Jason S. Hibbets et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2019

11756288 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2019)

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.
11/756,288 05/31/2007 Jason S. HIBBETS 05220-1221 (L1172) 1589
14400 7590 08/22/2019
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Red Hat
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
YESILDAG, MEHMET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2019 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JASON S. HIBBETS and DARRYL L. PIERCE
____________________

Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,2881
Technology Center 3600
____________________
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, and 15, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 5, 6, 8,
13, 14, and 16–18 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.2

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Red Hat, Inc. See
App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed November 10, 2017
(“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed February 14, 2018 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed December 15, 2017 (“Ans.”); Advisory Action
mailed August 23, 2017 (“Adv. Act.”); and Final Office Action mailed
June 15, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
According to Appellants, the claimed invention is directed to a system
in which “users can be matched up with independent software vendors,
hardware vendors, and/or consultants, i.e., collectively referred to herein as
service providers.” Spec. ¶ 8. For example, “small businesses [that] cannot
typically afford a full-time IT staff” can receive recommendations for IT
service providers. See id. ¶¶ 4–5. To recommend service providers, the
system first gathers ratings and reviews of service providers. In particular, a
first user “can provide a rating (based on a graded scale, e.g., one to five
stars) and a review” of the service provider; then a second user “can provide
a secondary review of [that] existing rating and review, i.e., ‘was this rating
and review helpful or useful?’” Id. ¶ 8. Subsequently, in response to a
request for recommended service providers, the requestor is provided a list
of recommended service providers. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Those recommended service
provider “results [are] ordered by highest ranking as well as locality,” i.e.,
“geographic closeness to a user.” Id. ¶ 9

Claims on Appeal
Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below,
with labels, e.g., (a), (b), (c), etc., added for discussion purposes:
1. A method comprising:
(a) dynamically generating, by a processor, a first user
interface to facilitate a first user review of a first service provider;
(b) presenting the dynamically generated first user
interface to the first user;
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

3
(c) receiving the first user review of the first service
provider;
(d) dynamically generating a second user interface to
facilitate a second user evaluation of the first user review,
wherein the dynamically generated second user interface is
dynamically generated in response to receiving an indication
from a user device of the second user to review the previously
reviewed first service provider;
(e) presenting the dynamically generated second user
interface to the user device of the second user;
(f) receiving from the user device of the second user, via
the dynamically generated second user interface, a second user
evaluation of the first user review;
(g) calculating, by the processor, a ranking of the first
service provider using a formula that weights (1) a first rating of
the first service provider that is in view of the first user review,
and (2) a second rating of the first service provider that is in view
of the second user evaluation of the first user review;
(h) storing in a database, by the processor, the first user
review, the second user evaluation of the first user review, an
item representing the first service provider, and an association
between the first user review, the second user evaluation, and the
item;
(i) storing by the processor, in metadata associated with
the first service provider, the ranking of the first service provider
and a pointer to at least one of the first user review in the
database, the second user evaluation in the database, or the item
in the database representing the first service provider;
(j) receiving an input selection from a user device of a third
user for a request for delivery terms for a hardware item;
(k) identifying, by the processor, a set of servers;
(l) determining, by the processor, a subset of the set of
servers that are capable of servicing the request for delivery
terms;
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

4
(m) selecting, by the processor, a server from the subset of
servers;
(n) forwarding the request to the selected server;
(o) retrieving, by the processor, the ranking of the first
service provider from at least one of the metadata or the database;
(p) retrieving, by the processor, a first address of the third
user and a second address of the first service provider;
(q) converting, by the processor, the first address to a first
pair of coordinates;
(r) converting, by the processor, the second address to a
second pair of coordinates;
(s) calculating, by the processor, a first distance between
the first pair of coordinates and the second pair of coordinates;
(t) retrieving, by the processor, a third address of a second
service provider;
(u) converting, by the processor, the third address to a third
pair of coordinates;
(v) calculating, by the processor, a second distance
between the first pair of coordinates and the third pair of
coordinates; and
(w) presenting to the user device of the third user, via a
dynamically generated third user interface, a response to the
request comprising delivery terms for the hardware item,
wherein the presenting is in view of the ranking of the first
service provider, a ranking of the second service provider, the
first distance, and the second distance.
Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–8.

Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

5
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
the following implicit exceptions: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth an analytical “framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to
“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
ineligible concepts.” Id. at 217. 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.” Id. at 221.

USPTO January 7, 2019 Revised Section 101 Memorandum
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 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); and
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

6
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
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) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the independent claims as a group, specifically
addressing the limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 6–22. We select
independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments for
independent claims 1 and 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Final
Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–5. The Examiner also determines the “recite[d] hardware
or software elements . . . are not enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’”
than the abstract idea. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 5–6.
Appellants present several arguments against the § 101 rejection. The
Examiner has provided a full response to Appellants’ arguments. See
Ans. 3–6. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive, as discussed in
greater detail below. We analyze the claims under the 2019 Guidance and
adopt the nomenclature for the steps used in the 2019 Guidance.
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

7

STEP 1
Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent
claim 1 recites a method. As such, the claim is directed to a statutory class
of invention within 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a process.

STEP 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Guidance, we must determine
whether claim 1, being directed to a statutory class of invention, nonetheless
falls within a judicial exception.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 recites steps
in a process for “managing reviews and ranking service providers based on
reviews and responding to information request[s] based on the ranking and
distances between service providers and the user,” which recites a
combination of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human
activity, falling under multiple categories of abstract ideas. Final Act. 2–3.
In particular, the Examiner determines that the recited processes of
facilitating a first user review of a first service provider,
facilitating a second user evaluation of the first user review,
calculating a ranking of the service provider using a formula that
weights a first rating of the service provider that is in view of the
review by the first user, and a second rating of the service
provider that is in view of the evaluation by the second user of
the review by the first user, identifying a set of servers,
determining a subset of the set of servers that are capable of
servicing the request for delivery terms, selecting a server from
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

8
the subset of servers, converting addresses to coordinates and
calculating distance between service providers and the user using
coordinates information
are processes that “can be performed by a human mentally, [or]
with pen and paper.” Id. Somewhat overlapping that subject matter, the
Examiner also determines that the claim recites a certain method of
organizing human activity because the claim recites “a fundamental
commercial practice [of] collect[ing] feedback from consumers/users about
products/services,” which is a marketing technique, e.g., “for the purpose to
adjust the seller/service provider’s strategy to fit the needs of the market.”
Id. at 3.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s “characterization [of the claim] is
oversimplified and over-broad.” App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue the
claim is not “directed to a fundamental commercial practice,” “a method of
organizing human activities,” or “an idea of itself” because the claim
“generally recite[s]”
dynamically generating user interfaces to request a first user
review and a second user evaluation of the first user review,
receiving a first user review, a second user evaluation of the first
user review, generating a ranking based on the review and the
evaluation, identifying a server and forwarding a request for
delivery terms of a hardware item to the server, converting
addresses to coordinates, and calculating distances between
service providers and the user using the coordinates, and
presenting the delivery terms in view of the ranking and the
distances.
Id. at 11. Appellants also argue “the dynamic generation of user interfaces
in response to an action, and forwarding requests to a server, cannot be
performed by a human mentally and are rooted in computer technology to
solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. at 13.
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

9
We are not persuaded. We disagree with Appellants that the
Examiner errs by oversimplifying claim 1. Id. at 8. The level of abstraction
at which the Examiner describes the invention does not change the accuracy
of the Examiner’s determination. Apple v. Ameranth Inc., 842 F.3d 1229,
1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at
different levels of abstraction.”).
Moreover, we disagree with Appellants that the claim does not recite a
fundamental commercial practice or a mental process because the claim is
directed to “dynamically generating user interfaces,” or is otherwise “rooted
in computer technology.” App. Br. 8, 12–13. The Examiner’s
determination that, rather than being directed to computing features, the
claim recites steps for “managing reviews and ranking service providers
based on reviews and responding to information request based on the
ranking and distances between service providers and the user” (Final Act. 2)
is supported by the Specification. The Specification describes the problem
solved by the claimed invention as follows: “small businesses need the
services that an IT department of a Fortune 500 company can provide”
(Spec. ¶ 4), but, when searching for IT services, “the small business has to
take the time to search for the consultants and/or services company and to
verify their credentials” and, further, “the small business may not initially
know where to look for the appropriate help” (Spec. ¶ 5). The Specification,
therefore, describes the need for a solution to the problem of finding a
reputable service provider. The solution, as described by the Specification,
is to recommend “consultants ranked with the highest rated consultants in
the initial part of the search results” and “order[ed] . . . not only by ranking
but also by geographic closeness to a user.” Id. at ¶¶ 8–9.
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

10
The claim recites the implementation of a solution in a number of
mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities. For
this portion of our analysis, we put aside the computing components and
functions recited in the claim, which we consider as additional elements,
e.g., “a processor,” “dynamically generated” user interfaces that are
presented to users and receiving information using those interfaces,
“storing” data, and “receiving an input selection,” at a later step. Limitations
(a) “facilitat[ing] a first user review of a first service provide,” (c) “receiving
the first user review of the first service provider,” (d) “facilitat[ing] a second
user evaluation of the first user review,” and (f) “receiving . . . a second user
evaluation of the first user review,” recite steps for soliciting and collecting
user reviews. As the Examiner suggests (see Final Act. 3), gathering user
reviews for a service provider and confirming previous reviews for the
service provider (Spec ¶ 8 (“a secondary review of an existing rating and
review”) are “commercial practice[s]” used in marketing and sales and,
therefore, can be categorized as a certain method of organizing human
activity, namely, marketing and sales activities.
Further, limitation (g) recites
calculating . . . a ranking of the first service provider using a
formula that weights (1) a first rating of the first service provider
that is in view of the first user review, and (2) a second rating of
the first service provider that is in view of the second user
evaluation of the first user review,
which, as the Examiner determines (Final Act. 2–3), is a calculation that can
be performed in the human mind, or on pen and paper, and, thus, can be
categorized as a mental process. Notably, limitation (g) broadly recites the
considerations for calculating a service provider ranking, but does not
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

11
confine the calculation to any particular manner beyond the broad recitation
of a “formula.”
Still further, limitations (j) and (o)–(w) recite steps for a response to a
request for service providers that considers both the rankings calculated in
the previous limitations and the distance the service providers are from the
requesting user. As the Examiner determines, those recited steps are
evaluations and judgments that can be performed in the human mind, or on
pen and paper, and, thus, can be categorized as a mental process. Final
Act. 2–3. In particular, after a request is made in limitation (j), limitation (o)
gathers the ranked service providers and limitations (p) and (t) gather the
addresses of the requesting user and the resulting service providers. Those
limitations broadly recite “retrieving” that information and do not limit the
manner in which that information can be retrieved. As such, the claimed
gathering of information that is used in making evaluations and judgments
recites processes that a human can practically perform mentally, or with pen
and paper. See 2019 Guidance at 52, n. 14. Further, limitations (q), (r), and
(u) broadly recite “converting” those gathered addresses into coordinates.
Those limitations do not limit the manner in which addresses are converted,
and, as such, a human can mentally, or with pen and paper, convert those
addresses to coordinates such as a simple grid on a map. Still further, claim
limitations (s) and (v) broadly recite “calculating” the distances between the
user and service providers using those coordinates. Once again, those
recitations do not limit how the claimed processes, i.e., calculations, are
accomplished, and, therefore, broadly recite processes that can practically be
performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. Finally, limitation
(w) broadly recites “presenting” service providers “in view” of the service
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

12
providers’ rankings and distance to the user, e.g., ordering the service
providers that will be recommended to the user. Spec. ¶¶ 8–9. And, once
again, that recitation does not limit the manner in which the service
providers’ rankings and distances to the user are used to determine how to
order service providers to recommend to the user. As such, a human can
mentally, or with pen and paper, evaluate and judge the service providers’
rankings and distances to determine an order of recommended service
providers.
Accordingly, the claim limitations recite steps performed to solicit and
gather user reviews of service providers in order to rank the service
providers, thus encompassing a certain method of organizing human activity,
namely marketing and sales activities. The claim limitations further recite
steps that consider the service providers’ rankings and distances from the
user in order to evaluate and judge how the service providers will be
presented to the users, e.g., in what order, and, therefore, encompass mental
processes. As such, we conclude claim 1 recites a combination of certain
methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, as identified in
the 2019 Guidance. As our reviewing Court has held, combining several
abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. See, e.g.,
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Adding one abstract idea . . . 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) (patent-ineligible claims were
directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Claim 1, therefore, recites a
judicial exception.

Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

13
STEP 2A Prong 2
Next, we determine whether claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept
itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation
or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a
practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 (1981).
The Examiner determines that the
claimed invention may at most provide an improvement to a
business model of reviewing and ranking service providers and
providing service provider information based on raking and
distance information; however, this improvement does not
constitute an improvement to a computer technology and does
not solve a problem rooted in computer technology.
Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants argue the “claim[] provide[s] an improvement in
computer-related technology and provide[s] a particular solution to a
problem” (App. Br. 13–18, emphasis omitted), i.e., a “solution . . .
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” (Reply Br. 6–7). In
particular, Appellants argue the “claim[] [is] directed to specific
improvements in the field of professional social networks.” App. Br. 14.
Further, Appellants argue the “claim[] solve[s] a particular problem (e.g.,
finding reputable service providers near a user.” Id. at 18. Still further,
Appellants argue “the claimed solution may provide a network based service
portal that presents improved search results that matches the requesting user
with service providers based on the service provider’s rank and geographical
closeness to the requesting user.” Reply Br. 7. Additionally, Appellants
argue the “claimed solution may reduce network bandwidth consumed
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

14
and/or processing resources consumed at the user device/server by reducing
the number of searches performed by a requesting user.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the claim integrates the
abstract ideas into a practical application by improving a computer
technology or providing a technical solution to a technical problem. First,
improvements to “the field of professional social networks” (id. at 14) are
not improvements to computer-related technology. A professional social
network is an organization of human connections, and improvements to a
professional social network improve the organization of human connections,
not computing technology.
Further, finding a reputable service provider (id. at 18) is not a
problem rooted in computer-related technology. It is instead a business
problem, as described by the Specification. Spec. ¶ 5 (disclosing that a
“small business has to take the time to search for the consultants and/or
services company and to verify their credentials” and that “the small
business may not initially know where to look for the appropriate help”). In
addition, Appellants’ argument that “the claimed solution may provide a
network based service portal” (Reply Br. 7) is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim, which recites no such portal. Furthermore, the use of
computing components here is so broadly recited that the claim limitations
effectively “simply stat[e] the [abstract ideas] while adding the words ‘apply
it,’” disfavoring patent-eligibility. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72). For example, the final limitation, reciting “presenting . . . a
response,” i.e., recommended service providers, “in view of the ranking of
the first service provider, a ranking of the second service provider, the first
distance, and the second distance,” merely lists what information is
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

15
considered in that response without limiting how that information is actually
considered.
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that the claim improves the
functioning of a computer because the “claimed solution may reduce
network bandwidth consumed and/or processing resources consumed at the
user device/server by reducing the number of searches performed by a
requesting user” (Reply Br. 7) is also not persuasive. The Specification does
not disclose that the process uses less bandwidth and fewer resources;
therefore, this allegation is mere attorney argument, which “cannot take the
place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Moreover, even assuming less bandwidth and fewer resources are used, the
reason for this is, ostensibly, that there is a “reduc[tion] [to] the number of
searches performed by a requesting user” (Reply Br. 7), not because the
functioning of the computer has been improved. That is, less bandwidth and
fewer resources are used because the user uses the computer less, not
because the functioning of the computer is improved. As such, in view of
Appellants’ Specification, and consistent with the Examiner’s
determinations, claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in
technological implementation.
As described in the 2019 Guidance, we also consider whether the
additional claim elements add insignificant extra-solution activity to the
judicial exception in determining whether the claim integrates the exception
into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance at 55. Here, the additional
remaining limitations recite insignificant extra-solution activity, disfavoring
a determination that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a
practical application. For example, limitations (a), (b), (d), (e), and (w),
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

16
reciting “dynamically generating, by a processor,” user interfaces or
“presenting the dynamically generated . . . user interface,” recite
insignificant extra-solution activity. As the Examiner finds (see Final Act.
5–6), the recitation of the generation and presentation of user interfaces that
are used to collect user reviews are insignificant pre-solution activity to the
proposed solution for recommending service providers based on those
reviews. Similarly on the other end, the recitation of the generation and
presentation of the recommended service providers is insignificant post-
solution activity. Although Appellants particularly highlight the “dynamic
generation of user interfaces” (see App. Br. 9, 11, 13), the claim does not
describe a specific, let alone significant or unconventional, technique to
dynamically generate user interfaces. Rather, the claim merely recites
generating and presenting the user interface without any recitation of how
these steps are performed. Moreover, the Specification discloses the use of
freely available pre-existing JavaScript toolkits and libraries, e.g., Dojo
toolkits, to dynamically generate user interfaces, showing that such user
interface generation is insignificant extra-solution activity in the context of
the Application. Spec. ¶¶ 21–22.
Limitations (h) and (i) recite “storing, by the processor,” the gathered
user reviews and storing the service provider rankings using metadata and
pointers. Storing data, however, is not the focus of the claimed invention, as
discussed above. Rather, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 5–6), and as the
Specification describes, the storage of data is insignificant extra-solution
activity that is provided using conventional databases (Spec. ¶ 25
(“databases 230 can be implemented using any type of database systems
provided by vendors such as MySQL, Oracle, Sybase, International Business
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

17
Machines, etc.”)). Further, limitations (k)–(n), reciting the selection of a
server that can satisfy the request, are not the focus of the claimed invention
and are instead insignificant extra-solution activity. Supporting the
Examiner’s finding that the recited selection of a server to satisfy a request is
insignificant extra-solution activity (Final Act. 5–6), the five-sentence
paragraph describing the selection of a server provides no detail beyond
forwarding requests to the appropriate server (Spec. ¶ 24). Accordingly, the
remaining limitations merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity that
does not confer patent eligibility. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611–
12 (2010) (well-known random analysis techniques to establish the inputs of
an equation were token extra-solution activity); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the use of a
well-known XML tag to form an index was deemed token extra-solution
activity).
Additionally, none of the remaining indicia of integration listed by the
2019 Guidance is present in claim 1. For example, the claim does not recite
a particular machine and instead, generically recites “a processor.” Nor does
the claim recite the “[t]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a
different state or thing.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604 (emphasis added), quoted
in MPEP § 2106.05(c). Claim 1’s method does not transform a physical
object or substance. In this way, the claim is unlike the transformations
found in some eligible claims. See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184 (a process
that transforms rubber).
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the identified abstract ideas.

Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

18
STEP 2B
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72–73).
The Examiner determines that the “recite[d] hardware or software
elements, such as processor, memory, user interface, or website . . . are not
enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’” because those “limitations recite
generic computing devices/components/resources and/or well-known
capabilities of computing devices.” Final Act. 5. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellants contend the claim amounts to significantly more than the
judicial exception. App. Br. 19–22; Reply Br. 5–6. Specifically, Appellants
argue that the “ordered combination of claim elements provides
unconventional operations . . . that confine the alleged abstract idea to a
particular useful application of matching users with service providers based
on rankings and distances from the users to the service providers.” App.
Br. 19, 21–22; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellants further argue “the present claim[]
incorporate[s] a series of ‘specific, limited mathematical rules.’” App.
Br. 20–21 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. 837
F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
We are not persuaded. Appellants assert that
dynamically generating a first user interface to request a first user
review of a service provider and dynamically generating a
second user interface, in response to receiving an indication from
a user device of the second user to review the previously
reviewed first service provider, receiving the first user review
and the second user evaluation of the first user review, generating
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

19
a ranking based on the review and the evaluation, identifying a
server and forwarding a request for delivery terms of a hardware
item to the server, converting addresses to coordinates, and
calculating distances between service providers and the user
using the coordinates, and presenting the delivery terms in view
of the ranking and the distances
are “unconventional operations.” App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 5–6. However, as
discussed above, most of those limitations are part of the recited abstract
ideas and, as such, are not “additional limitations” that serve to transform the
abstract ideas into a patent-eligible concept. ChargePoint, Inc. v.
SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[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.”) (citing BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Further, contrary to Appellants’ assertion
that the claim recites “specific, limited mathematical rules” (App. Br. 20–21
(citations omitted)), claim 1 recites information considered in making
determinations rather than how that information is utilized.
Considering the claimed functions of those generic computing
components, both separately and as an ordered combination, we agree with
the Examiner that those computer functions are generic, routine, and
conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses in an ordinary manner. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The focus of the asserted
claims . . . is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis.”); see also In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

20
‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming.”). Indeed, the
Specification describes using generic computing elements to perform the
abstract ideas. For example, the Specification describes that the claimed
“databases 230 can be implemented using any type of database systems.”
Spec. ¶ 25. Moreover, the Specification describes that the alleged invention
“may be performed as a computer program” that is stored and executed in a
generic way, i.e., “embodied on a computer readable medium, which include
storage devices and signals, in compressed or uncompressed form” such as
“conventional computer system RAM (random access memory), ROM
(read-only memory), EPROM (erasable, programmable ROM), EEPROM
(electrically erasable, programmable ROM), and magnetic or optical disks or
tapes.” Id. ¶ 92.
We thus conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in claim 1 do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1
does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Because claim 1 is
representative of the independent claims, we conclude that independent
claim 9 also does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Further,
Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade
us that any of the limitations in dependent claims 2–4, 7, 10–12, and 15
provide a meaningful limitation that transforms the claims into a patent-
eligible application. See App. Br. 6–22. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 1–4, 7, 9–12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Appeal 2018-003436
Application 11/756,288

21
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 7, 9–12,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED