Teruhiko Goda et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

13827370 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/827,370 03/14/2013 Teruhiko Goda AC-723-3675 3911
27562 7590 12/19/2019
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
GEORGALAS, ANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TERUHIKO GODA and KOJI KAWAHARA
____________

Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOYCE CRAIG, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–14 and 16–18.2 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) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Nintendo Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 15 has been canceled previously.
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant’s Specification describes “a content selling system, trading
medium, content server device, recording medium and content selling
method, for transmitting digital contents through a network to an apparatus,
such as a game machine, and thus selling the digital contents.” See Spec.
¶ 1.
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A digital content distribution system, comprising:
a physical trading medium that is associated with specific
digital content, the physical trading medium including
identification information required for obtaining the specific
digital content;
a selling terminal computer device configured to execute
a selling process regarding the physical trading medium and,
based on execution of the selling process, issue a notification
that identification information included as part of the physical
trading medium has been identified;
a server computer system that comprises:
an electronic storage system configured to store:
the specific digital content that is associated
with the physical trading medium;
an association between the specific digital
content and the identification information of the
physical trading medium;
a first processing system that includes at least one
hardware processor, the processing system configured to:
update, based on the notification issued from
the selling terminal computer device, a selling
condition of the physical trading medium, the
selling condition stored on the electronic storage
system in association with the identification
information;
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

3
a first transceiver configured to transmit the
specific digital content that is stored in the electronic
storage system;
an information processing computing device that
comprises:
a second processing system that includes at least
one hardware processor that is different from the at least
one hardware processor of the first processing system,
the second processing system configured to accept, via an
input source, an identification input that is linked to the
identification information of the physical trading
medium;
a second transceiver configured to communicate
with at least the server computer system, the second
transceiver configured to:
transmit, to the server computer system, the
identification input;
receive, from the server computer system,
the specific digital content,
the first processing system of the server computer system
is further configured to:
receive, via the first transceiver, the identification
input transmitted from the information processing
computer device;
determine that the identification information stored
in association with the specific digital content is
associated to the identification input and the selling
condition indicates sold;
responsive to determination that the selling
condition indicates sold, transmit the specific digital
content that is stored in the electronic storage system to
the information processing computing device;
the second processing system of the information
processing computing device configured to:
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

4
display a menu screen on a display device that is
coupled to the information processing computing device,
the menu screen including a first selection item that is
concurrently displayed with a second selection item;
while the menu screen is displayed, receive a
selection of either the first selection item or the second
selection item;
in response to selection of the first selection item,
display a list screen that includes selection choices for
plural different digital contents, which includes the
specific digital content, that are purchasable by a user of
the information processing computing device, the
selection choices including a specific selection that
corresponds to the specific digital content;
while the list screen is displayed, accept selection
of the specific selection that corresponds to the specific
digital content;
based at least in part on the specific selection that
corresponds to the specific digital content, receive, via
the second transceiver and from the server computer
system, the specific digital content without requiring
input of the identification input that is linked to the
identification information associated with the specific
digital content; and
in response to selection of the second selection
item, present an identification input screen and then
accept the identification input on the identification input
screen.
Claims 1–14 and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 13–17.
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

5
Claims 1–14 and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement.3
ANALYSIS
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
Principles of Law
The Federal Circuit has consistently held that 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate from
enablement. See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d. 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement,
an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art
that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the
invention, and that the invention, in that context is whatever is now claimed.
See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Discussion
The Examiner finds claim 1 recites subject matter that “was not
described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA
the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the
claimed invention.” Final Act. 10 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds
the terms “a selling terminal computer device,” “a server computer system,”
and “an electronic storage system” in claim 1, the term “a physical trading

3 The rejections of claims 1–14 and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, with respect to the term
“at least one hardware processor” are withdrawn, but maintained with
respect to the written description requirement for the remaining highlighted
terms. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 10–13.
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

6
medium” in claim 16, and the term “selection accepting unit which accepts a
selection to input the identification information or request a purchase of the
specific content from the server device” fail to satisfy the written description
requirement. Final Act. 10–12.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph because “the specification reasonably
conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the
claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Appeal Br. 33 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant refers to specific portions of the Specification as
follows:
For the “physical trading medium” term, Applicant
respectfully submits that that a person of ordinary skill in the art
having read and understood the specification and drawings
would have understood that applicant was in possession of the
claimed subject matter. In particular, the specification discloses
a game card and states “the game card 1 is a card in which
information required for downloading a specific game
application is printed. A user who purchased the game card 1
inputs the information printed on the game card 1 with the game
machine 7.” Paragraph 8. The specification further states “The
processing unit 30 performs processing for selling several trade
articles including the game card 1, game package 2 and the
like.” Paragraph 25 (emphasis added).
For the “selling terminal computer device” term,
Applicant respectfully submits that that a person of ordinary skill
in the art having read and understood the specification and
drawings would have understood that applicant was in
possession of the claimed subject matter. See selling terminal
device described in paragraph 10.
For the recitation of “a server computer system,”
Applicant respectfully submits that that a person of ordinary skill
in the art having read and understood the specification and
drawings would have understood that Applicant was in
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

7
possession of the claimed subject matter. For example, the
specification describes a “selling server” and “selling content
devices.” Upon reading the description of these devices in the
context of this specification a person of skill would have
understood that these refer to computing devices. For example,
because this is a person of skill in the art they would have
understood that the term “server” in the context of this
application does not refer to, for example, a waiter that serves
meals in a restaurant or the like, but instead refers to a computer
system. The description of these components and how they are
used in the example embodiments described in the specification
reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter.
For the recitation of “an electronic storage system,”
Applicant respectfully submits that that a person of ordinary skill
in the art having read and understood the specification and
drawings would have understood that applicant was in
possession of this subject matter. In particular, the specification
discloses storing units 43 and 65 and states, for example, “the
storing unit 65 is configured with a storing device, such as a hard
disk.” Paragraph 37.
. . . .
For the recitation of “transceiver,” Applicant respectfully
submits that that a person of ordinary skill in the art having read
and understood the specification and drawings would have
understood that applicant was in possession of the claimed
subject matter. See communicating unit 35, 44, 64, 84. A person
of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specification
reasonably conveys that the inventor was in possession of a
transceiver.
App. Br. 33–35.
The Examiner responds by stating that the disclosed examples in the
Specification do not provide the scope of the above-mentioned terms in
sufficient details to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ans. 15–17. Based
on the portions of the Specification that are highlighted by Appellant (see
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

8
above), we disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning and find that the
disclosure satisfies the written description requirement. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description.
PATENT ELIGIBILITY REJECTION
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.”
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
[the] 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 the claim 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).
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

9
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
section 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). 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.
2018)).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 55–56. Only if a claim (1)
recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a
practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
With these principles in mind, we turn to the § 101 rejection.
Contentions
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea of “selling and distributing a product on the internet.” Final Act. 15–16
(determining that claim 1 is similar to other identified abstract ideas such as
collecting and comparing known information and using categories to
organize, store, and transmit information. See, for example, Content
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

10
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images
in an organized manner); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Elecs. for Imaging,
Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (organizing information through
mathematical correlations); and Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis); and Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generating menus with
certain features). The Examiner further determines no additional elements
are recited in claim 1 “that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception.” Final Act. 16. The Examiner finds:
For example, claim 1 recites computer devices, servers,
processors, and storage devices, which are considered to be
generic computer components performing generic computer
functions. The use of generic computer components
performing generic computer functions does not impose any
meaningful limits on the computer implementation of the
abstract idea. (See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S._, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356 (2014).).
Id.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea because the Examiner has over-simplified the recited features
in contrast with the analysis in McRO4 and Enfish.5 Appeal Br. 18–21.
Additionally, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s characterization of the claims
as “directed to purchasing a product with an associated identification code

4 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
5 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

11
and inputting the identification code online in order to receive the product”
fails to “consider the claims as an ordered combination and it fails to
consider all of the elements of the claims.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant also
argues “the claims in this application are directed to a particularly arranged
graphical user interface that improves how digital content is delivered to a
user and how an electronic content distribution system can provide the same
digital content through multiple different delivery options.” Id. (emphasis
omitted). According to Appellant,
Graphical user interfaces are patent eligible subject
matter. For example, in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG INC.,
the court held that claims “directed to a specific improvement to
the way computers operate [because] the claimed graphical user
interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading
system directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a
problem in the software arts.” 675 F. App’x 1001, 1006 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). Similarly, the district court in SCVNGR, Inc. v.
DailyGobble, Inc., found that claims directed to a point of sale
system were patent eligible because they improved “payment
processing technology” by solving problems in existing point of
sale systems. 238 F. Supp. 3d 263, 269–70 (D.R.I. 2017).
Applicant’s claims, like those in SCVNGR improve upon
conventional user interface elements (in Applicant’s claims the
improvement in on digital delivery interfaces whereas the
improvement in SCVNGR was for point of sale systems). Both
of these factually relevant cases illustrate that graphical user
interface related inventions, like the one at issue in this case, are
patent eligible.
Appeal Br. 22 (alteration in original, some emphasis omitted). According to
Appellant, the recited features related to an interface are more than the
abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 21–24. Appellant adds the graphical user
interface recited in the claims of the instant invention further “improves
upon past conventional digital content delivery systems because it allows
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

12
users to easily use either functional process for obtaining the same digital
content,” which “cannot be said to be generic or conventional.” Appeal Br.
25.
The Judicial Exception – Abstract Idea
Under the Revised Guidance, we begin our analysis by first
considering whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including
certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a) mathematical concepts,
(b) mental steps, and (c) certain methods of organizing human activities.
Turning to independent claim 1, we observe claim 1, other than executing
instructions and storing content, recites, inter alia, the following functions:
update, . . ., a selling condition of the physical trading medium,
the selling condition stored on the electronic storage system in
association with the identification information;
. . .
transmit, . . ., the identification input;
receive, . . ., the specific digital content;
. . .
receive, . . ., the identification input . . .;
determine that the identification information stored in
association with the specific digital content is associated to the
identification input and the selling condition indicates sold;
. . ., transmit the specific digital content . . .;
. . .
display a menu screen . . .;
. . ., receive a selection of either the first selection item or the
second selection item;
. . .
. . ., accept selection of the specific selection . . .;
. . ., receive, . . ., the specific digital content . . .;
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

13
. . ., present an identification input screen and then accept the
identification input on the identification input screen.
Claim 1 (emphases added).
Thus, we conclude the aforementioned steps of updating a selling
condition, transmiting/receiving content, determining identification, and
presenting input screen functions involve certain methods of organizing
human activity of commercial or legal interactions, legal obligations, or
business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people including following rules or instructions.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.6 The Specification describes these
steps as managing human activities involved in “content selling method, for
transmitting digital contents through a network to an apparatus, such as a
game machine, and thus selling the digital contents.” Spec. ¶ 1.
“[C]onfiguration of a content selling system” and “selling terminal
device 3 is a device located in a store, for example, a game selling store,

6 Certain functions of claim 1 could be performed in the human mind or
using pen and paper (similar to Mental Processes concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)). If a
method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen
and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under § 101.
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d
1138, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the Supreme Court has altered the
§ 101 analysis since Cyber Source in cases like Mayo and Alice, we continue
to ‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds,
or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental
processes within the abstract-idea category.’” (alteration in original)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.); 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
Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

14
electric appliances mass retailer or the like,” which “performs a selling
processing, such as purchase amount calculation, change calculation, receipt
issue and the like.” Spec. ¶ 7. “A sale person in the store performs the
selling processing of the game card 1 or the game package 2 with the selling
terminal device 3.” Spec. ¶ 10. “The selling processing unit 37 of the
processing unit 30 shows on the displaying unit 32 a name, price and the like
of a trade article.” Spec. ¶ 26. “The terminal display processing unit 53
displays the login screen on the game machine 7, and the content server
device 5 requests for the input of user ID, password and the like.” Spec.
¶ 46.
We note that independent claims 16 and 17 recite similar language of
commensurate scope that we conclude also falls into the abstract idea
category of certain methods of organizing human activity such as
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations).
We also note the recited “display” and “present” functions of claim 1,
and similar language recited in other independent claims, merely access and
present information. Courts have found such data gathering steps to be
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943,
963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593
(2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution
activity).
Because we conclude all claims on appeal recite an abstract idea, as
discussed above, under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong
Two. Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on these mental
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

15
processes, 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 Revised 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.
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a
Practical Application
Further pursuant to the Revised Guidance, we consider whether there
are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54–55. The additional non-abstract limitations recited in independent
claim 1 include a computer system, server computer system, an electronic
storage system, a first and a second processing system, a first and a second
transceiver, and a display device.
We determine that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. As discussed below,
the additional elements do not improve computer capabilities or a technical
field. Nor do they implement the abstract ideas on a particular machine that
is integral to the claims or effect a transformation or reduction of a particular
article to a different state or thing. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
They simply use computers as tools to apply the abstract ideas. “[M]ere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

16
idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335‒36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The recited “computer system” and “server computer system” are
generic components that perform generic functions of analyzing and
processing data, which does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1353– 54 (holding that recited steps of collecting information even when
limited to particular content that does not change its character as information
and analyzing the information by steps people go through in their minds or
by mathematical algorithms, without more, are abstract ideas). These
computer systems are disclosed as “[t]he information processing terminal
device 15 receiving the digital contents is not limited to the game machine
7” and may include “various information processing terminal devices” such
as “a mobile phone, smart phone, tablet type terminal device and PC
(Personal Computer).” Spec. ¶ 72. The storage system is disclosed as “the
storing unit 85,” where the display is disclosed as “a liquid crystal panel or
the like” without any details of its configuration or display arrangement.
Spec. ¶¶ 26, 30, 36, 43, 44.
It is well-settled that “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words
‘apply it with a computer’ simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a
mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’ . . .
that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”) (quoting Mayo Collaborative
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

17
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82 (2012)); see Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 & n.30.
Essentially, the method automates a process of acquiring digital
content previously performed manually. See Reply Br. 4. As discussed
above, the Specification describes known methods of selling content,
processing a trading medium, determining the selling condition of the
physical trading medium, and offering selections to the user as processes
that involve large data files being downloaded on networks with improved
communication speed. Spec. ¶ 2. Individuals in a store manipulate the
selling terminal device in a store, presenting a user with a game card
including all the information needed to download a game. Spec. ¶ 8.
Using generic computer systems and servers to perform selling
content more efficiently using “a specifically designed user interface such
that it would be ‘possible to implement the content selling having
advantages of both the store selling and download selling’” that previously
were done manually or separately (see Reply Br. 4) does not integrate the
abstract ideas into a patent-eligible application. See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“But relying on a
computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that
claim 1 recites “features in which an improved user interface is provided,”
which are “an ordered combination, more than just ‘purchasing a product
with an associated identification code and inputting the identification code
online in order to receive the product.’” Appeal Br. 23–24. Similarly, we
are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]he particularly arranged
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

18
graphical user interface improves upon past conventional digital content
delivery systems because it allows users to easily use either functional
process for obtaining the same digital content.” Appeal Br. 25.
Unlike the claims in Core Wireless, Appellant’s claim 1 does not
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application that is patent-eligible.
In Core Wireless, the claims recited an improved user interface rather than
the generic idea of summarizing information that already existed. Core
Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). The improvements were (1) “an application summary that can
be reached directly from the menu,” (2) “the application summary displays a
limited list of data offered within the one or more applications, each of the
data in the list being selectable to launch the respective application,” and (3)
“the application summary is displayed while the one or more applications
are in an un-launched state.” Id. at 1359 (emphasis omitted), 1362–63
(“These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of
information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface
methods to display a generic index on a computer.”). The specification
confirmed that the claims recited an improved user interface for electronic
devices, particularly those with small screens. Id. at 1363. Rather than
requiring a user to “drill down through many layers to get to desired data or
functionality” on small screens, the “invention improves the efficiency of
using the electronic device by bringing together ‘a limited list of common
functions and commonly accessed stored data,’ which can be accessed
directly from the main menu.” Id. (“[T]he summary window allows the user
to see the most relevant data or functions ‘without actually opening the
application up.’”).
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

19
Here, the user interface display allows users to see a menu screen,
select an item from the menu, and receive and accept an identification input
in an identification input screen without actually improving computers. In
other words, the recited features of the display device relate to the way
information is displayed, which is essentially part of the abstract idea itself.
See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (where arranging information along an axis does not improve
computers, claims are directed to an abstract idea); Affinity Labs of Tex.,
LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that
where the essential advance was in the content of an application, i.e., a
functionally described display of information, rather than the process of
downloading it, the claims were directed to an abstract idea).
Thus, we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” Under the Revised
Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, we then look to whether
the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56.
The Examiner determined claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept
because the additional elements in the claim include “computer devices,
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

20
servers, processors, and storage devices, which are considered to be generic
computer components performing generic computer functions.” See Final
Act. 16. The Examiner further cited the court decision in BASCOM where
“[t]he court further found that the patent is claiming a technology-based
solution (not an abstract idea based solution implemented with generic
technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet
that overcomes existing problems with Internet filtering systems,” which is
not the case with the recited features of claim 1. Ans. 12–13.
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide any evidence to
show the recited features of claim 1 are “well-understood, routine, or
conventional.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends
The instant claims recite significantly more than the
Examiner’s asserted abstract idea (i.e., “purchasing a product
with an associated identification code and inputting the
identification code online in order to receive the product”)
because the additional elements required by the claims beyond
this asserted abstract idea are not well-understood, routine or
conventional. See Berkheimer. In particular, the combination of
elements in how a menu screen is displayed and the particular
requirements for how the subsequent list screen and
identification input screens are linked to the menu screen are
not well-understood, routine or conventional.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded. First, Appellant’s claims can be distinguished
from patent-eligible claims such as those in BASCOM (see Appeal Br. 24),
where the system claims were directed to a “content filtering system for
filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network,” which the
court held were directed to an abstract idea. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348–
49. The court further held the claims included an inventive concept in the
ordered combination of system components, including a local client
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

21
computer and a remote ISP server connected to the client computer and
Internet computer network providing for “the installation of a filtering tool at
a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering
features specific to each end user.” Id. at 1350. Appellant has failed to
establish that claim 1 includes a similar or analogous arrangement or
“ordered combination” of components, and, instead, makes only the
conclusory statement that “the combination of elements in how a menu
screen is displayed and the particular requirements for how the subsequent
list screen and identification input screens are linked to the menu screen are
not well-understood, routine or conventional.” See Reply Br. 3.
Second, the additional elements recited in the claim include “display a
menu screen,” “receive a selection,” and “present . . . on the identification
input screen” that receives selection choices and accepts selections and
receives content. The claim recites these elements at a high level of
generality, and the written description provides no details about the selection
screen, selection choices, or receiving content to show there is anything
about using the graphical user interface that is not routine or conventional.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 26, 30, 36, 44 (describing generic display without specific
display functions). With respect to claim 7, we are also unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the recitation of the distribution server adds
significantly more than the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 25. Appellant’s
Specification does not describe the recited servers with any details and, as
discussed above, refers to servers at a high level of generality. Additionally,
Figures 5 and 9 show the content server as a generic component.
Consequently, we find that the above-identified claim elements constitute no
more than what would have been well-understood, routine and conventional
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

22
to a skilled artisan. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368
(2018).7
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
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
1–14, 16–
18
112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
1–14, 16–18
1–14, 16–
18
101 Eligibility  1–14, 16–18
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16–18

7 A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional
nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as
well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a
commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the
additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does
not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy
35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018) available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF.
Appeal 2018-007049
Application 13/827,370

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