Kaushik, Amrita et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2020

13714120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
13/714,120 12/13/2012 Amrita Kaushik 2043.B05US1 2668
49845 7590 09/25/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
DURAISAMYGURUSAM, LALITH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2020 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 AMRITA KAUSHIK and SAVTANTER GADOO
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–6, 9–15, and 17–23. Claims 4,
7–8, and 16 are cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as eBay Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to buyer-solicited offerings in online
marketplaces. Spec. ¶ 1.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal read as follows;
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor of a machine, a search
request comprising a first item description, the first item
description describing a first item using a plurality of terms, the
search request received from a first client device;
determining that a group site described by the plurality of
terms of the first item description does not exist on a network
site;
in response to determining that the group site does not
exist, generating the group site on the network site, the group site
including a group characteristic corresponding to the plurality of
terms;
generating a first item listing using the first item
description received from the first client device;
causing a display of the first item listing as a post in the
created group site that is browsable by members of the group site
and at least one user associated with a second client device;
receiving, from the second client device, a second item
description comprising a plurality of search terms that do not
exactly match the plurality of terms in the first item description;
in response to the receiving the second item description,
posting to the group site a second item listing using the second
item description, the second item description specifying a first
transaction condition;
receiving, from the first client device, a commitment
corresponding to the second item description;
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
3
posting to the group site, a third item listing using a third
item description received from a third client device, the third
item listing having a second transaction condition that is different
than the first transaction condition;
receiving, from the first client device, a revocation of the
commitment;
responsive to receiving the revocation, decrementing a
commitment count to produce an updated commitment count for
the second item listing; and
transmitting to the group site, an update to the second item
listing including the updated commitment count corresponding
to the second item listing.
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–6, 9–15, and 17–23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See
Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 9–27;
Reply Br. 2–9. As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal
based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Arguments
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to a method of
facilitating group sharing of a desired item listing containing desired items
and purchasing of the desired items, which is not meaningfully different than
the abstract idea drawn to “certain methods of organized human activity” as
identified in In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and which is
similar to the abstract ideas held patent-ineligible in Fair Warning IP, LLC
v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Final
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
4
Act. 2–4, 11; see also Ans. 3–5. The Examiner further finds that claim 1 is
not significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim elements in
addition to the abstract idea include using a generic computer/processor
executing the above-referenced abstract idea. See Final Act. 4–6, 11; see
also Ans. 5–10.
Appellant argues the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case
that claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. See Appeal Br. 19.
More specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner failed to sufficiently
identify the alleged judicial exception recited in the claim. See id. at 19–20.
Appellant further argues the Examiner also failed to sufficiently explain why
the alleged abstract idea corresponds to a concept identified as an abstract
idea by the courts in Fair Warning and Electric Power Group. See id. at 20–
21.
Additionally, Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to provide
evidence that the additional elements of claim 1, besides the alleged abstract
idea, are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as required by the
courts in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See
Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 5. More specifically, as argued by
Appellant, “the Examiner’s selections of a few words scattered throughout
claim 1 is clearly not [an] analysis of the claims as an ordered combination.”
See Appeal Br. 21. Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s citation to
Appellant’s Specification in support of its finding that the additional
elements of claim 1 are well-understood, routine, and conventional ignores
the improvements discussed in Appellant’s Specification. See Appeal
Br. 21–22; see also Reply Br. 5–9.
Appellant additionally argues claim 1 is not directed to an abstract
idea because the claim is directed to a network-based solution that addressed
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
5
a network problem, similar to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Appeal Br. 23. As
further argued by Appellant, the specific way in which the steps recited in
claim 1 are performed prevents broad preemption of the subject matter,
similar to the claims at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat
Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). See Appeal Br. 23–24.
Further, Appellant argues claim 1 is not similar to the claims at issue in
either FairWarning or Electric Power Group. See id. at 24–26.
Appellant further argues that even assuming arguendo that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea, the claim nevertheless recites significantly more
than an abstract idea because the claim recites a technical improvement
rooted in computer technology. See Appeal Br. 26; see also Reply Br. 2.
More specifically, as argued by Appellant, claim 1 is not merely “an
abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components
in a conventional way,” similar to the claims at issue in Bascom Global
Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2016). See Appeal Br. 26–27. Further, as argued by Appellant, claim 1
solves a technical problem of not being able to find listings for items on a
website via a search request, as described in Appellant’s Specification. See
Reply Br. 2–5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 16, 18).
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
6
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “the elements of
each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine claim 1 for an “inventive concept,” “an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).2 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

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the Guidance. USPTO, October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) (available
at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
7
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 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Abstract Idea
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity; or (c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea because the claim recites
a method of organizing human activity, one of the abstract idea groupings
listed in the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human [activities] such as commercial or
legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations)” as one of the “enumerated groupings of abstract ideas”).
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
8
Claim 1 is directed to a method pertaining to “creation of a buyer’s
group and a desired-item listing at an online market place,” “maintaining a
purchase-commitment count according to a received purchase commitment,”
and “seller bidding.” Spec. ¶ 5. The claimed method includes the following
elements:
(1) “receiving . . . a search request comprising a first item description,
the first item description describing a first item using a plurality of
terms”;
(2) “determining that a group site described by the plurality of terms
of the first item description does not exist”;
(3) “in response to determining that the group site does not exist,
generating the group site . . . the group site including a group
characteristic corresponding to the plurality of terms”;
(4) “generating a first item listing using the first item description”;
(5) “receiving . . . a second item description comprising a plurality of
search terms that do not exactly match the plurality of terms in the
first item description”;
(6) “in response to the receiving the second item description, posting
to the group site a second item listing using the second item
description, the second item description specifying a first
transaction condition”;
(7) “receiving . . . a commitment corresponding to the second item
description”;
(8) “posting to the group site, a third item listing using a third item
description received from a third client device, the third item
listing having a second transaction condition that is different than
the first transaction condition;”;
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
9
(9) “receiving . . . a revocation of the commitment”;
(10) “responsive to receiving the revocation, decrementing a
commitment count to produce an updated commitment count for
the second item listing”; and
(11) “transmitting to the group site, an update to the second item
listing including the updated commitment count corresponding to
the second item listing”.
Appeal Br. 29–30.
Here, the claim elements recite a method of facilitating group sharing
of a desired item listing containing desired items and purchasing of the
desired items. Such recited subject matter is both a commercial interaction
and an interaction between a buyer and a seller, where both types of
interactions fit squarely within the human activity organization category of
the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods
of organizing human activity including (1) commercial interactions, and (2)
managing interactions between people including following rules or
instructions).
Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on a certain method of
organizing human activity, we nevertheless must still determine whether the
abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the
claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55. We therefore (1) identify whether there are any
additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those
elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate
the exception into a practical application. See id.
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
10
Here, as previously discussed, the only recited elements beyond the
abstract idea are “at least one processor of a machine,” “a first client device”
“a network site,” “a second client device,” and “a third device,” as recited in
claim 1. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, these additional elements
do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading
the claims as a whole because the additional elements are analogous to an
instruction to implement the method of organizing human activity on a
computer. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 10. Further, regarding the
claimed “causing a display of the first item listing as a post in the created
group site that is browsable by members of the group site and at least one
user associated with a second client device,” the display of the first item
listing as a post within the created group site is merely an insignificant extra-
solution activity which does not render an abstract idea patent-eligible. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “[adding] insignificant extra-
solution activity to the judicial exception” as an example of when an abstract
idea has not been integrated into a practical application).
Regarding whether the Final Office Action fails to establish a prima
facie case of patent-ineligibility, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner is merely required to
provide Appellant reasonable notice as to the basis of the § 101 rejection, as
set forth by 35 U.S.C. § 132:
[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
“notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35
U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
11
seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller,
906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Examiner’s findings
met this requirement, as the Examiner provided an analysis of the patent-
eligibility of the claims, and the Examiner’s articulated rationale for the
rejection clearly put Appellant on notice regarding the basis of the rejection
and provided sufficient information for Appellant to judge the propriety of
continuing the prosecution of the application. See Final Act. 2–11; see also
Ans. 3–10.
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea
because claim 1 is similar to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings is also not
persuasive. See Appeal Br. 23. In DDR Holdings, the court determined that
the claims at issue were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order
to address the Internet-centric problem of how to provide user access to
computer-implemented applications over the Internet. DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257. In contrast, the functions recited in claim 1 previously
described above (e.g., receiving a first item description, determining that a
group site described by the first item description does not exist, generating
the group site, etc.), are not necessarily rooted in computer technology, as
the aforementioned functions could also occur outside the context of
computer technology (e.g., if the aforementioned functions were
implemented using pen and paper). Appellant’s citation to its Specification
in its Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 16–18)) does not
persuade us otherwise, as the cited portions of the Specification fail to
describe functions that are necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 does not broadly preempt any
subject matter, and is therefore patent-eligible, is also not persuasive. The
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
12
Federal Circuit has made clear that “the absence of complete preemption
does not demonstrate patent eligibility” of a claim. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.
v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further,
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is not similar to the claims at issue in Fair
Warning or Electric Power Group is also not persuasive of Examiner error.
As described above, the Examiner’s findings are consistent with the
Guidance, which “extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the
courts as abstract ideas.” See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 recites a technical improvement
rooted in computer technology is not persuasive either. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner that the focus of claim 1 is not an improvement to a
computer or other technology but instead is using the computer to implement
the underlying method of organizing human activity. See Ans. 5–6. More
specifically, we agree with the Examiner that the problem discussed in the
Appellant’s Specification (i.e., not being able to find desired listing for
items) is not a technical problem but instead is a commercial problem, where
a computer is used as a tool to implement a method of organizing human
activity that addresses the commercial problem. See Ans. 10; see also
Spec. ¶ 2–4 (describing that a problem of online ecommerce sites is that they
are listed to sellers’ offerings of items that differ significantly from items
buyers desire to purchase).
In support of the argument that claim 1 recites a technical
improvement, Appellant attempts to analogize claim 1 to the claims at issue
in DDR Holdings (Reply Br. 2–4), which has been previously addressed
above. In further support of its argument that claim 1 recites a technical
improvement, Appellant also attempts to analogize claim 1 to the claims at
issue in McRO. This argument is not persuasive either. In McRO, the
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
13
claims recited rules with specific characteristics allowed computers to
product accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
animated characters that previously could only be produced by human
animations, and it was the specific claimed features of the rules that
produced technical improvement. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. In contrast,
Appellant’s claim 1 does not recite any rules that enable the automation of
specific tasks that previously could not be automated.
Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Claim 1: (1) does not improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for a
generic computer), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article
to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” As previously
discussed, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are “at least one
processor of a machine,” “a first client device” “a network site,” “a second
client device,” and “a third device.” As the Examiner correctly found, claim
1 recites these elements at a high level of generality, and Appellant’s
Specification indicates that these elements are generic computer
components, as shown below.
[0007] FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic representation of a network
environment 100 including an online marketplace 105 to host
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
14
buyer-solicited offerings, according to example embodiments.
The online marketplace 105 is communicatively coupled to a
computer network, which may be for example the Internet 110.
The online marketplace 105 may also be communicatively
coupled to a database 115, which may be used to store descriptions
and listings relating to the buyer-solicited offerings. The online
marketplace 105 and the database 115 may correspond to at least
a portion of a server, for example. A device 120 may be
communicatively coupled to the Internet 110 and used by a buyer
130, a seller 140, or a further seller 150 to communicate through
the Internet 110 to the online marketplace 105. One skilled in the
art will readily appreciate that the buyer 130 may represent one or
more buyers, and similarly the seller 140 and the further seller 150
may represent or refer to one or more sellers and further sellers
respectively. The device 120 can correspond to many different
types of devices that may be, for example, a cell phone, a smart
phone, a personal data assistant (PDA), a tablet, a notebook
computer, or a desktop computer to name but a few of possible
personal electronic devices usable by the buyer 130, the seller
140, or the further seller 150 to establish communication with
the online marketplace 105.
. . .
[0008] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a buyer-solicited
offerings system 200, as may be used in example embodiments.
The buyer-solicited offerings system 200 may reside within the
online marketplace 105 (FIG. 1) and may be implemented as a
portion of a server, for example. The buyer-solicited offerings
system 200 may include a processor (not shown)
communicatively coupled through the computer network and a
local bus 205 to the database 115.
[0009] The buyer-solicited offerings system 200 can include a
group module 210 to determine the existence of a buyers’ group
within the buyer-solicited offerings system 200 and create a
buyers’ group within the buyer-solicited offering system 200 and
create a buyers’ group when the buyers’ group is determined to
not exist. . . .
[0010] When a description of a desired item or a description of an
item for sale is received by the buyer-solicited offerings system
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
15
200, a listing module 215 may produce a corresponding desired-
item listing or an item listing for the desired item or the item for
sale, respectively. . . .
[0011] A confirmation module 220 may be used to manage
confirmation of a purchase commitment received from the device
120 of the buyer 130 and maintain marketing metrics relating to
confirmed purchase commitments. . . .
[0013] An authentication module 225 may be included in the
buyer-solicited offerings system 200 to authenticate a financing
commitment and shipping details included in the purchase
commitment presented by the buyer 130. . . .
[0014] A funding module 230 may be communicatively coupled
through the local bus 205 to the authentication module 225 to
receive indications to secure funding and activate funding relative
to a purchase commitment from the buyer 130.
. . .
[0064] Certain embodiments are described herein as including
logic or a number of components, modules, or mechanisms.
Modules may constitute either software modules (e.g., code
embodied (1) on a non-transitory machine-readable storage
medium or (2) in a transmission signal) or hardware-
implemented modules. A hardware-implemented module is
tangible unit capable of performing certain operations and may be
configured or arranged in a certain manner. In example
embodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone,
client or server computer system) or one or more processors may
be configured by software (e.g., an application or application
portion) as a hardware-implemented module that operates to
perform certain operations as described herein.
Spec. ¶¶ 7–14, 64 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 9.
Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does
not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these
elements, taken individually or together with the other claim elements, do
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
16
not amount to “significantly more” than applying the abstract idea on a
general purpose computer.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner
failed to present a prima facie case that claim 1 recites well-understood,
routine, and conventional functions. As previously discussed, Appellant’s
Specification provides evidence that the recited functions are well-
understood, routine and conventional, as Appellant’s Specification discloses
that any general-purpose computer is capable of performing the recited
functions. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 7–14, 64.
Further, Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims at
issue in Bascom is also not persuasive. In Bascom, the claims solved an
Internet-centric problem of filtering Internet content, and thus, the claimed
computer components were necessary components of the claims. See
Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349–51. In contrast, the claimed “at least one
processor of a machine,” “a first client device” “a network site,” “a second
client device,” and “a third device,” of claim 1 are not necessary components
to perform the method of facilitating group sharing of a desired item listing
containing desired items and purchasing of the desired items recited in claim
1, as the recited steps for performing the method can be done outside the
context of computer technology, such as with pen and paper. In addition,
unlike the claims at issue in Bascom, claim 1 does not recite a technical
improvement. Instead, as previously described, claim 1 recites an
improvement to the underlying method of organizing human activity itself.

Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, and does not recite an “inventive
Appeal 2019-002128
Application 13/714,120
17
concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
the remaining claims, which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–6,
9–15, 17–
23
101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–6,
9–15, 17–
23

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