LinkedIn Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

2019004979 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
14/701,116 04/30/2015 Wayne Pan 3080.D30US1 1013
45839 7590 10/29/2020
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / LinkedIn/Microsoft
PO BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
PRASAD, NANCY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
USPTO@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAYNE PAN, NICHOLAS DAVID SNYDER,
and WILLIAM JAYANG SUN1
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, and
CYNTHIA M. HARDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims related to
a system and method of determining whether an item of content shared in a
social network contributed to a talent-related event such as a hiring. The
claims have been rejected as obvious and ineligible for patenting. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the rejection based on patent-ineligibility.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. We use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“Individuals associated with the organization (e.g., employees of a
company) offer untapped potential in reaching a larger audience. . . .
[E]mployees’ social connections may be a highly interested group that is
receptive to the company’s message.” Spec. ¶ 13.
“[A] social networking service may leverage these connections by
utilizing a hierarchical electronic content distribution system to distribute
content to a wider audience.” Id. ¶ 14. For example, “an individual
associated with the organization (the content origin) may select an item of
content and may select other individuals to share the content with. . . .
Th[ose] individuals . . . may then share the content with some of their
connections.” Id. “In this way a hierarchical content distribution network
may be created that is rooted at an organizational level, such as a company.”
Id. ¶ 15.
[A] hierarchical content distribution network may be described
by a graph data structure (e.g., a tree). . . . In this content
distribution graph the top-level node in the graph represents the
origin of the content. Nodes on the second-level represent
members who are selected to receive the content by the top
level node . . . , and so on.
Id. ¶ 17.
“Each recipient may ‘interact’ with the content such as by opening,
clicking, reading, commenting on, or sharing the content.” Id. ¶ 20. “[T]he
host social networking service may track the movement, changes, and
interactions with content through the hierarchical content distribution
network.” Id. ¶ 24. The Specification discloses
systems, methods, and machine-readable mediums that infer
contributions from content distributed on a hierarchical
electronic content distribution system to the occurrence of
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

3
events using observed interactions related to the content. For
example, the system may infer that a particular item of content
that was shared through the hierarchical electronic content
distribution system caused a person to apply to the company
seeking to be hired.
Id. ¶ 27.
Claims 1–24 are on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A communication system comprising:
a social networking service comprising one or more computer
processors to:
implement a hierarchical electronic content distribution
system including one or more graphical user interfaces to
facilitate creation of at least one hierarchical content network
that is specific to an item of content, wherein the at least one
hierarchical content network is described by a graph data
structure that is rooted at an organizational member of the
social networking service that shared the item of content, and
wherein a first level of the graph data structure comprises nodes
that correspond to members of the social networking service
that identify themselves as being employed by the organization
and with whom the item of content was shared; and
wherein, in subsequent levels of the graph data structure,
each particular child node corresponds to a member of the
social networking service that was a recipient of a share of the
item of content by its parent node, the parent node of the
particular child node corresponding to a member of the social
networking service that is connected through the social
networking service to a member that corresponds to the
particular child node;
receive an indication of an occurrence of a talent-related
event;
determine that a participant in the talent-related event
was a member of the at least one hierarchical content network
the participant a member of the social networking service;
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

4
determine one or more features corresponding to the item
of content, the one or more features including at least one or
more interactions between the participant and the item of
content; and
based upon the one or more features, determine that the
item of content at least partially contributed to the occurrence of
the talent-related event.

Claims 9 and 17 are also independent. Claim 9 is directed to the
method carried out by the “system” described in claim 1, which is one or
more computer processors effecting certain actions, and claim 17 is directed
to a machine-readable medium comprising instructions that cause a machine
to carry out the steps described in claim 1.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being ineligible for patenting
(Final Action2 2);
Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–19, and 21–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious based on Aladdin3 and Khorashadi4 (Final Action 9); and
Claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on
Aladdin, Khorashadi, and Gorham5 (Final Action 17).
OPINION
Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Aladdin discloses, on a social networking
service, “implementing a hierarchical electronic content distribution system

2 Office Action mailed April 2, 2018.
3 US 2014/0222705 A1, Aug. 7, 2014.
4 US 2013/0097236 A1, Apr. 18, 2013.
5 US 2007/0162323 A1, July 12, 2007.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

5
including one or more graphical user interfaces to facilitate creation of at
least one hierarchical content network that is specific to an item of content.”
Final Action 10 (citing Aladdin ¶ 63). The Examiner finds that “Aladdin
does not explicitly show ‘node’, however, Khorashadi shows ‘node’ at least
in [0036]–[0038], and [0049]. As such, Khorashadi shows” a hierarchical
content network described by a graph data structure rooted at an
organizational member and having the levels and nodes recited in the claims.
Id. at 10–11 (citing Khorashadi ¶¶ 36–38, 49).
Appellant argues that it “cannot find in Aladdin, Khorashadi, or the
reasoning of the office action any teaching or even a suggestion of a
hierarchical content network as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant
argues that paragraphs 36–38 of Khorashadi “describe a social networking
service where individuals are connected to each other,” and Khorashadi’s
paragraph 49 describes “using popularity statistics to identify the most
popular entities and topics, and then obtaining the social networking updates
of the highly popular social network entities/topics.” Id. at 25–26. Appellant
argues that none of the cited paragraphs describes
a content network that is specific to an item of content, that is
rooted at an organizational member of the social networking
service that shared the item of content, wherein a first level of
the graph data structure comprises nodes that correspond to
members of the social networking service that identify
themselves as being employed by the organization and with
whom the item of content was shared. Moreover, the [cited]
paragraphs do not describe that each particular child node in
the content network corresponds to a member of the social
networking service that was a recipient of a share of an item of
content by its parent node.
Id. at 25; see also id. at 26 (same).
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

6
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that the
system of claim 1 would have been obvious based on Aladdin and
Khorashadi. The Examiner finds that Khorashadi’s paragraphs 36–38 and 49
disclose the “hierarchical content network [that] is described by a graph data
structure” recited in claim 1. See Final Action 10–11. Khorashadi, however,
does not support this finding.
Khorashadi discloses “a method for broadcasting content in a mobile
multimedia broadcast system that enables delivery of selected social media
updates using the bandwidth available in broadcast networks.” Khorashadi
¶ 5. Khorashadi defines the term “social network,” and states that “[s]ocial
networks may be embodied in a software application that views social
relationships in terms of network theory consisting of nodes and ties (also
called edges, links, or connections). Nodes are the individual actors or
entities within the networks, and ties are the relationships between the actors
or entities.” Id. ¶ 36.
Khorashadi also states that “[s]ocial network applications enable
complex data sharing structures.” Id. ¶ 37. As one example, “in a LinkedIn®
social network, users may associate with networking contacts. Users may
share data, objects, or attributes once linked and may send messages, view
postings or view job related data.” Id. Khorashadi states that, “[i]n its
simplest form, a social network is a software application that includes a map
of specified ties, such as friendship, between the nodes. The nodes to which
an individual is connected are the social contacts of that individual.” Id.
¶ 38.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

7
In the last passage cited by the Examiner, Khorashadi states that
[a] server . . . may crawl the various social networks to gather
popularity statistics . . . , analyze this information to identify the
most popular entities and topics, and then obtain the social
network updates of the highly popular social network
entities/topics. . . . [I]n addition to or instead of broadcasting/
multicasting obtained popular social network updates, the
obtained data may be cached in servers positioned on an edge
of cellular communication networks to enable requests for such
data to be answered without requiring communications deeper
into the cellular and data networks.
Id. ¶ 49.
Thus, although paragraphs 36–38 and 49 of Khorashadi describe
social networks comprising nodes that represent individuals, they do not
describe a hierarchical content network that is rooted at an organizational
member of a social networking service and comprising nodes that
correspond to members of the social networking service with whom an item
of content is shared.
The cited evidence therefore does not support the Examiner’s finding
that Khorashadi discloses the hierarchical content network required by the
claims on appeal. Because the Examiner has not shown that the cited
references disclose or would have made obvious all of the limitations of the
claims, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. We
reverse the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–19, and 21–24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious based on Aladdin and Khorashadi.
With regard to the rejection of claims 4, 12, and 20, the Examiner
relies on Aladdin and Khorashadi to suggest the method of claim 1, and does
not cite any disclosure in Gorham that makes up for the deficiency in
Khorashadi discussed above. See Final Action 17–18. Therefore, we reverse
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

8
the rejection of claims 4, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based
on Aladdin, Khorashadi, and Gorham for the same reason discussed above
with regard to claim 1.
Eligibility
Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being “directed
to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.” Final Action 2. The Examiner
finds that the claims
are directed to hierarchical distribution of content where
information is received related to a talent event, determination
is made that a participant was a member of the hierarchical
content network, features corresponding to the item of content
are identified, and determination [is made] that the item of
content at least partially contributed to the occurrence of the
talent related item based on the features identified.
Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that “[t]he claimed invention describes
gathering information, analyzing it to determine participant as a member of
the hierarchical content network, and features related to the content item.”
Id. The Examiner finds, however, that “[c]ollecting information, analyzing
it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” has been held
to be an abstract idea. Id. at 4–5 (citing Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Examiner also finds that the claims recite
“certain methods of organizing human activity” because the
claims are related to hierarchical distribution of content where
information is received related to a talent event, determination
is made that a participant was a member of the hierarchical
content network, features corresponding to the item of content
are identified, and determination [is made] that the item of
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

9
content at least partially contributed to the occurrence of the
talent related item based on the features identified.
Ans. 6. “The claimed invention describes gathering information, analyzing it
to determine participant as a member of the hierarchical content network,
and features related to the content item.” Id. at 6–7.
The Examiner finds that the abstract idea recited in the claims is not
integrated into a practical application, because the generic computer
implementation recited in the claim “amounts to no more than: adding the
words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” Ans. 7–8. Finally, the
Examiner finds that the claims “do[] not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception”
because, as evidenced by Appellant’s Specification, the computer
components required by the claims are satisfied by a general purpose
hardware processor. Id. at 8. Thus, the Examiner finds that the claims do not
add anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional
in the relevant art, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Id. at 8–9.
Appellant argues that “the claims are not directed to ‘certain methods
of organizing human activity.’ Instead the claims are directed to an
improvement to the technology of ‘a social networking service’ that uses ‘a
hierarchical electronic content distribution system to distribute content to a
wider audience.’” Reply Br. 2–3 (quoting Spec. ¶ 14). Appellant argues that,
because “[t]he claims are directed to . . . technical solutions that use a
hierarchical content distribution network . . . the claims are not directed to
the alleged abstract idea of organizing human activity.” Id. at 3.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

10
Appellant also argues that “the claims are an improvement on a social
network using a hierarchical electronic content distribution network,
undoubtedly a computer-related technology.” Id. at 4. Appellant argues that,
[l]ike the self-referential table in Enfish, the claimed
hierarchical content network data structure is a specific type of
data structure designed to improve the way the computing
device – to wit, a social networking service – stores and
retrieves data in memory. Additionally, this data structure is
used to improve the social networking service by allowing a
correlation between a content share and a subsequent external
event.
Appeal Br. 19.
Finally, Appellant argues that the claims recite significantly more than
any abstract idea because the recited “data structures provide a means for
tracking content activities throughout the social networking service and are
thus integral to determinations of causation of subsequent events.” Id. at 20.
Appellant argues that “[t]hese data structures are specific to social
networking services and thus, like the system of DDR Holdings v.
Hotels.com, the present disclosure addresses a particular problem in
network-based computing (e.g., determining whether content shared through
a social networking service caused a subsequent event).” Id. at 21. Appellant
argues that the “recitation in the claims of specific computer data structures,
social networking information, and networking – when taken individually, or
as a whole thus make the claims ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology
in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of . . .’
social networking services.” Id. (quoting Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2016), itself quoting from
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

11
Principles of Law
A. Section 101
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 U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. 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 Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Alice, 573 U.S. 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, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

12
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr,
450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also
indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

13
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”).6 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal
agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also
October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).7
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.

6 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the Revised Guidance. USPTO,
October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019
Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
7 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

14
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, 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, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
Following the Revised Guidance, we first consider whether the claims
recite a judicial exception. The Revised Guidance identifies three groupings
of subject matter included in the abstract idea exception, including “[m]ental
processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. “If a claim,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
in the mind.” Id. at 52, n.14.
Claim 18 recites one or more computer processors to carry out the
following limitations:
receive an indication of an occurrence of a talent-related
event;

8 Appellant did not argue the claims separately, and we select claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

15
determine that a participant in the talent-related event
was a member of the at least one hierarchical content network
the participant a member of the social networking service;
determine one or more features corresponding to the item
of content, the one or more features including at least one or
more interactions between the participant and the item of
content; and
based upon the one or more features, determine that the
item of content at least partially contributed to the occurrence of
the talent-related event.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea in its
limitations that describe “gathering information [and] analyzing it.” Final
Action 4, Ans. 6. In other words, the “receiv[ing]” and “determin[ing]” steps
of claim 1 encompass mental processes, which are “concepts performed in
the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).”
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (emphasis added).
Specifically, to “receive an indication of an occurrence of a talent-
related event” is an observation that a talent-related event has occurred. The
Specification states that “[t]alent-related events include attracting and
retaining employees.” Spec. ¶ 30. “[T]alent-related events may include
events where the participant[] evidences an interest in working for the
organization, such as an applicant applying for a job opening, an applicant
becoming an employee, and the like.” Id. ¶ 53. An observation that an
individual has applied for a job or has been hired can be carried out in the
human mind.
Similarly, to “determine that a participant in the talent-related event
was a member of the . . . hierarchical content network[,] the participant a
member of the social networking service” is an observation that the person
who applied for a job or was hired was a member of the social networking
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

16
service and was among the members with whom the item of content was
shared. The Specification describes the creation of a hierarchical content
distribution network as follows:
[A]n individual associated with the organization (the content
origin) may select an item of content and may select other
individuals to share the content with. . . . The individuals with
whom the content origin shared the content may then share the
content with some of their connections (both inside and outside
the organization), and these connections may share the content
with their connections (both inside and outside the
organization), and so on.
In this way a hierarchical content distribution network may be
created.
Spec. ¶¶ 14–15. Thus, the “hierarchical content network” recited in the
claims is simply the set of social network members with whom an item of
content was shared, and determining that a participant in an event was a
member of the hierarchical content network merely requires observing that
the participant received the item of content via a share from another
member. Such an observation can be carried out in the human mind.
To “determine . . . features corresponding to the item of content, . . .
including . . . interactions between the participant and the item of content” is
likewise merely an observation of how a participant interacted with a
specific item of content. The Specification states that interactions include
“positive interactions such as clicks, likes, comments, submission of forms
in the content, clicking on a ‘connect’ button in the content, and the like may
all be positive interactions that the user is interested in the content.” Spec.
¶ 39. An observation that an individual “liked” or commented on a specific
item of content can be carried out in the human mind.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

17
Finally, to “determine[, based upon the one or more features,] that the
item of content at least partially contributed to the occurrence of the talent-
related event” requires evaluating whether the features—i.e., interactions of
the participant with the item of content—indicate that the item partially
contributed to the occurrence of the event (job application or hiring). The
Specification states that “the system may infer that a particular item of
content that was shared through the hierarchical electronic content
distribution system caused a person to apply to the company seeking to be
hired. The system may make this inference based upon observed interactions
between the person and the item of content.” Spec. ¶ 27.
The Specification explains that some interactions indicate that a
recipient is interested in the content; e.g., reading, tagging, sharing, or
commenting on the content. Id. ¶ 28. Other interactions indicate that a
recipient is not interested in the content; e.g., ignoring or deleting the
content. Id. “Interactions in which the recipient expresses interest in the
content may increase the probability that the content caused the event, while
interactions in which the recipient expresses dis-interest in the content may
lower the probability that the content caused the event.” Id.
A person, using their mind, is fully capable of evaluating whether or
not a person’s interaction with an item of content was positive, indicating
interest in the content, and thereby determine that the item of content at least
partially contributed to occurrence of an event. Thus, the step of
“determining[, based upon the one or more features,] that the item of content
at least partially contributed to the occurrence of the talent-related event” is
a mental process.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

18
In summary, the “receiv[ing]” and “determin[ing]” steps of claim 1
encompass mental processes, notwithstanding the recitation in claim 1 of
“one or more computer processors.” See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52, n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”).
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Although the claims recite an abstract idea, they would still be patent-
eligible if “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into
a practical application of that exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
53. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception.” Id. The analysis of whether a
claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application includes
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application.” Id. at 54–55.
Considerations indicating that an exception is integrated into a
practical application include “an additional element [that] applies or uses the
judicial exception in some . . . 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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. However,
“[a]n additional element . . . [that] merely includes instructions to implement
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

19
an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to
perform an abstract idea” is an indication that “a judicial exception has not
been integrated into a practical application.” Id.
Here, in addition to the steps that are equivalent to mental processes,
claim 1 recites “a social networking service comprising one or more
computer processors.” The Specification does not describe any special
requirements for the components required to implement the recited social
networking service. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 84 (“Social networking service 2010
may operate on one or more computing devices, such as for example, one or
more server machines.”); ¶ 88 (“[M]achine 3000 upon which any one or
more of the techniques (e.g., methodologies) discussed herein may
perform . . . may be, or be part of, a social networking system, personal
computer (PC), a tablet PC, . . . , or any machine capable of executing
instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that
machine.”); ¶ 91 (“Machine (e.g., computer system) 3000 may include a
hardware processor 3002 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics
processing unit (GPU), a hardware processor core, or any combination
thereof), a main memory 3004,” etc.).
Thus, the social networking service and processors recited in claim 1
do not represent an additional element that implements the recited judicial
exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture, which
can be an indication of integration into a practical application. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Claim 1 also specifies that the social networking service:
implement[s] a hierarchical electronic content
distribution system including one or more graphical user
interfaces to facilitate creation of at least one hierarchical
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

20
content network that is specific to an item of content, wherein
the at least one hierarchical content network is described by a
graph data structure that is rooted at an organizational member
of the social networking service that shared the item of content,
and wherein a first level of the graph data structure comprises
nodes that correspond to members of the social networking
service that identify themselves as being employed by the
organization and with whom the item of content was shared;
and
wherein, in subsequent levels of the graph data structure,
each particular child node corresponds to a member of the
social networking service that was a recipient of a share of the
item of content by its parent node, the parent node of the
particular child node corresponding to a member of the social
networking service that is connected through the social
networking service to a member that corresponds to the
particular child node.
With regard to these limitations, the Specification states that “a social
networking service may . . . utiliz[e] a hierarchical electronic content
distribution system to distribute content to a wider audience. In some
examples, an individual associated with the organization (the content origin)
may select an item of content and may select other individuals to share the
content with.” Spec. ¶ 14. “[T]he content origin may be an employee of the
organization whose job responsibilities include curating content for sharing.”
Id. ¶ 16.
The individuals with whom the content origin shared the
content may then share the content with some of their
connections (both inside and outside the organization), and
these connections may share the content with their connections
(both inside and outside the organization), and so on.
In this way a hierarchical content distribution network may be
created that is rooted at an organizational level, such as a
company.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

21
Id. ¶¶ 14–15.
Thus, “a social networking service comprising one or more computer
processors to: implement a hierarchical electronic content distribution
system including one or more graphical user interfaces to facilitate creation
of at least one hierarchical content network that is specific to an item of
content” simply requires a computer network that allows users to share
content with each other. The “hierarchical content distribution network” for
an item of content is created when one user (the content origin) shares the
item with other users and the users with whom the item was shared in turn
share it with still other users.
Claim 1 states that the hierarchical content distribution network is
described by a graph data structure, rooted at an organizational level (i.e.,
starting with an individual associated with the organization), in which the
first level comprises nodes that correspond to members of the social
networking service who are employees of the organization and nodes in
subsequent levels are members of the social networking service with whom
the item of content was shared.
These recitations, however, do not structurally limit any aspect of the
claimed system. The “graph data structure” simply provides a representation
of how and with whom the item of content was shared among members of
the social networking service:
The hierarchical content distribution network may be specific to
each item of content. This is because each item of content may
be shared with different associates, and those associates may
share each item of content with different connections of theirs,
and so on. Structurally, a hierarchical content distribution
network may be described by a graph data structure (e.g., a
tree). . . . In this content distribution graph the top-level node in
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

22
the graph represents the origin of the content. Nodes on the
second-level represent members who are selected to receive the
content by the top level node – e.g., selected employees. Third
level nodes represent selected connections of second level
nodes, and so on.
Spec. ¶ 17 (emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 19 (“Each time a member shares
an item of content with another member, a node may be added to the content
distribution graph of that item of content.”).
Thus, the recited “graph data structure” simply maps the distribution
of an item of content among members of the social networking service. It
does not require any particular distribution pattern, other than starting with a
member associated with the organization sharing the item with employees of
the organization. The recited “graph data structure” does not impose any
limits on the structure of the claimed social networking service.
We conclude that the additional elements of claim 1, beyond the
recited judicial exception, merely represent “instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely use[] a computer as a tool to perform
an abstract idea.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Therefore, the
additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical
application.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Finally, the Revised Guidance directs us to consider whether the
claims include “additional elements . . . [that] provide[] ‘significantly more’
than the recited judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The Revised
Guidance states that an additional element that “simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

23
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, . . .
is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Id.
As discussed above, and aside from the steps that are expressly
directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 recites “a social networking service
comprising one or more computer processors to: implement a hierarchical
electronic content distribution system including one or more graphical user
interfaces,” where the “hierarchical content network is described by a graph
data structure.”
However, as also discussed above, the Specification does not disclose
any unconventional requirements for the computer processors of the claim,
and the hierarchical content distribution system requires nothing more than
tracking how and with whom an item of content is shared among users of a
computer network. Likewise, the “graph data structure” recited in the claims
is simply an abstract representation describing how the item of content has
been shared among users.
Appellant’s Specification itself states that social networking services
that enable users to share information with each other are well-understood,
routine, and conventional:
A social networking service is a computer or web-based service
that enables users to establish links or connections with persons
for the purpose of sharing information with one another. Some
social network services aim to enable friends and family to
communicate and share with one another, while others are
specifically directed to business users with a goal of facilitating
the establishment of professional networks and the sharing of
business information.
Spec. ¶ 2.
Thus, the claims themselves do not require any unconventional
computer configuration or software, and the Specification does not describe
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

24
any unconventional computer implementation as part of the claimed method.
The system of claim 1 therefore requires only a generic computer system
and network, and “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.
In summary, the combination of elements recited in the system of
claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
itself, and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the claimed methods are ineligible for
patenting. Independent claims 9 and 17 are directed to the method recited in
claim 1 and a machine-readable medium comprising instructions that cause a
computer to perform that method, respectively, and are ineligible for
patenting for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
but to “an improvement to the technology of ‘a social networking service’
that uses ‘a hierarchical electronic content distribution system to distribute
content to a wider audience.’” Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶ 14).9 Appellant
argues that “details about the technological nature of the present application
can be found throughout the specification, for example, ‘Structurally, a
hierarchical content distribution network may be described by a graph data
structure (e.g., a tree) which is referred to herein for convenience of

9 As Appellant notes (Reply Br. 1), the Final Action was mailed and the
Appeal Brief was filed before the Office issued the 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The Answer cited and applied the
Revised Guidance, and Appellant responded to that analysis in the Reply
Brief.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

25
description as a content distribution graph.’” Id. at 3 (citing Spec. ¶ 17).
Along the same line, Appellant argues that, “[l]ike the self-referential table
in Enfish, the claimed hierarchical content network data structure is a
specific type of data structure designed to improve the way the computing
device – to wit, a social networking service – stores and retrieves data in
memory.” Appeal Br. 19 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Appellant argues that “[i]mprovements to this technical field include
using the hierarchical electronic content distribution system to analyze
content that contributed to occurrence of an event.” Reply Br. 3.10 Appellant
argues that, therefore, “[t]he claims are directed to these technical solutions
that use a hierarchical content distribution network. . . . Thus the claims are
not directed to the alleged abstract idea of organizing human activity.” Id.
Similarly, Appellant argues that “this data structure is used to improve the
social networking service by allowing a correlation between a content share
and a subsequent external event.” Appeal Br. 19.
These arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, a
“hierarchical content distribution network” just refers to the path by which
information is shared in a social network, and the graph data structure is just
an abstract representation of that path. See Spec. ¶¶ 14–15 (“The individuals
with whom the content origin shared the content may then share the content
with some of their connections . . . , and these connections may share the

10 Appellant also argues that the claims are directed to improvements
including recommending a second item of content based on various methods
of textual analysis. Reply Br. 3. Claim 1, however, does not include
recommending a second item of content.
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

26
content with their connections . . . , and so on. In this way a hierarchical
content distribution network may be created.”); see also id. ¶ 17
(“Structurally, a hierarchical content distribution network may be described
by a graph data structure (e.g., a tree).”). The recited hierarchical content
distribution network is therefore not analogous to the self-referential table
data structure in Enfish, and neither the hierarchical content distribution
network nor the graph data structure recited in claim 1 represents a
technological improvement.
“[U]sing the hierarchical electronic content distribution system to
analyze content” (Reply Br. 3), or to correlate a content share and an
external event (Appeal Br. 19), is also not a technological improvement.
Analyzing the hierarchical content distribution network—i.e., who shared
information with whom—is part of the abstract idea recited in claim 1,
because it can practically be performed in the human mind. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (mental processes include observation and
evaluation). Even if the analysis is improved by use of a hierarchical content
distribution system, an improved abstract idea is still ineligible for patenting.
See SAP Amer., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in
ineligible subject matter.”).
Appellant argues that “the claims are an improvement on a social
network using a hierarchical electronic content distribution network,
undoubtedly a computer-related technology.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues
that, “like the system of DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, [773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 2014)] the present disclosure addresses a particular problem in network-
based computing (e.g., determining whether content shared through a social
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

27
networking service caused a subsequent event).” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant
argues that “[t]he recitation in the claims of specific computer data
structures, social networking information, and networking – when taken
individually, or as a whole thus make the claims ‘necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
the realm of . . .’ social networking services.” Id. (citation omitted).
We are not persuaded that DDR Holdings supports the patent
eligibility of the instant claims. The invention in DDR Holdings “address[ed]
the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine,
conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly
transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement
and activating a hyperlink.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. To solve this
problem, “the patent claims call for an ‘outsource provider’ having a web
server which directs the visitor to an automatically-generated hybrid web
page that combines visual ‘look and feel’ elements from the host website
and product information from the third-party merchant’s website related to
the clicked advertisement.” Id.
The instant claims, by contrast, include no technological improvement
that is comparable to the invention in DDR Holdings. Rather, the method of
claim 1 merely tracks the path of an item of content as it is shared among
members of a social network, along with tracking the interactions of
members with the item of content, then analyzes the acquired data after a
talent-related event in order to determine whether the item of content
contributed to the event. The claimed method of acquiring and analyzing
data is not comparable to the technical solution at issue in DDR Holdings.
As the DDR Holdings court noted, “not all claims purporting to address
Appeal 2019-004979
Application 14/701,116

28
Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. at 1258 (noting that a
method of advertising said to be previously unknown and never employed
on the Internet before was nonetheless patent-ineligible).
In summary, we conclude that claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract idea without significantly more. We affirm the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 2–24 fall with claim 1 because they were not
argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
However, the rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24
1–3, 5–11,
13–19, 21–
24
103 Aladdin, Khorashadi 1–3, 5–11,
13–19, 21–
24
4, 12, 20 103 Aladdin, Khorashadi,
Gorham
4, 12, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–24
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