features (k) for
the period of time (t), wherein the expected attribute utility value
for each of the multiple features is based on
(i) the feedback of the multiple users (ak, bk) expressed
over the period of time[,] and
(ii) implementing a model expressing decay of value of
the at least one product or service over the period of time
as an exponential component (exp-rxpkj (x, t)dx),
wherein implementing the model expressing decay
comprises employing multiple controllers for decay-related
information, and
wherein the expected attribute utility value is calculated
using the equation:
𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘,𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟 (t) = ak + bk ∫ 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
1
𝑥𝑥=0
-rxpkj(x,t)dx, and
wherein the utility value for the at least one product or
service is calculated using the equation:
𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟(t) = ∑ 𝜔𝜔𝑘𝑘∈{1,2,…,𝑘𝑘} k 𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘,𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟 (t),
[(c)] generating a strategy for marketing the at least one
product or service based on
(i) the utility value for the at least one product or
service and
(ii) an order of importance of the multiple features of
the at least one product of service,
wherein the order of importance is determined via a
weight calculated as a function of a number of positive feedback
entries collected versus a number of negative feedback entries
collected for each of the multiple features divided by a total
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
4
number of feedback entries collected for each of the multiple
features; and
[(d)] presenting, through a display mechanism, the at least one
product or service to one or more customers in accordance with
the generated strategy;
[(e)] wherein the steps are carried out by at least one computing
device.

THE REJECTION AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that the claims recite judicial exceptions to
patent-eligible subject matter including mathematical concepts and certain
methods of organizing human activity that more specifically are based on
fundamental economic practices and commercial and legal interactions,
pursuant to step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”).
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner determines that the recited additional
elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application, pursuant to step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance. Final
Act. 4–5. The Examiner also determines that the claims do not add
significantly more to the claims, pursuant to step 2B of the 2019 Guidance,
because the additional elements entail receiving and transmitting data over a
network between computing devices, which constituted well-known, routine,
conventional, and insignificant extra-solution activities. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant presents arguments to the Examiner’s determinations in
relation to each of step 2A, prongs 1 and 2, and step 2B of the
2019 Guidance. Appeal Br. 7–17. We address these arguments in more
detail below.

Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. SECTION 101
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. 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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (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” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
6
(1981)); “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
Court held that “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 Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection 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. at 191 (citing
Benson and Flook); see also, 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.”).
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 (internal 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
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
7
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.
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, updated by USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019 Guidance
Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update,
84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the availability
of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel are, as a
matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.”
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Guidance Update
at 1.
Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites
the following:
(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); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
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:
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
8
(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, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

ANALYSIS
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites 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). 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established that claim 1
recites abstract ideas because the Examiner merely recites the entirety of
every limitation of claim 1 “and then non-specifically alleges that ‘all of
which include mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing
human activity.’” Appeal Br. 8. This argument is unpersuasive because
significant portions of claim 1 do, in fact, recite the abstract ideas noted by
the Examiner, and Appellant does not provide persuasive arguments for why
the Examiner’s determinations are incorrect. See Appeal Br. 7–9. For
completeness, though, we provide further detail below regarding the recited
abstract ideas:
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
9
Limitation (a) of claim 1 recites,
collecting, via processing at least one social network. . . ,
feedback generated by multiple users on the at least one social
network, wherein the feedback pertains to at least one product
or service associated with an enterprise over a period of time,
and wherein the feedback is associated with multiple features of
the at least one product or service.
Collecting feedback generated by users of a social network constitutes
a certain method of organizing human activity that more specifically entails
marketing or sales activities. For example, long before the advent of the
Internet, marketers took polls and provided paper questionnaires to
organizations (or “social networks,” as claimed) in order to collect feedback
about members of that organization for the purpose of improving the
targeting of marketed products and services.
The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes certain methods of
organizing human activity that entail marketing activities as constituting a
patent-ineligible abstract idea. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also
October 2019 Guidance Update at 5,
the sub-groupings [within the exception of “Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity”] encompass both activity of a
single person (for example, a person following a set of
instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity
that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction),
and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for
example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person
conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain
methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number
of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether
a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the
determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls
within one of the sub-groupings.
Accordingly, limitation (a) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
10
Limitation (b) recites,
computing a utility value (𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟)(t)) for the at least one
product or service as a weighted (ω) sum of expected attribute
utility values (𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘,𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟 )(t)) calculated for the multiple features (k) for
the period of time (t), wherein the expected attribute utility value
for each of the multiple features is based on
(i) the feedback of the multiple users (ak, bk) expressed
over the period of time[,] and
(ii) implementing a model expressing decay of value of
the at least one product or service over the period of time
as an exponential component (exp-rxpkj (x, t)dx),
wherein implementing the model expressing decay
comprises employing multiple controllers for decay-related
information, and
wherein the expected attribute utility value is calculated
using the equation:
𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘,𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟 (t) = ak + bk ∫ 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
1
x=0
-rxpkj(x,t)dx, and
wherein the utility value for the at least one product or
service is calculated using the equation:
𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟(t) = ∑ 𝜔𝜔k∈{1,2,…,𝐾𝐾} k𝑈𝑈𝑘𝑘,𝑗𝑗𝑟𝑟 (t).
Computing utility values using specified equations constitutes
performing a mathematical concept, such as determining a mathematical
relationship or performing a mathematical calculation. The 2019 Guidance
expressly recognizes mathematical relationships and calculations as
constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52. Accordingly, limitation (b) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Limitation (c) recites,
generating a strategy for marketing the at least one product
or service based on
(i) the utility value for the at least one product or
service and
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
11
(ii) an order of importance of the multiple features of
the at least one product of service,
wherein the order of importance is determined via a weight
calculated as a function of a number of positive feedback entries
collected versus a number of negative feedback entries collected
for each of the multiple features divided by a total number of
feedback entries collected for each of the multiple features.
Generating a marketing strategy based upon mathematical
calculations constitutes a mathematical concept that entails performing
mathematical calculations. Generating a marketing strategy also constitutes
a certain method or organizing human activity that entails performing
marketing activities. Generating a marketing strategy additionally
constitutes a mental process that entails evaluations or judgments that can be
performed in the human mind.
The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes all three of these categories
of activities—mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations,
certain methods or organizing human activity that entail marketing, and
performing evaluations and judgments in the human mind—as constituting
patent-ineligible abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, limitation (c) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Limitation (d) recites, “presenting . . . the at least one product or
service to one or more customers in accordance with the generated strategy.”
Presenting products or services to customers constitutes an advertising,
marketing, or sales activity. Accordingly, limitation (d) recites a patent-
ineligible abstract idea.
For these reasons, each of limitations (a) through (d) recites a judicial
exception to patent-eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the
2019 Guidance. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322,
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
12
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea
. . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether claim 1 recites additional elements that individually or in
combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies
considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of
elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as
an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a
computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at
55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant argues that claim 1 integrates the abstract ideas into a
practical application because the claim is “more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis
omitted). This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant relies on the
specificity of the mathematical calculations recited in limitation (b) to
evidence that the claims go far beyond generally linking the use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment. Id. at 10–11. That is,
Appellant improperly relies on the specificity of one of the recited
underlying abstract ideas. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d
1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than
that ineligible concept.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d
1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
13
abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept
in the non-abstract application realm.”).
We also agree with the Examiner that the additional elements of
claim 1’s limitations (a) and (d) do not add significantly more to the abstract
idea because they merely are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
In particular, the complete language of limitation (a) additionally recites that
the noted abstract idea of collecting the generated feedback is performed,
more particularly, “via processing at least one social network accessed via
the Internet and at least one metadata source accessed via the Internet.”
Even taking into account that the recited feedback collection is performed
specifically via the Internet, limitation (a), at most, merely recites
insignificant pre-solution activity:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for
use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a
claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Similarly, claim 1’s limitation (d), which more fully sets forth that the
step of presenting the product or service to customers is performed “through
a display mechanism,” does not add any meaningful limitations to the
abstract idea because it merely recites the insignificant post-solution activity
of displaying data. E.g., Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229,
1241–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that printing or downloading generated
menus constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity).
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
14
Furthermore, the additional element of limitation (e) also is
insufficient to add significantly more to claim 1. Limitation (e) recites,
“wherein the steps are carried out by at least one computing device.” The
recited “at least one computing device” merely describes a generic computer
component that amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea
on a computer. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim
limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and
“data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to
mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer);
October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer
limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to
demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”).
For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 is
directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor does Appellant
persuasively demonstrate that claim 1 is directed to a particular machine or
transformation, or that claim 1 adds any other meaningful limitations for the
purposes of the analysis under Section 101. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c), (e).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 integrates the
recited abstract ideas into a practical application within the meaning of the
2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Step 2B
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 1 adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that,
either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
15
understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Appellant argues, “the specific limitations of the claims constitute
limitations other than what [was] well-understood, routine and conventional
in the field.” Appeal Br. 12. More specifically, “Appellant asserts that a
relevant and appropriate means of attempting to identify whether the claims
include ‘specific limitations’ other than what is [‘]well-understood, routine
and conventional in the field’ includes looking specifically to the actual
claim *limitations* in comparison to an extensive collection of relevant
prior art teachings.” Id. at 13.
Appellant strongly asserts that if a set of “specific limitations”
has been deemed not anticipated, taught, or even suggested by a
field of available art, (as is the case with the instant claims) then
the same set of “specific limitations” cannot plausibly be
simultaneously argued as being “well-understood, routine and
conventional in the field.”
Id. at 14.
This argument is unpersuasive. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or
steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in
determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–
89. A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is,
nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie showing that the additional elements were well understood, routine,
and conventional, as required by PTO Office policy. Appeal Br. 15–16
(citing USPTO, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
16
HP, Inc.),3 (dated April 19, 2018). This argument is unpersuasive because
Appellant’s Specification provides sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s determination that the additional elements were well understood,
routine, and conventional.
For example, Appellant’s Specification explains that the step of
processing the generated feedback via the Internet can be performed merely
by searching or crawling on the web using keyword searches. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 5;
see also id. ¶ 21 (explaining that “the distributed data processing system 100
may also be implemented to include a number of different types of networks,
such as, for example, an intranet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area
network (WAN), or the like”).
Appellant’s Specification indicates that the “computing device” may
include any conventional processor:
Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for
software that may be loaded into memory 206. Processor
unit 204 may be a set of one or more processors or may be a
multi-processor core, depending on the particular
implementation. Further, processor unit 204 may be
implemented using one or more heterogeneous processor
systems in which a main processor is present with secondary
processors on a single chip. In another example embodiment,
processor unit 204 may be a symmetric multi-processor system
containing multiple processors of the same type.
Spec. ¶ 23.
Appellant’s Specification merely describes the display mechanism of
limitation (d) in very generic terms, as follows: “[d]isplay 214 provides a
mechanism to display information to a user.” Spec. ¶ 26.

3 Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
17
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification does not indicate that
consideration of these conventional elements as an ordered combination
adds any significance beyond the additional elements, as considered
individually. Rather, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the invention
is directed to an abstract idea that is made more efficient with generic
computer components:
BACKGROUND
. . . The utility value of a product or a service is important for
deriving various marketing strategies both to the consumers and
to the manufacturers/retailers and service providers. Deriving
the value for utility of the product or service is time consuming.
Such a process involves several parameters such as market
acceptance, consumer preference, market trends, competitive
products, the decay of the product value, changing trends in
technology, changing trends in the requirements, etc. The recent
explosive growth of social data has provided opportunities to
directly obtain consumer feedback. However, manual
processing of the social data to extract all of the above
information is time consuming without proper formulation of the
relationship between the data and the requirements that
determine the product value. Firstly, the set of criteria that
determine the product utility value has to be defined. Secondly,
for each of these criteria, the consumer expectations, satisfaction,
threats, changing trends etc., have to be derived considering
social data as the source of input data. Further, along each
criteria of the product, an index has to be drawn to determine the
relevance of specific feedback to targeted consumers.
SUMMARY
. . . Embodiments of the invention are broadly related to a
method and system for deriving strategies for manufacturers
and/or service providers by considering different dimensions of
information that impact the product or service acceptance in the
market. Some of these considered dimensions include but are
not limited to the consumer related data based on weights on
which individual consumers are evaluated, product/service
Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
18
performance and acceptance in the market, feedback obtained for
the product/service through social content, nature of the
individuals contributing to the content, etc. This can be carried
out by monitoring a product or service feedback from publically
available information, wherein the monitoring includes gathering
product or service feedback by searching or crawling on the web,
using, for example, techniques such as a keyword search based
on the product or service. From the information obtained, an
aspect of the invention also includes extracting sentiments or
expressions associated with the product or service feedback,
analyzing the sentiments or expression associated with the
product or service feedback, and based on the associated product
or service feedback, determining a utility value for a product or
service.
Spec. ¶¶ 1–2.
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the
2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject
matter without reciting significantly more. We, likewise, sustain the
section 101 rejection of claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20, 21, and 23, which
Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 7.

Appeal 2020-001864
Application 13/554,049
19
CONCLUSION
In summary:

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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 9, 10,
12, 18, 20,
21, 23
§ 101 Eligibility 1, 7, 9, 10,
12, 18, 20,
21, 23