Zola, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

14280970 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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.
14/280,970 05/19/2014 Shan-Lyn MA 023280-0429601 4000
909 7590 08/11/2020
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
CASEY, ALEXIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHAN-LYN MA, NOBUYUKI NAKAGUCHI, and KEITH TSUI
____________________

Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JAMES B. ARPIN and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22. Claims 10 and
20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 11–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm, and we enter a new ground of rejection.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Zola, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 9 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method for facilitating display of content associated with a
plurality of items from a plurality of retailers at a same time
on a user interface, the method being implemented in a
computing device having one or more physical processors
programmed with computer program instructions that, when
executed by the one or more physical processors, cause the
computing device to perform the method, the method
comprising:
[A.] receiving, by the computing device, item specification
information that identifies the plurality of items to be
added to a gift registry of a recipient user,
[i.] the plurality of items being added to the gift registry
from the plurality of retailers;
[B.] receiving, by the computing device, a plurality of
electronic addresses associated with the plurality of
items,
[i.] the plurality of electronic addresses being specified
by the recipient user and
[ii.] the plurality of electronic addresses linking to web
interfaces of the plurality of retailers;
[C.] crawling, by the computing device, based on the
plurality of electronic addresses, content associated
with the plurality of items from the plurality of
retailers via the web interfaces of the plurality of
retailers;
[D.] storing, by the computing device, the crawled content
in association with the plurality of items;
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

3
[E.] receiving, by the computing device, one or more
delivery parameters specified by the recipient user,
[i.] wherein the one or more delivery parameters
comprise at least a date used to deliver at least some
of the plurality of items;
[F.] presenting, by the computing device, on a display, the
crawled content associated with the plurality of items
from the plurality of retailers at the same time on the
user interface;
[G.] receiving, by the computing device, a selection of at
least a first item from among the presented crawled
content and payment information used to pay for the
first item;
[H.] causing, by the computing device, a payment request
for the first item to be processed based on the payment
information;
[I.] receiving, by the computing device, a payment
authorization related to the payment request; and
[J.] causing, by the computing device, delivery of the first
item to the recipient user to be scheduled based on the
one or more delivery parameters responsive to the
payment authorization.
9. The method of claim 1, the method further comprising:
[K.] generating one or more tracking reports that indicates
at least a status of the plurality of items in the gift
registry and includes one or more buttons; and
[L.] causing an item that was purchased to be fulfilled and/or
exchanged in response to a selection of the one or more
buttons.

Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

4
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Blades US 2009/0254447 A1 Oct. 8, 2009
Argue US 2014/0149238 A1 May 29, 2014
Erez US 2014/0207659 A1 July 14, 2014
REJECTION
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Erez, Argue, and
Blades. Final Act. 3–8.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claims 1 and 9. Appellant
does not present separate arguments for claims 2–8, 11–19, 21, and 22. We
select claims 1 and 9 as the representative claims for this rejection. Except
for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection
of claims 2–8, 11–19, 21, and 22 further herein.
B.
Although the Examiner withdrew a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(Final Act. 8), we reject infra claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a
law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more, i.e., the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter.

2 All citations herein to patent or pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

5
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments.
A. Claim 1
A.1.
Appellant raises the following arguments (directed to steps B and C)
in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Blades fails to disclose or suggest that the customer specifies
such electronic addresses associated with a plurality of items,
where the electronic addresses link to web interfaces of a
plurality of retailers (from which the items are added to the
customer’s gift registry). Blades merely mentions webpages,
hyperlinks, and URLs and such mention of webpages,
hyperlinks, and URLs does not suggest that the customer
specifies hyperlinks and URLs that link to a plurality of
retailers, much less the other foregoing limitations of claim[ 1].
Moreover, given that Erez merely teaches a recipient of
gift registry items, the combination of Erez and Blades fails to
disclose or suggest the foregoing claim limitations. In particular,
incorporating Blades’s description of forwarding a customer to a
shopping list web page or providing the customer with a
hyperlink or URL address to the shopping list web page into
Erez’s teachings does not disclose or suggest that the recipient
specifies a plurality of electronic addresses, much less that the
recipient specifies such electronic address that link to web
interfaces of a plurality of retailers in the manner recited in
claim[ 1].
Appeal Br. 6–7 (emphasis added).
Blades fails to disclose or suggest crawling based on a
plurality of electronic addresses specified by a consumer
(assuming arguendo that the consumer in Blades can be made to
correspond to the claimed “recipient user,” which the Appellant
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

6
does not acquiesce to). In other words, even if Blades describes
crawling content based on a URL or hyperlink, Blades fails to
disclose or suggest that these URLs or hyperlinks are specified
by the consumer, for at least the reasons noted above . . . .
Appeal Br. 7–8.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not
address the actual findings and reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection.
Instead, Appellant attacks each of the Blades reference and the Erez
reference singly for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relied on a
combination of Blades and Erez to show. In particular, the rejection does
not rely on Blades for teaching the “recipient specifies” and “link to web
interfaces of a plurality of retailers” (Appeal Br. 7) aspect disputed by
Appellant. Rather, the Examiner relied on Erez to show “the plurality of
items being specified by the recipient and linking to web interfaces of the
plurality of retailers” (Final Act. 4), and relied on Blades to show it was
known to use URL addresses and web crawling (Final Act. 5). The
Examiner then reasoned that it would have been obvious to modify the gift
registry of Erez to include functionality from Blades’ gift registry. Final
Act. 11. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references).
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

7
A.2.
Also, Appellant raises the following argument (directed to step C)
in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103:
Assuming arguendo that such correspondences can be made,
which the Appellant does not acquiesce to, Erez nevertheless
fails to disclose or suggest that the delivery constraint 612 (i.e.,
the delivery date of a notification of the gift to the recipient or
the expiration date of the gift) is specified by a recipient user.
Instead, Erez describes that the delivery constraint 612 is
specified by a buyer of the gift. Erez at [0100].
Further, the Examiner also appears to assert that recipient
input shipping address in paragraph [0108] of Erez corresponds
to the claimed “one or more delivery parameters.” Office Action
at 4. However, such a correspondence is unreasonable because
the recipient input shipping address described in paragraph
[0108] of Erez does not comprise “at least a date used to deliver
at least some of the plurality of items.”
Appeal Br. 8–9.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We note that Erez
states:
The delivery constraint 612 is where the buyer can input a
delivery constraint on the gift transaction. . . . The delivery
constraint 612 may also include a delivery date of the notification
of the gift to the recipient.
Erez ¶ 100.
The gift shipment page 1002 includes an interface to input
shipping address for the gift. The gift shipment page 1002 allows
the recipient to change the shipping/delivery address even if the
buyer has specified a shipping address already.
Erez ¶ 108.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

8
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that the Erez
teaching of allowing a recipient to change a particular delivery constraint
(Erez ¶ 108), is sufficient to teach or suggest that a recipient may change
other known delivery constraints such as the delivery date (Erez ¶ 100).
B. Claim 9
B.1.
Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The alleged combination fails to disclose or suggest
generating one or more tracking reports that indicates at least a
status of the plurality of items in the gift registry.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
Further, the Examiner alleges that paragraphs [0057] and
[0067] of Argue describe generating one or more tracking reports
that indicates a status of a plurality of items in a gift registry.
Answer at 4, 5. However, Appellant disagrees for at least the
following reasons. Argue describes a data store 92 that contains
records associated with one or more registries, including one or
more recipients, one or more potential gift items, and one or more
potential gift givers. Argue at [0057]. Further, Argue describes
that an update module enables a recipient to modify potential
gifts and add a potential gift giver and enables the update of a
gift registry when an item from the gift registry is purchased.
Argue at [0067]. However, the mere update of a gift registry or
a data store containing records associated with a gift registry does
not disclose or suggest generating a tracking report that indicates
a status of a plurality of items in a gift registry. In other words,
the mere description of updating a gift registry and storing
updates in a data store does not disclose or suggest generating a
tracking report that indicates a status of a plurality of items in a
gift registry.
Reply Br. 6 (further emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

9
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. In describing the
update module, Argue states:
For example, an update module 100 may remove an item from a
list of potential gift items 14 once the item has been purchased
by a gift giver 16.
Such removal may be accomplished in any suitable
manner. For example, in selected embodiments, an update
module may delete an item from a corresponding list of potential
gift items 14. Alternatively, an update module 100 may change
the status of an item once it has been purchased. For example,
before an item is purchased, it may have a status indicator
reflecting that unpurchased status. Items with such a status may
be displayed or otherwise communicated to potential gift givers
16. However, once an item is purchased for a gift registry 10, a
status indicator may be changed to reflect that purchased status.
Items with such a status may not be display or communicated to
potential gift givers 16, thereby lowering the risk of a duplicate
gift purchase for a particular recipient 12.
An update module 100 may ensure that the registry data
view by the various potential gift givers 16 is kept up to date.
Argue ¶¶ 67–69 (emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that Argue teaches
or suggests generating one or more tracking reports that indicates at least a
status of the plurality of items in the gift registry, as required by claim 9.
C. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims
1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

10
is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly
more.
C.1. 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.
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,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

11
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
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 part
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
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

12
requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
C.2. USPTO § 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “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 2019 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”).4

3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
4 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
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

13
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
C.3. Appellant’s § 101 Arguments & Panel’s Analysis
C.3.a. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
We determine claim 1 recites consolidating gift registry activity by
collecting information (gift registry, delivery parameters, payment
information), displaying data (provide listing of the plurality of items)
analyzing and manipulating data (select data/item, processing payment,
scheduling), including the following limitations:
[A.] receiving . . . item specification information that
identifies the plurality of items to be added to a gift
registry of a recipient user, the plurality of items being
added to the gift registry from the plurality of retailers;
[B.] receiving . . . a plurality of electronic addresses
associated with the plurality of items,

practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance — Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

14
[i.] the plurality of electronic addresses being specified
by the recipient user and
[ii.] the plurality of electronic addresses linking to web
interfaces of the plurality of retailers;
[C.] [collecting] content associated with the plurality of
items from the plurality of retailers . . . ;
[D.] storing . . . content in association with the plurality of
items;
[E.] receiving . . . one or more delivery parameters specified
by the recipient user, wherein the one or more delivery
parameters comprise at least a date used to deliver at
least some of the plurality of items;
[F.] presenting . . . content associated with the plurality of
items from the plurality of retailers at the same time . . .;
[G.] receiving . . . a selection of at least a first item from
among the presented . . . content and payment
information used to pay for the first item;
[H.] causing . . . a payment request for the first item to be
processed based on the payment information;
[I.] receiving . . . a payment authorization related to the
payment request; and
[J.] causing . . . delivery of the first item to the recipient user
to be scheduled based on the one or more delivery
parameters responsive to the payment authorization.
Claim 1 (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added).
We conclude that these limitations of claim 1 recite a series of steps
that seek to engage a human user in gift registry, which is a marketing and
sales activity (i.e., a commercial interaction); and a commercial interaction
is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the
abstract idea groupings of the 2019 Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

15
C.3.b. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we now turn
to whether claim 1 is directed to that abstract idea, or instead integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Beyond the abstract idea discussed above, the only additional
limitations are that (a) the method steps of the abstract idea are performed by
“a computing device,” (b) a user interface is used in the method steps, and
(c) data collecting step C is performed by “crawling.” However, “the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23. The same
is true to the extent that data collection via “crawling” might employ a
“machine,” rather than a human mind. The substance of the claim can be
performed mentally by a human, and “mere automation of manual processes
using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in
computer technology.” Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859
F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
In the Response (March 2, 2018) to the Non-Final Action (Nov. 16,
2017), Appellant argued that “[t]he originally filed Specification describes a
problem with gift registries in that a recipient user who wishes to receive gift
items from different retailers may be required to create an individual gift
registry for each retailer.” Response 11. However, as noted above, we
conclude that Appellant’s claim 1 is solving the problem of “consolidating
gift registry marketing and sales activities,” which is a business problem and
not a technological problem. We do not agree with Appellant that plural gift
registry consolidation is either a “technological field” or a “technological
problem” or a “technological solution.” Rather, we determine that these are
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

16
directed to a field of business/commerce and its problems and solutions.
Appellant’s Response argument is not persuasive.
Also, in the Response to the Non-Final Action, Appellant argued that
“the present claims improve the buyer’s navigation speed to buy a gift for
the recipient user because it saves the buyer from navigating through
multiple registries.” Response 11. “But relying on a computer to perform
routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This is because “the speed increase comes from the
capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method
itself.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Here, we are not persuaded that any additional limitation, alone
or in combination, constitutes a technological improvement.
We determine that as to claim 1, the claimed invention does not
represent a technological improvement in the operation of the claimed
system. We conclude that claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application. We determine claim 1 does not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

17
See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, and does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
C.3.c. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2B
The generic “computing device,” “user interface,” and data collecting
via “crawling” in claim 1 also are well-understood, routine, and
conventional components and functions. The USPTO has determined that
the Specification may support a finding that additional elements are well-
understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the Specification
expressly discloses the claimed methods and computing devices can be
implemented such that “user interfaces may be configured using
conventional electronic commerce/shopping techniques used to display
items for sale” (Spec. ¶ 68) and “item specification instructions 122 may
visit the link to crawl associated content using conventional methods”
(Spec. ¶ 60). Emphasis added. Further, mere recitation of a processor or
computer alone is insufficient. E.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23.
Therefore, claim 1 fails to provide an inventive concept beyond the
abstract idea, whether the additional limitations are considered individually
or in combination.
We determine that in addition to the abstract idea, claim 1 recites only
well-understood, routine, conventional elements/functions /combination of
elements and/or functions previously known in the industry. We determine
that beyond the abstract idea, the claims do not recite:
(vi) a specific limitation other than what is well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field or
unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
useful application.
Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

18
See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
C.3.d. Claims 2–9, 11–19, 21, and 22
As to claims 2–9, 11–19, 21, and 22, we conclude that they similarly
recite a series of steps that seek to engage a human user in gift registry
marketing and sales activities (i.e., commercial interactions); and a
commercial interaction is one of certain methods of organizing human
activity identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For substantially the same reasons discussed above, we
do not find that these claims recited additional elements integrating the
identified abstract idea into a practical applications or amounting to
significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22
as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We newly reject claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to patent ineligible subject matter without significantly more.

Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

19
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–9, 11–
19, 21,
22
103 Erez, Argue,
Blades
1–9, 11–
19, 21,
22

1–9, 11–
19, 21,
22
101 Eligibility 1–9, 11–
19, 21,
22
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–
19, 21,
22
1–9, 11–
19, 21,
22
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . .

Appeal 2019-005034
Application 14/280,970

20
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.

AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b)