Jens Kjelsbak et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2020

2020000107 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 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.
13/585,306 08/14/2012 Jens Kjelsbak 2043.995US3 9196
49845 7590 09/10/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SNIDER, SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JENS KJELSBAK, JESPER HART-HANSEN and JOHN
MCELLIGOTT
____________________

Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a system and method to create, distribute, and
redeem offers on a mobile platform. An indication to purchase an offer for a
product or service provided by a second user may be received from a mobile
device corresponding to a first user. A voucher for the product or service

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is eBay Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

2
may be transmitted to the mobile device in response to the indication. An
indication of redemption of the voucher may be provided to a computing
device corresponding to the second user upon determining that an
identification code received from the mobile device matches the shop
identification code. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a network database storing one or more shop identification codes;
one or more processors and executable instructions accessible on a
computer-readable medium that, when executed, cause the one or more
processors to perform operations
comprising:
receiving, at a server over a network from a client machine,
information describing terms of an offer for a product or service;
causing presentation of a creation user interface on the client machine
of a user, the creation user interface comprising a map area and a non-map
area, the non-map area including a first geographic zone identifier for
identifying a minimum radius and a second geographic zone identifier for
identifying a maximum radius;
receiving, via the first geographic zone identifier of the creation user
interface, the minimum radius, the mininmrn radius defining a boundary line
of an exclusion zone;
receiving, via the second geographic zone identifier of the creation
user interface, the maximum radius, the maximum radius defining a
boundary line of an inclusion zone;
generating the exclusion zone and the inclusion zone based on the
minimum radius and the maximum radius such that a specified geographical
zone is between the minimum radius and the maximum radius;
causing display of the boundary line of the exclusion zone, boundary
line of the inclusion zone, and the specified geographic zone in the map area
of the creation user interface;
generating the offer, based at least in part on the information
describing the terms; and distributing the offer to a plurality of mobile
devices located within the specified
geographical zone for the offer.
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Linlor US2005/0199709 A1 Sep. 15, 2005
Ramer US 2009/0234711 A1 Sep. 17, 2009
Jain US 2012/0066066 A1 Mar. 15, 2012
Rent Linx New “Modify Location” Feature on
RentLinx-Powered Searches,
http://news.rentlinx.com/2009/01/
Jan. 15, 2009

Claims 1-5 and 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3.
Claims 1-4 and 7-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jain, Linlor, and RentLinx. Final Act. 5.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jain, Linlor, RentLinx, and Ramer. Final Act. 13.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Mar. 18, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Jul. 17, 2019) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea?
2. Is the recited abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
3. Do the claims recite additional claim elements that are not well-
understood, routine, and conventional?
4. Does the combination of Jain, Linlor, and RentLinx suggest a user
interface for identifying a minimum radius and a maximum radius of a
geographical zone for an offer?
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

4
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]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., 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 Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). 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, 69 (1972)).
Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

5
v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour
(Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785
(1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view
respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”).
Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking
patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the
protection 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. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at
187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.”).
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 (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. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

6
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to
transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”).3 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
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 activity 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)).
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
are not “well-understood, routine, 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.

3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

7
See Memorandum.

Under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the
disclosure of the application relied upon must reasonably convey to one of
ordinary skill in the art that, as of the filing date of the application, the
inventor had possession of the later-claimed subject matter. Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “One shows that one is 'in
possession' of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed
limitations, not that which makes it obvious.” Lockwood v. American
Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis in original).
Although “the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure
is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the
art, all the limitations must appear in the specification.” Id. The
Specification need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the
same terms as used in the claims, but it must contain an equivalent
description of the claimed subject matter. Id.

ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative of the group. Independent claims 11 and 20 recite limitations
analogous to those in claim 1.
Representative claim 1 recites the following limitations. Aspects of
the claimed abstract idea are indicated in italics. Additional non-abstract
limitations are noted in bold:
1. A system comprising:
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

8
a network database storing one or more shop
identification codes;
one or more processors and executable instructions
accessible on a computer-readable medium that, when
executed, cause the one or more processors to perform
operations comprising:
(a) receiving, at a server over a network from a client
machine, information describing terms of an offer for a
product or service;
(b) causing presentation of a creation user interface on
the client machine of a user, the creation user interface
comprising a map area and a non-map area, the non-map area
including a first geographic zone identifier for identifying a
minimum radius and a second geographic zone identifier for
identifying a maximum radius;
(c) receiving, via the first geographic zone identifier of
the creation user interface, the minimum radius, the minimum
radius defining a boundary line of an exclusion zone;
(d) receiving, via the second geographic zone identifier
of the creation user interface, the maximum radius, the
maximum radius defining a boundary line of an inclusion zone;
(e) generating the exclusion zone and the inclusion zone
based on the minimum radius and the maximum radius such
that a specified geographical zone is between the minimum
radius and the maximum radius;
(f) causing display of the boundary line of the exclusion
zone, boundary line of the inclusion zone, and the specified
geographic zone in the map area of the creation user interface;
(g) generating the offer, based at least in part on the
information describing the terms; and
(h) distributing the offer to a plurality of mobile devices
located within the specified geographical zone for the offer.

These limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
constitute steps to distribute an offer for a product or service. A user
interacts with a computer user interface, in which the user may define a
maximum radius and a minimum radius from a given point. The specified
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

9
offer for a product or service is distributed to mobile devices further away
than the minimum radius (“the exclusion zone”) but no further away than the
maximum radius (“the inclusion zone”).
We determine that limitation (a), receiving information describing
terms of an offer; limitation (c), receiving (from a user) the minimum radius;
and limitation (d), receiving (from a user) the maximum radius, constitute
data gathering steps. We determine that limitation (f), causing display of the
exclusion zone and the inclusion zone (which are defined by the maximum
radius and minimum radius) in the map area of the user interface, constitutes
extra-solution activity.
The Memorandum recognizes that certain groupings of subject matter
have been found by the courts to constitute judicially excepted abstract
ideas: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and (c) mental processes. Memorandum, 84 FR at 52. We determine
that the claim steps beyond those directed to extra-solution activity (i.e., data
gathering or data storage) – limitation (b), causing presentation of a creation
user interface; limitation (e), generating the exclusion zone and the inclusion
zone; limitation (g), generating the offer based at least in part on the
information describing the terms; and limitation (h), distributing the offer to
mobile devices located within the specified geographical zone -- constitute
certain methods of organizing human activity, to wit, advertising.
Specifically, in the invention under appeal, the limitations constitute
determining which potential customers are to receive an advertisement
conveying an offer to purchase particular goods or services.4

4 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to
mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

10
We regard the claimed concept of distributing advertisements to be a
method of organizing human activity found by the courts to constitute
patent–ineligible subject matter. Advertising in published materials has
been taking place for centuries, and for nearly as long, advertisers have been
attempting to target their materials to the audience most likely to purchase
their offerings. We determine that the claimed generation of an offer to
purchase a good or service, the determination by a user of the boundaries
within which to disseminate that offer, and the distribution of that offer to
mobile devices within certain boundaries, is analogous to commercial or
legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors, that the courts have found to be patent–ineligible. See, e.g.,
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014) (holding
that claim ‘‘describe[ing] only the abstract idea of showing an advertisement
before delivering free content’’ is patent ineligible); In re Ferguson, 558
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding methods ‘‘directed to organizing
business or legal relationships in the structuring of a sales force (or

abstract idea); id. (describing the concept of risk hedging identified as an
abstract idea in Bilski as “a method of organizing human activity’’); Bilski,
561 U.S. at 611–612 (concluding that hedging is a “fundamental economic
practice” and therefore an abstract idea); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280
(concluding that “managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by
performing calculations and manipulating the results’’ is an abstract idea);
Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378–
79 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that concept of “local processing of payments
for remotely purchased goods” is a “fundamental economic practice, which
Alice made clear is, without more, outside the patent system.’’); OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(concluding that claimed concept of “offer-based price optimization” is an
abstract idea “similar to other ‘fundamental economic concepts’ found to be
abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and this court”).
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

11
marketing company)’’ to be ineligible); Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d 1044 at
1054 (‘‘The Board determined that the claims are directed to the abstract
idea of ‘processing an application for financing a purchase.’ . . . We
agree.’’).
Appellant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the claims are not directed to organizing
human activity, but recite “the use of a server, network, client machine, user
interfaces, and network database,” and make only passing mention of an
“offer.” Appeal Br. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant seeks to solve the business problem of reaching customers within
particular geographic boundaries, rather than proposing an improvement to
the underlying technology. The application of an abstract idea to generic
computer components does not transform this abstract idea into patent
eligibility.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a method of
organizing human activity (specifically, advertising), which is one of the
categories of abstract ideas recognized in the Memorandum. 84 Fed. Reg. at
52. We conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea.

INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea of the fundamental economic practice of processing a financial
transaction between a user and a payment recipient, and of charging the
appropriate user for the transaction, into a practical application. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. We consider whether there are any
additional elements beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

12
combination, “integrate the [abstract ideas] into a practical application, using
one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Id. at 54–55.
The Revised Guidance Memorandum provides exemplary
considerations that are indicative that an additional element may have
integrated the exception (i.e., the abstract idea recited in the claim) into a
practical application:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See Memorandum, 84 FR at 55; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).

As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a “processor,” “computer-readable medium,” “network,” “network
database,” “server,” and “mobile device.”
Appellant discloses that the methods of the invention “may be
performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware . . . such as at
least one processor.” Spec. ¶ 99. Appellant’s example computer system 700
“may include a processor 702 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) a
graphics processing unit (GPU) or both).” Spec. ¶ 104. No further
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

13
description of “processor” appears in the Specification. We determine, then,
that Appellants’ disclosure of a “processor” is that of a generic component.
Appellant does not disclose a computer-readable medium but does
disclose a machine-readable medium, “such as a storage device, where the
methods 500 and 600 are adapted to be executed by one or more
processors.” Spec. ¶ 102. Appellant discloses that the term “shall
accordingly be taken to include, but not be limited to, solid-state memories,
optical media, and magnetic media.” Spec. ¶ 106. We do not find disclosure
in Appellant’s specification of a computer-readable medium that is not a
generic component.
Appellant discloses that computer system 700 “may be connected
(e.g., networked) to other machines,” but does not otherwise specify any
details of said network. Spec. ¶ 103. We determine that Appellant discloses
a network as a generic element.
Appellant does not use the phrase “network database” in the
Specification. Database server(s) 126 are disclosed, which facilitate access
to one or more database(s) 128. Spec. ¶ 22. We determine that “network
database” constitutes a generic element.
Appellant discloses a machine in the example form of a computer
system 700, which may constitute (“the API server 118, the web server 120,
the application server 122, or the database server 126” or “the third party
server 114”). This machine “may be a server computer” among other
options, all of them “any machine capable of executing a set of instructions
(sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine.”
Spec. ¶ 103. The claimed “server” that “receives information describing
terms of an offer” is therefore disclosed as a generic computer system.
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

14
Appellant discloses a “mobile device” only as “e.g., a smart phone.”
Spec. ¶ 13. We determine that Appellant’s Specification does not disclose a
non-generic mobile device.
Appellant argues that the claims recite significantly more than an
abstract idea. Appeal Br. 15-16. According to Appellant, the claims recite an
improvement to a technical field because they recite a specific GUI that
quickly and accurately allows a user to generate a specific geographic region
where information may be distributed, thus improving the technical field of
information distribution or communication systems. Appeal Br. 16.
We do not agree that Appellant discloses an improvement to the
technical field of information distribution. Rather, Appellant’s invention
seeks to solve the business problem of how to get an advertisement
presented to an optimum number of potential customers. Appeal Br. 18. We
agree with the Examiner’s determination that “the user interface elements
present in the claims are routine and conventional.” Ans. 3. We further agree
that adapting the abstract idea of determining what customers are to receive
an advertisement, and applying it on a generic computer using standard user
interface techniques does not constitute reciting significantly more than the
abstract idea such that the claimed invention is rendered patent-eligible. See
Id.
Reviewing the Memorandum’s considerations, we do not find
additional elements in the claims that improve the functioning of a
computer, improve another technology, apply the abstract idea with a
particular machine, or transform a particular article to a different state or
thing. By contrast, we determine that Applicant’s invention merely applies
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

15
the abstract idea of distributing advertisements to potential customers
through the use of generic computer components.
We conclude that the claimed invention does not integrate the
identified judicial exception into a practical application.

INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Last, we consider whether the claims express an inventive concept,
i.e., whether any additional claim elements “‘transform the nature of the
claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether the
additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in
the field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50, 56.
“The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided evidence that
these claim elements represent well-understood, routine, and conventional
activity to a person having ordinary skill in the art:
(a) receiving, via the first geographic zone identifier of the
creation user interface, the minimum radius, the minimum
radius defining a boundary line of an exclusion zone;
(b) generating the exclusion zone and the inclusion zone based
on the minimum radius and the maximum radius such that a
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

16
specified geographical zone is between the minimum radius and
the maximum radius; and
(c) causing display of the boundary line of the exclusion zone,
boundary line of the inclusion zone, and the specified
geographic zone in the map area of the creation user interface.

Appeal Br. 17-18.
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner failed to find that these user
interface components are well-understood, routine, and conventional is not
persuasive. The Examiner found that “[t]he additional elements of user
interface components such as two areas, one containing the map and the
other containing input components to specify the two radii are standard user
interface techniques such as found in the ‘Slider (computing)’ article on
Wikipedia and Windowing as found in the ‘Window (computing)’ article.”
Final Act. 4.
Regarding the use of the recited generic computer components
identified – i.e., “processor,” “computer-readable medium,” “network,”
“network database,” “server,” and “mobile device” – the Supreme Court has
held that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573
U.S. at 223. Our reviewing court provides additional guidance: See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or
user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter.”); OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter
alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a
computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and
presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite “‘well-
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

17
understood, routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by requiring
conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps” (alteration
in original)). We determine supra from Appellants’ bare disclosure of these
elements that the claimed “processor,” “computer-readable medium,”
“network,” “network database,” “server,” and “mobile device” should be
considered generic computer components. As such, they cannot transform
the recited patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
We determine that none of the claim elements, additional to those
limitations we determined to constitute a mental process, recite a limitation
or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity in the field of advertising or marketing.

SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY - CONCLUSION
We conclude that the claims recite a system and method of generating
an offer, determining the area bounded by two radii within which to
distribute the offer, and distributing that offer to mobile devices within a
certain area. We determined the claimed invention to constitute a method of
organizing human activity (i.e., advertising), one of the categories of
invention found by the courts to constitute an abstract idea.
We further conclude that the claims do not integrate the identified
abstract idea into a practical application.
We further conclude that the claimed invention does not recite
additional claim elements that transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-20.
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

18
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Claims 1-4 and 7-21
Appellant argues that the Examiner finds that Jain does not teach a
minimum radius that defines an exclusion zone, and that the Examiner relied
on RentLinx to teach this limitation. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant contends that
RentLinx teaches a system that allows a renter to search for properties
within a radius of a location, and does not teach or suggest a minimum
radius; Appellant further contends that it would be counterintuitive to
include a minimum radius in RentLinx’s invention (for example, because a
prospective renter would likely want to live as close to their job as possible).
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant contend that the Examiner “explicitly states that
the above recited limitations are rejected by reciting exclusively to
RentLinx.” Appeal Br. 21.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner found,
prior to stating that Jain did not teach the exact limitation complained of by
Appellant, that Jain teaches generating the offer, based at least in part on the
information describing the terms, and distributing the offer to a plurality of
mobile devices located within the specified geographical zone for the offer.
Ans. 6. The Examiner cites Jain as teaching that “one or more publishers 106
can submit requests for ads to the advertising management system 104. The
system responds by sending ads to the requesting publisher 106 for
placement . . . . In some implementations, the requests can instead be
executed by devices associated with the users.” Ans. 6-7; Jain ¶ 34. Further,
[i]f the user is within a target region and not an exclusion
region of the target region, a target ad associated with that
region is served to the user (step 406). If the user is within an
exclusion region of a target region, a determination is made as
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

19
to whether an alternative ad is associated with the exclusion
region (step 408) . . . . If no alternative ad is associated, the
target ad is withheld (step 412).

Ans. 7; Jain ¶ 68. At the conclusion of the rejection, the Examiner stated that
it would have been obvious to “modify the advertisement delivery system
with inclusion/exclusion zones of Jain with the means of inputting radius
information utilizing a map and slider combination as taught by Rentlinx.”
Final Act. 7.
We determine, then, that the Examiner did not “exclusively” rely on
RentLinx for a teaching of determining both a minimum radius and a
maximum radius. The Examiner identified teaching in Jain of identifying
two radii (minimum and maximum) and distributing offers to mobile devices
in the appropriate geographical region, and proposed combination with
RentLinx’s teachings of a user interface for selecting a radius. Ans. 7-8.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4
and 7-21 over Jain, Linlor, and RentLinx. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection.
Claim 5
Appellant does not separately argue the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claim 5, remarking only that Ramer fails to remedy the deficiencies of Jain,
Linlor, and RentLinx. Appeal Br. 22. As analyzed supra, we are not
persuaded that such deficiencies exist.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 over Jain,
Linlor, RentLinx, and Ramer, for the reasons given supra with respect to
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

20

CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
2. The recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application.
3. The claims do not recite additional claim elements that are not well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
4. The combination of Jain, Linlor, and RentLinx suggests a user
interface for identifying a minimum radius and a maximum radius of a
geographical zone for an offer.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1-5, 7-21 101 Subject Matter
Eligibility
1-5, 7-21
1-4, 7-20 103 Jain, Linlor,
RentLinx
1-4, 7-20
5 103 Jain, Linlor,
RentLinx, Ramer
5
Overall
Outcome

1-5, 7-21

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-21 is affirmed.

Appeal 2020-000107
Application 13/585,306

21

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. §
1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED