Relationship Capital Technologies Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

14804100 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
14/804,100 07/20/2015 Daniel Bouganim R15-03570 9003
71897 7590 09/02/2020
KPPB LLP
2190 S. Towne Centre Place
Suite 300
Anaheim, CA 92806
EXAMINER
OFORI-AWUAH, MAAME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
PAIR@KPPB.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL BOUGANIM and ANDREW WILSON
____________

Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–15 and 17–22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Relationship
Capital Technologies Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention manages online social networks based on
predetermined objectives. Spec. ¶ 2. To this end, a relationship
management system (1) constructs a social graph corresponding to the user’s
social network, and (2) scores each of the user’s relationships based on,
among other things, aggregated information describing events including
interactions and activities, such as event and meeting attendance, that impact
the relationship’s strength. Spec. ¶ 49. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A relationship management system, comprising:

a relationship management server system comprising a processor and
memory containing software; and

a database storing a plurality of contacts, wherein the plurality of
contacts are obtained from at least one source of contact information;
wherein the software directs the processor in the relationship
management server system to:

identify an objective with respect to an entity defined by a
customer relationship management (CRM) service;

identify a first set of contacts within the plurality of contacts
associated with the objective;

continuously aggregate event information associated with the
first set of contacts from at least one source of event information,
wherein the event information comprises metadata regarding
interactions between at least one user and the first set of contacts and
a plurality of weighting factors for the interactions;

generate an engagement score that provides an indication of
progress towards achieving the objective based upon the event
information associated with the first set of contacts, wherein the
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

3
engagement score is computed using the plurality of weighting factors
for the interactions and is continuously updated based on new event
information; and

provide a prioritized set of recommendation data to the CRM
service from which a task is created within the CRM service
associated with at least one contact in the first set of contacts to
advance the progress towards the objective based upon the at least one
engagement score.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–15 and 17–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as ineligible. Final Act. 2–7.2
The Examiner rejected claims 1–15 and 17–22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wilson (US 2012/0143921 Al; published June
7, 2012). Final Act. 7–15.

THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner determines that the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea conceptually similar to abstract ideas that merely collect and
analyze information, and display results of that collection and analysis—
processes that not only include mathematical concepts, but can also be done
mentally but for the recited computer components. See Final Act. 2–4; Ans.
3–5, 16–22. According to the Examiner, the additional recited computer

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed
June 15, 2018; (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”),
and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 1, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

4
elements perform generic computer functions that do not add significantly
more to the abstract idea. Final Act. 4–6; Ans. 5–7, 22–27.
Appellant argues that the claims are eligible because, among other
things, they apply computations in relationship management systems to
solve a specific problem, namely providing transparency regarding users’
activities relative to an objective by providing recommendations for
advancing progress towards that objective. See Appeal Br. 4–9. According
to Appellant, the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application
by providing (1) a specific way to manage relationships, namely by
generating the recited engagement score indicating progress towards
achieving an objective based on event information, and (2) a prioritized set
of recommendation data to solve the problem of monitoring user activity
relative to an objective. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant adds that the claims also improve relationship management
technology by processing event metadata to generate and provide
recommendations to advance progress toward an objective—event
information that is otherwise difficult to identify. Appeal Br. 9–11. When
considered as a whole, Appellant contends the recited elements add
significantly more than an abstract idea. Id. 11.

ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–15 and 17–
22 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on whether the
claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether the recited
elements—considered individually and as an ordered combination—
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

5
transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of that
abstract idea.

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, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

6
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 187 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 67 (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 U.S. at 176; 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.”). That
said, 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
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

7
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.
In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See
USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).3 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 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev.
10.2019, June 2020)).
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

3 See also October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df.
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

8
(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.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–15 and 17–22: Alice/Mayo Step One
Representative independent claim 1 recites:
A relationship management system, comprising:

a relationship management server system comprising a processor and
memory containing software; and

a database storing a plurality of contacts, wherein the plurality of
contacts are obtained from at least one source of contact information;
wherein the software directs the processor in the relationship
management server system to:

identify an objective with respect to an entity defined by a
customer relationship management (CRM) service;

identify a first set of contacts within the plurality of contacts
associated with the objective;

continuously aggregate event information associated with the
first set of contacts from at least one source of event information,
wherein the event information comprises metadata regarding
interactions between at least one user and the first set of contacts and
a plurality of weighting factors for the interactions;

generate an engagement score that provides an indication of
progress towards achieving the objective based upon the event
information associated with the first set of contacts, wherein the
engagement score is computed using the plurality of weighting factors
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

9
for the interactions and is continuously updated based on new event
information; and

provide a prioritized set of recommendation data to the CRM
service from which a task is created within the CRM service
associated with at least one contact in the first set of contacts to
advance the progress towards the objective based upon the at least one
engagement score.

As the Specification explains, Appellant’s invention manages online
social networks based on predetermined objectives. Spec. ¶ 2. To this end,
a relationship management system (1) constructs a social graph
corresponding to the user’s social network, and (2) scores each of the user’s
relationships based on, among other things, aggregated information
describing events including interactions, such as phone calls or emails, and
activities, such as event and meeting attendance, that impact the
relationship’s strength. Spec. ¶ 49. The relationship management system
also maintains “engagement scores” that indicate progress towards achieving
a particular objective or goal of the user or group of users. Spec. ¶¶ 50–51.
Based on these “engagement scores,” the system prioritizes recommended
actions concerning actions relevant to achieving these objectives. Spec. ¶
54.
Turning to claim 1, we first note that the claim recites a system and,
therefore, falls within the machine category of § 101. But despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217. To this end, we must determine whether the claim (1) recites a
judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. If both elements are
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

10
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea
conceptually similar to abstract ideas that merely collect and analyze
information, and display results of that collection and analysis. See Final
Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–5, 16–22. 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 concepts4; (b) certain
methods of organizing human activity5; or (c) mental processes.6
Here, apart from the recited (1) “server”; (2) “processor”; (3)
“memory containing software”; and (4) “database,” all of claim 1’s recited
limitations fit squarely within at least one of the above categories of the
USPTO’s guidelines. When read as a whole, the recited limitations are
directed to recommending approaches to advance progress towards a goal
based on an individual’s interactions with others.

4 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
6 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

11
That is, apart from the recited (1) “server”; (2) “processor”; (3)
“memory containing software”; and (4) “database,” the claimed limitations
recite mental processes, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of
organizing human activity including business relations and managing
personal relationships or interactions between people. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
First, the limitations calling for (1) “identify[ing] an objective with
respect to an entity defined by a customer relationship management (CRM)
service”; (2) “identify[ing] a first set of contacts within the plurality of
contacts associated with the objective; and (3) “continuously aggregat[ing]
event information associated with the first set of contacts from at least one
source of event information, wherein the event information comprises
metadata regarding interactions between at least one user and the first set of
contacts and a plurality of weighting factors for the interactions” can be
done entirely mentally by merely thinking about these elements or writing
them down on a piece of paper. Cf. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that a person could
construct a map of credit card numbers by merely writing down a list of
credit card transactions made from a particular IP address). Moreover,
leaving aside the fact that aggregating event information merely gathers
data, event information can be read on a piece of paper and cognitively
aggregated as the information is read. Therefore, the recited identification
and aggregation functions fall squarely within the mental processes category
of the USPTO’s guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including
observation and evaluation).
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

12
Second, the limitation calling for “generat[ing] an engagement score
that provides an indication of progress towards achieving the objective based
upon the event information associated with the first set of contacts, wherein
the engagement score is computed using the plurality of weighting factors
for the interactions and is continuously updated based on new event
information” can not only be done entirely mentally or with pen and paper,
but they also involve mathematical relationships. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888
F.2d 835, 837 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“Words used in a claim operating on
data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”); In re
Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482–86 (CCPA 1979) (holding ineligible recited
computing system that determined the optimum number of regular visits by
a business representative to a client over a predetermined time period, where
the system included various calculation means that applied mathematical
formulas); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (noting that analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are essentially
mental processes within the abstract idea category); Digitech Image Tech.,
LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical
algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional
information is not patent eligible.”); Benson, 409 U.S. at 63 (holding
ineligible claims involving a mathematical algorithm and directed to
converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals
for use with a computer); accord CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That
purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a
computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in [Benson].”).”
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

13
Therefore, the recited engagement score generation falls squarely within the
mental processes and mathematical concepts categories of the USPTO’s
guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52.
Lastly, the limitation calling for “provid[ing] a prioritized set of
recommendation data to the CRM service from which a task is created
within the CRM service associated with at least one contact in the first set of
contacts to advance the progress towards the objective based upon the at
least one engagement score” can not only be done with pen and paper, but
the prioritized recommendation data can also be conveyed to others via oral
or written communication. Cf. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896
F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that a nontechnical human activity
of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as
illustrating the invention’s focus, namely providing information to a person
without interfering with the person’s primary activity); In re Greenstein, 778
F. App’x 935, 936–40 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (holding ineligible
recited method of providing, over the internet, recommendations regarding a
purchase or lease of goods or services that processed an associated request
using software to present a recommendation). Therefore, the recited
providing recommendation data to the CRM service falls squarely within the
certain methods of organizing human activity category of the USPTO’s
guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity,
including personal interactions and following rules or instructions).
Therefore, apart from the recited (1) “server”; (2) “processor”; (3)
“memory containing software”; and (4) “database,” the recited limitations
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

14
fall squarely within the mental processes, mathematical concepts, and certain
methods of organizing human activity categories of the USPTO’s guidelines
and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Notably, the four elements enumerated above are the only recited
elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional elements, considered
individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application when reading claim 1 as a whole.
First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves a
computer or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise
changes the way those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated
by the Federal Circuit in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) despite Appellant’s contentions to the contrary
(Appeal Br. 9). The claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a specific
type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and
retrieves data in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellant
contends that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a
computer’s functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that
device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention.
To the extent that Appellant contends that the claimed invention is
rooted in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution
(see Appeal Br. 4–12), we disagree. Even assuming, without deciding, that
the claimed invention can recommend approaches to advance progress
towards a goal based on an individual’s interactions with others faster or
more efficiently than doing so manually, any speed or efficiency increase
comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components—not the
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

15
recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life
Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the
required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject
matter.”)); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F.
App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) (“Though the claims
purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce error,
we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary
capabilities of a general-purpose computer do not materially alter the patent
eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Like the claims in FairWarning,
the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer processors as
tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use generic computing
components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 8–9).
There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that
rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a
sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using
particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-
dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 1316.
But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

16
invention here recommends approaches to advance progress towards a goal
based on an individual’s interactions with others. This generic computer
implementation is not only directed to mental processes, mathematical
concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activity, but also does
not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
McRO).
This is not a case where the claimed invention is necessarily rooted in
computer technology to overcome a problem arising specifically in computer
networks as was the case in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There, instead of a computer network
operating in its normal, expected manner by sending a website visitor to a
third-party website apparently connected with a clicked advertisement, the
claimed invention in DDR generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page
that presented (1) product information from the third party and (2) visual
“look and feel” elements from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258–59.
Given this particular Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed
invention did not merely use the Internet to perform a business practice
known from the pre-Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in
computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer
networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellant’s claimed
invention, in essence, recommends approaches to advance progress towards
a goal based on an individual’s interactions with others. To the extent
Appellant contends that the claimed invention is necessarily rooted in
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

17
computer technology to overcome a computer-network-based problem as
was the case in DDR, we disagree.
In addition, the recited continuous aggregation of event information is
insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore,
does not integrate the exception into a practical application for that
additional reason. See Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (characterizing data gathering
steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to
obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard,
clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer
patentability); accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP §
2106.05(g)).
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants’ preemption-based contentions.
See Appeal Br. 8–9. Where, as here, the claims cover a patent-ineligible
concept, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot by an
analysis under the Alice framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
On this record, then, the claimed invention does not recite additional
elements that (1) improve a computer itself; (2) improve another technology
or technical field; (3) implement the abstract idea in conjunction with a
particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; (4) transform
or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing; or (5) apply or use
the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the
abstract idea’s use to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

18
(c), (e)). In short, the claim’s additional elements do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 1 as a whole.
In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by
recommending approaches to advance progress towards a goal based on an
individual’s interactions with others, a claim for a useful or beneficial
abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379–80.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.

Claims 1–15 and 17–22: Alice/Mayo Step Two
Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 1’s additional recited elements,
namely the recited ((1) “server”; (2) “processor”; (3) “memory containing
software”; and (4) “database”—considered individually and as an ordered
combination—do not provide an inventive concept that amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea when reading claim 1 as a whole.
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted
above, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to
implement the recited abstract idea.
To the extent Appellant contends that the recited limitations, including
those detailed above in connection with Alice step one, add significantly
more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under
Alice/Mayo step two (see Appeal Br. 9–11), these limitations are not
additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed to the
abstract idea as noted previously. See BSG Tech LLC v Buyseasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme Court in
Alice “only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

19
use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood,
routine and conventional”) (emphasis added); see also Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited elements should be evaluated
in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the
field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Rather, the claimed (1) “server”; (2) “processor”; (3) “memory
containing software”; and (4) “database” are the additional recited elements
whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc.,
811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an
“interface,” “network,” and “database” are generic computer components
that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); accord Spec. ¶¶ 74–
75; Fig. 2.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding the recited insignificant
extra-solution activity, namely the recited continuous aggregation of event
information. That event information is aggregated continuously does not
mean that this data gathering function is performed in an unconventional
way to add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive
concept under Alice/Mayo step two. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Given this limitation’s high level of generality, the recited extra-solution
activity does not add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an
inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. To the extent Appellant
contends otherwise (see Appeal Br. 4–12), we disagree.
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

20
In conclusion, the additional recited elements—considered
individually and as an ordered combination—do not add significantly more
than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step
two when reading claim 1 as a whole. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–15 and 17–22 not argued separately with particularity.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Wilson discloses every element of
independent claim 1 including generating an “engagement score,” namely a
relationship score, that indicates progress towards achieving the recited
identified objective based on event information associated with a first set of
contacts. Final Act. 7–10; Ans. 27–28.
Appellant argues that Wilson’s relationship score is not an
engagement score that indicates progress towards achieving an objective
based on automatically aggregated event information related to a set of
contacts as claimed, but rather merely scores the relationship between a
particular user and contact. Appeal Br. 12.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Wilson generates an engagement score that indicates progress towards
achieving an identified objective with respect to an entity defined by a CRM
service, where (1) the indication is based on continuously aggregated event
information associated with a first set of contacts, and (2) the event
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

21
information comprises (a) metadata regarding interactions between a user
and the contacts, and (b) weighting factors for the interactions?

ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 which
recites, in pertinent part, “engagement score.” The Specification does not
define the term “engagement score” explicitly, unlike other terms whose
concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Spec. ¶ 61
(defining the terms “social network” and “social graph” explicitly). The
Specification does note, however, that an engagement score indicates
progress towards achieving a particular objective of a user or group of users
to assist analyzing and forecasting user activities towards achieving certain
objectives. See Spec. ¶¶ 51–52, 55, 75, 116. This description is consistent
with the terms of claim 1 that requires the generated engagement score
indicate progress towards achieving the recited objective based on
aggregated event information associated with the first set of contacts.
Given this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on the functionality associated with relationship scores in Wilson’s Figures
12 and 14 and paragraphs 82 and 122. Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 27–28.
Notably, Wilson’s relationship scores are tied to achieving certain objectives
regarding the nature and extent of the relationship and associated
engagement between parties, such as collaborations and recommendations as
shown by the initial relationship score descriptions in paragraphs 91 and 92.
In addition, the relationship scores’ graphical representations in
Wilson’s Figure 12 indicate progress towards achieving an objective,
namely the “Target Relationship Zone” shown in the shaded area of that
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

22
figure. As shown in Wilson’s Figure 12, the graph shows the relative
contribution of various engagement-based events, such as lunch meetings,
emails, and phone calls, affecting the relationship score’s status with respect
to the target zone—a particularly informative depiction of this engagement
given the relationship score falling below the lower zone threshold, as
shown in the figure.
Although Appellant contends that Wilson’s “relationship scores” are
not “engagement scores,” these arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim that does not preclude the functionality associated with
Wilson’s relationship scores that, as noted above, fully meet the recited
“engagement scores.” We reach this finding despite the present application
distinguishing “engagement scores” that quantify progress towards an
objective from “relationship scores” that quantify a relationship’s strength.
See Spec. ¶¶ 51, 61, 116; see also claims 5, 9, 13 (reciting a relationship
score). Despite this nomenclature, the functionality associated with
Wilson’s relationship scores in Figure 12 indicates progress towards
achieving an objective based on aggregated event information associated
with a set of contacts. To the extent Appellant contends otherwise (see
Appeal Br. 12), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2–15 and 17–22 not argued separately with particularity.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)
/Basis
Affirmed Reversed
Appeal 2019-006001
Application 14/804,100

23
1–15,
17–22
101 Eligibility 1–15, 17–22
1–15,
17–22
102(a)(1) Wilson 1–15, 17–22
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 17–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED