Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2021

2020003085 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2021)

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.
14/788,576 06/30/2015 Shiv Kumar Saini P5182-US 8466
108982 7590 07/02/2021
FIG. 1 Patents
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
IQBAL, MUSTAFA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2021 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):
Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHIV KUMAR SAINI, TUSHAR MEHNDIRATTA,
SURYA PRATAP SINGH TANWAR, and DHRUV ANAND
____________

Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES P. CALVE, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–8, 11–14, and 21–28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to identifying drivers for a
metric-of-interest. Spec. ¶ 16.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Adobe Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief 2.
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

2
Claims 1, 22, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 25, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method implemented by at least one computing
device to indicate which of a plurality of metrics are
determined to be influential in causing a selected
metric-of-interest, comprising:
[(a)] obtaining, via a communicable coupling of the at
least one computing device, data for the plurality of metrics that
describes visitor interaction with a website;
[(b)] receiving, via a user interface of the at least one
computing device, a user selection from the plurality of metrics
of a metric-of-interest, the user selection received by an input
interface of the at least one computing device, the user selection
indicating to initiate, for the metric-of-interest, determination of
driving metrics from the plurality of metrics, the metrics not
having been identified yet by the at least one computing device
as the driving metrics or as non-driving metrics;
[(c)] responsive to receiving the user selection of the
metric-of-interest, determining the driving metrics for the
metric-of-interest from the data by at least one processor of the
at least one computing device:
[(1)] generating a first model representing values of
the selected metric-of-interest over a time interval;
[(2)] applying a feature selection technique to
determine, from the plurality of metrics, candidate driving
metrics that are likely to be influential in causing the
metric-of-interest;
[(3)] generating a second model representing values
of the candidate driving metrics over another time interval;
[(4)] determining whether the candidate driving
metrics represented by the second model over the other
time interval are influential in causing the metric-of-
interest by comparing the first and second models using a
statistical causality technique, the comparing including
comparing a fit of the first and second models to the data
for the plurality of metrics; and
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

3
[(5)] identifying the candidate driving metrics
determined influential in causing the metric-of-interest as
the driving metrics based on comparing the fit of the first
and second models; and
[(d)] generating a graphical user interface component by
the at least one processor of the at least one computing device to
display, via the user interface, a first level of the determined
driving metrics.

25. A method implemented by a computing device to
indicate which of a plurality of metrics are determined to be
influential in causing a selected metric-of-interests, the method
comprising:
[(a)] generating, by the computing device, a first data
model representing values of a selected metric-of-interest over a
time interval, the selected metric-of-interest selected from a
plurality of metrics for a determination of driving metrics
influential in causing the selected metric-of-interest, the plurality
of metrics not having been identified yet by the computing device
as the driving metrics or as non-driving metrics; and
[(b)] identifying, by the computing device, the driving
metrics for the selected metric-of-interest by iteratively
performing identification steps until candidate driving metrics
are determined influential in causing the metric-of-interest
according to a statistical causality technique, the identification
steps including:
[(c)] determining the candidate driving metrics that are
likely to be influential in causing the metric-of-interest by
applying a feature selection technique to the plurality of metrics;
[(d)] generating a second data model representing values
of the determined candidate driving metrics over another time
interval; and
[(e)] determining whether the determined candidate
driving metrics represented by the second model over the other
time interval are influential in causing the metric-of-interest by
comparing the first and second data models using the statistical
causality technique, the comparing including comparing a fit of
the first and second data models to the data for the plurality of
metrics.
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

4

Appeal Br. 58, 64 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8, 11–14, and 21–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 22–26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ryks (US 2014/0172502 A1, pub. June 19, 2014), Lei
(US 2016/0307218 A1, pub. Oct. 20, 2016), and Ehlen
(US 2015/0186790 A1, pub. July 2, 2015).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryks,
Lei, Ehlen, Ali (US 8,738,421 B1, iss. May 27, 2014), and Lozano
(US 2012/0143815 A1, pub. June 7, 2012).
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11–14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Ryks, Hoyne (US 2015/0371239 A1, pub. Dec. 24, 2015),
Lei, and Ehlen.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryks,
Hoyne, Lei, Ehlen, and Ali.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryks,
Hoyne, Lei, Ehlen, and Lozano.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Ryks, Hoyne, Lei, Ehlen, and Klein (US 2015/0339415 A1, pub.
Nov. 26, 2015).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ryks,
Hoyne, Lei, Ehlen, and Nonez (US 2016/0232537 A1, pub. Aug. 11, 2016).

Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

5
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Principles of Law
35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent eligible if it is a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted § 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)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice, “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that
analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Id. According to
Supreme Court precedent, concepts determined to be abstract ideas include
certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (id. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)).
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

6
If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an
abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the
second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., 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.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
USPTO Guidance
We are also guided by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
guidance, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”) and the October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”), which
have been incorporated into the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE §§ 2104–06, Rev. 10.2019 (“MPEP”) in June 2020. “The
guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO’s interpretation
of the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of
decisions by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.” Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 51. However, the “guidance . . . does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO” and
“[r]ejections will continue to be based upon the substantive law.” Id.
Under the Guidance, the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework is a
two-prong inquiry. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). “Prong One asks does the
claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?” MPEP
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

7
§ 2106.04(II)(A)(1). When determining whether a claim recites an abstract
idea, the guidance defines enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, distilled
from precedent. MPEP § 2106.04(a); see also id. § 2106.04(a)(2) (defining
abstract idea groupings); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. If the claim recites a
judicial exception, then the claim requires further analysis at Prong Two.
MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1). “Prong Two asks does the claim recite
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application?” MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2); see also id. § 2106.04(d). 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 additional elements, individually or in combination, provide an
inventive concept. See MPEP §§ 2106(III), 2106.05.
“An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law
of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Id. § 2106.05(I)
(quoting Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). Among the considerations in determining whether the additional
elements, individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than
the exception itself, we look to whether they add a specific limitation beyond
the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in
the field or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(II).
Rejection
The Examiner determined that the claims “are geared toward
obtaining/receiving data relating to user interactions on a website, analyzing
data to find driver metrics that relate to metric[s] of interest, and displaying
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

8
results from the analysis of the data to present the driving metrics.” Final
Act. 8. The Examiner determined that receiving and analyzing data could be
performed in the mind as observations and evaluations, and thus, cover a
mental process, i.e., an abstract idea. Id.; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner
also determined that the limitations deal with visitors’ interactions and
behaviors on a website and, thus, recite a commercial interaction, including
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; [or] business relations, which is a
subgrouping of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping
of abstract ideas. See Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 8. The Examiner further
determined that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application or that amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea. Final Act. 8–11. For example, dependent claims 2, 3,
and 27 add concepts regarding Lasso feature selection and Granger
Causality. However, the Examiner found that these concepts fall under the
mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas and, thus, do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Id. at 8.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2A)
Turning to step one of the Mayo/Alice framework, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner oversimplified the
claim language, failed to identify limitations that recite an abstract idea, or
otherwise erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 14–32; Reply Br. 4–13. The Federal Circuit has explained that
“the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in
light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

9
822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether
the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology
or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the
Specification (including the claim language) that the claims focus on an
abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical
field.
The Specification is titled “IDENTIFYING DRIVERS FOR A
METRIC-OF-INTEREST.” A “metric-of-interest” refers to a particular
metric with which a user, such as a business, is concerned. Spec. ¶ 14.
“[D]riving metrics” refer to metrics that influence a metric-of-interest. Id.
¶ 15. Once driving metrics are identified, a business may invest its
resources to affect the driving metrics so as to improve the metric-of-
interest. Id. However, conventional techniques for identifying driving
metrics for a metric-of-interest from data describing the metrics are “time-
consuming, costly, and susceptible to error because these techniques involve
examination by data analysts.” Id. ¶ 14; see also id. ¶ 2 (describing
conventional techniques for identifying driving metrics performed by data
analysts as “time-consuming [and] costly” and “susceptible to error . . . due
to spurious correlations and hidden relationships between the metrics”).
Further, when the driving metrics are wrongly identified, a business’s
investment to affect the driving metrics may not improve the metric-of-
interest. Id. ¶ 15. The cost of conventional driving metric identification
techniques and an investment in wrongly-identified driving metrics cause
business to deplete resources needlessly. Id. What is needed is improved
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

10
“techniques for identifying influential metrics for a metric-of-interest.”
Id. ¶ 2; see also id. ¶ 3 (describing that the claimed invention identifies
drivers for a metric-of-interest).
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a method for indicating
which of a plurality of metrics are influential in causing a selected metric-of-
interest. The method comprises: (1) receiving data for a plurality of metrics
and a user selection of a metric-of interest, i.e.,
obtaining . . . data for the plurality of metrics that describes
visitor interaction with a website; [and]
receiving . . . a user selection from the plurality of metrics
of a metric-of-interest . . . , the user selection indicating to
initiate, for the metric-of-interest, determination of driving
metrics from the plurality of metrics, the metrics not having been
identified yet by the at least one computing device as the driving
metrics or as non-driving metrics
(limitations (a) and (b)); (2) analyzing the data for the plurality of metrics to
determine the driving metrics for the metric-of-interest selected by the data,
i.e.,
responsive to receiving the user selection of the metric-of-
interest, determining the driving metrics for the metric-of-
interest from the data . . . :
generating a first model representing values of the
selected metric-of-interest over a time interval;
applying a feature selection technique to determine,
from the plurality of metrics, candidate driving metrics
that are likely to be influential in causing the metric-of-
interest;
generating a second model representing values of
the candidate driving metrics over another time interval;
determining whether the candidate driving metrics
represented by the second model over the other time
interval are influential in causing the metric-of-interest by
comparing the first and second models using a statistical
causality technique, the comparing including comparing a
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

11
fit of the first and second models to the data for the
plurality of metrics; and
identifying the candidate driving metrics
determined influential in causing the metric-of-interest as
the driving metrics based on comparing the fit of the first
and second models.
(limitations (c)(1)–(c)(5)); and (3) displays the results of the collection and
analysis, i.e., “generating . . . to display . . . a first level of the determined
driving metrics” (limitation (d)).
When given their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations (a)
through (d), recite a method for determining driving metrics from visitor
interaction that influence a metric-of-interest. See Spec. ¶ 15. This concept
pertains to “commercial interactions,” including “marketing or sales
activities or behaviors, and business relations,” which is a subgrouping of
the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract
ideas.2 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). For example, the method collects
data for a plurality of metrics describing a visitor interaction with a website,
such as a website associated with a business (limitation (a)). This visitor
interaction encompasses sales activities or behaviors and/or a business
relation between the visitor and the website. See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 30. Next, a
user, such as a business associated with the website, selects a particular
metric relating to the visitor interaction that is of interest to the user (i.e., a
“metric-of-interest”) (limitation (b)). See id. ¶ 14. An exemplary metric of
interest includes a metric describing orders placed during the visitor
interaction, i.e., sales activities or behaviors. See id. Once the metric-of-
interest is selected, data for the plurality of metrics that describes visitor

2 For brevity’s sake, we address only one abstract idea grouping.
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

12
interaction with a website is analyzed by performing limitations (c)(1)
through (c)(5), which results in determining the driving metrics that
influence the selected metric of interest. Put simply, the analysis
“uncover[s] spurious correlations and hidden relationships between the
metrics” regarding the commercial interaction. Id. ¶ 16. The results (i.e.,
the identified driving metrics) are presented to the user (limitation (d)). See
id. ¶ 16. The driving metrics inform a user, such as a business, where to
“invest its resources to affect the driving metrics in ways that are intended to
improve the metric-of-interest.” Id. ¶ 15. That is, it is used to improve
marketing, sales activities or behaviors, or business relations, which is a
commercial interaction and, thus, falls into the certain methods of organizing
human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that limitations (a) through (d) of claim 1 recite at least a certain
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea.3
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that limitation (c)(4), i.e.,
determining whether the candidate driving metrics
represented by the second model over the other time interval are
influential in causing the metric-of-interest by comparing the
first and second models using a statistical causality technique,
the comparing including comparing a fit of the first and second
models to the data for the plurality of metrics[,]
has no correspondence to visitors’ interactions on a website or visitors’
actions, and thus, does not fall into the abstract idea grouping of certain
methods of organizing human activity. See Reply Br. 10. We disagree.
Limitation (c)(4) analyzes metrics (candidate driving metrics) that describe

3 Because each of limitations (a) through (d) relate to the certain method of
organizing human activity, for brevity’s sake we do not additionally analyze
applicability of these limitations to the other abstract idea groupings.
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

13
“visitor interaction with a website” to determine if the metrics are
“influential in causing the metric-of-interest” (driving metrics). The
Specification explains that businesses seek to determine driving metrics that
can improve a metric-of-interest, such as orders placed, which ties to
revenue, “so that the business can change their practices in ways that affect
the identified visitor interaction to improve performance metrics.”
Spec. ¶ 2; see also id. ¶¶ 14–16. Put simply, the step involves analyzing the
visitor interaction with the website to determine how to improve business
relations and/or sales activities and/or behaviors.
Appellant argues that claim 1, like the claims at issue in McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), has
been oversimplified. Appeal Br. 17–23. According to Appellant, the
language recited in claim 1 is “clearly different from the concept of
‘organizing human activity.’” Id. at 21. Appellant also argues that the
specific language of claim 1, like the claims at issue in McRO, prevents
preemption of all processes for identifying driving metrics. Id. at 23.
For the reasons described above, we disagree with Appellant’s
assertion that claim 1 does not recite a certain method of organizing human
activity. Additionally, although Appellant ostensibly contends otherwise,
the Federal Circuit did not premise its determination that the claim
in McRO was patent eligible merely on the specificity of the claimed
animation scheme. Nor, for that matter, did the court rely solely on the lack
of any risk of preemption. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 (“The limitations in
claim 1 prevent preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-
synchronization of 3-D characters. . . . Even so, we have recognized that ‘the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

14
eligibility.’ Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015).”).
Instead, the court determined that the claim at issue was patent
eligible because, when considered as a whole, the claim was directed to a
technological improvement over existing, manual 3-D animation techniques
and used limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an
improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Id. at 1316.
In particular, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allow
computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial
expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced
by human animators. Id. at 1313. Here, Appellant does not persuade us that
claim 1 recites a technological improvement analogous to McRO’s
improvement in 3-D animation techniques, or that claim 1 recites more than
an improvement in wholly abstract ideas using computers as tools.
We also find no parallel between claim 1 and the patent-eligible
claim 1 in Example 37 of the USPTO’s “Subject Matter Eligibility
Examples: Abstract Ideas,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf (hereinafter
“Eligibility Examples”). Appeal Br. 24–27. Appellant argues that claim 1
here, like claim 1 of Example 37, recites a specific manner of determining
driving metrics for a metric-of-interest, and generating a graphical user
interface component to display the determined driving metrics. Id. at 26.
According to Appellant, by displaying a first level of the determined driving
metrics via a graphical user interface component, claim 1 provides an
improved user interface over prior systems. Id. Yet, Appellant’s claim 1
recites using a generic user interface component in its ordinary capacity to
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

15
display via the generic user interface a first level of the determined driving
metrics.
In contrast, claim 1 of Example 37 involves automatically moving the
most used icons to a position on the graphical user interface (GUI) closest to
the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of
use. Eligibility Examples, 2. Thus, the hypothetical claim requires the GUI
to function in a specific manner that results in an improved user interface for
electronic devices. We find no comparable improvement to a user interface
in Appellant’s claimed invention. At most, claim 1 recites particular data to
be collected and analyzed, and requires the user interface to display certain
results related to this collection and analysis (i.e., a first level of the
determined driving metrics). However, the claimed solution does not
improve the functionality of the graphical user interface itself. “As many
cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information
is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does
not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also BSG Tech
LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n
improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an
improvement in the database’s functionality.”).
For similar reasons, we also are not persuaded that claim 1 is
analogous to the patent-eligible claim in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) because it recites an
improved user interface. See Appeal Br. 27–30. According to Appellant,
conventional approaches of identifying driving metrics rely on examination
by human data analysts, which requires require sifting through “vast
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

16
amounts of data” and can be “time-consuming, costly and susceptible to
error.” Id. at 29 (quoting Spec. ¶¶ 2, 14). Appellant argues that claim 1
recites an “improved system for identifying and presenting drivers for a
‘metric-of-interest’ in a way that removes a user (e.g., data analyst)[,] except
to initially provide input to select the metric-of-interest.” Id. at 28. In this
way, Appellant contends that claim 1 improves efficiency of user interaction
and operation of a computing device over conventional approaches that rely
on examination by human data analysts. Id. at 28–30. Yet, “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); see also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]ur precedent is clear that merely adding
computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process
does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”).
Contrary to Appellant’s suggestion, the claims at issue in Core
Wireless were not determined to be patent eligible because they were
performed automatically. Instead, in Core Wireless, the court found that the
claims recited a specific improvement in computer technology — “an
improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small
screens.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. Because small screens require
data and functionality to be divided into many layers or views, “prior art
interfaces required users to drill down through many layers to get to desired
data or functionality.” Id. (citation omitted). For example, a user would
locate and launch a required application, and then navigate within the
application to find data of interest. Id. The claims at issue in Core
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

17
Wireless improved the operation of the user interface by displaying a menu
listing one or more applications and an application summary reachable from
the menu where the application summary displayed a limited list of data
offered within one or more applications that are in an un-launched
state. Id. at 1359. When a user selected data from the limited list, the
unlaunched application offering the data would be launched, and the user
could view the data within the application. Id. In this way, the improved
interface prevented a user from “paging through multiple screens of options”
to reach desired data or functionality. Id. at 1363. We find no analogous
improvement to user interfaces recited in claim 1.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s attempt to liken claim 1 to
the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 30–32. In DDR Holdings, the claims
were directed to retaining website visitors, and in particular to a system that
modified the conventional web browsing experience by directing a user of a
host website, who clicks an advertisement, to a “store within a store” on the
host website, rather than to the advertiser's third-party
website. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–58. The court determined that
“the claims address a business challenge (retaining website visitors) [that] is
a challenge particular to the Internet.” Id. at 1257. The court also
determined that the invention was “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks,” and that the claimed invention did not simply use
computers to serve a conventional business purpose. Id. Rather, there was a
change to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink
protocol. Id. In particular, the claimed invention manipulated interactions
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

18
with the Internet “to yield a desired result - a result that overrides the routine
and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
hyperlink.” Id. at 1258.
Appellant maintains that claim 1, like the claims at issue in DDR
Holdings,
is directed to addressing a digitally-rooted challenge that is
particular to the Internet, which in this instance involves
obtaining data for a plurality of metrics that describes visitor
interaction with a website, determining driving metrics for a
selected metric-of-interest, and generating a graphical user
interface component to display a first level of the determined
driving metrics.
Appeal Br. 31. Appellant additionally argues that claim 1 is rooted in
technology, because it “build[s] regression models (i.e., machine learning
approaches) and compare[s] them to the observed values of a metric-of-
interest to determine driving metrics for a metric of interest.”4 Appeal Br.
32. Yet, as the court cautioned in DDR Holdings, “not all claims purporting
to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent.” DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258.
For example, in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed.
Cir. 2014), although the patentee argued that its claims were “directed to a
specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously
unknown and never employed on the Internet before” (id. at 714), the court
determined that this alone could not render the claims patent-eligible (id. at
715–16). Here, the claims are more analogous to the claims at issue
in Ultramercial than the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, because there is

4 We note that claim 1 does not recite that either of the claimed models is a
regression model.
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

19
no indication that any of the claimed computer components, including the
website, processor, and graphical user interface identified by Appellant, are
used other than as tools operating in their normal and ordinary
capacity. “An abstract idea on ‘an Internet computer network’ or on a
generic computer is still an abstract idea.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted).
Beyond the abstract idea of either a mental process or a certain
method of organizing human activity, claim 1 recites a “communicable
coupling,” “at least one computing device,” a “user interface,” “an input
interface,” “at least one processor,” “graphical user interface component.”
However, Appellant's Specification makes clear that the claimed invention is
implemented using generic computer components to perform generic
computer functions. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 20, 21, 65, 73–86. We find no
indication in the Specification that the operations recited in claim 1 require
any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components,
i.e., a particular machine, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or
that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer
components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no
doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more
than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

20
abstract idea. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that
provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1
includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an
“inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements amount to
“significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
We agree with the Examiner that it does not.
Appellant argues that “the Examiner has failed to provide any facts
showing that the alleged additional elements along with the limitations of the
claims were widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry at
the time the patent application was filed.” Appeal Br. 33. Specifically, the
Examiner “fails to provide any facts showing that ‘a graphical user interface
component’ that displays ‘a first level of the determined driving metrics,’ as
recited in claim 1, is widely prevalent or in common use in the industry.” Id.
Yet, displaying a first level of the determined driving metrics is part of the
abstract idea itself and, thus, using a generic graphical user interface
component to display a first level of the determined driving metric does not
amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the abstract idea itself. See
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

21
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible
concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that
renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
The Examiner determined here, and we agree, that the only additional
elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are generic computer
components (i.e., a “communicable coupling,” “at least one computing
device,” a “user interface,” “an input interface,” at least one processor,” and
a “graphical user interface component”). This determination is amply
supported by, and fully consistent with, the Specification. See, e.g., Spec.
¶¶ 20, 21, 65, 73–86. Appellant cannot reasonably maintain that there is
insufficient factual support for the Examiner’s determination that the
operation of these components is well-understood, routine, or conventional,
where, as here, there is nothing in the Specification to indicate that the
operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized hardware or inventive
computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using
other than generic computer components to perform generic computer
functions, e.g., receiving, processing, displaying and transmitting
information. Indeed, the Federal Circuit, in accordance with Alice, has
“repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility”
where claims have been defended as involving an inventive concept based
“merely on the idea of using existing computers or the Internet to carry out
conventional processes, with no alteration of computer functionality.”
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J.,
concurring) (internal citations omitted).
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

22
Appellant also misapprehends the controlling precedent to the extent
Appellant maintains that claim 1 is patent eligible, i.e., that the claim
includes an inventive concept, because it allegedly is novel and/or non-
obvious in view of the cited prior art. Neither a finding of novelty nor a
non-obviousness determination automatically leads to the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is patent eligible. Although the second step in the
Mayo/Alice framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the
analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a
search for “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 (citation
omitted). “Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not
by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology, 569
U.S. at 591. A novel and non-obvious claim directed to a purely abstract
idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any
element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance
in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”).
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent claims 22 and 25 recite language similar to independent
claim 1, and Appellant argues the patent eligibility of these claims on the
same bases argued with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 34–38. Therefore,
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

23
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Appellant argues that the rejection of dependent claims 2–8, 11–14,
21, 23, 24, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn in light of their
dependence from independent claims 1, 22, or 25. Id. at 38. Because we
determined these claims to be patent ineligible, Appellant’s argument is
unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–8,
11–14, 21, 23, 24, and 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2–8, 11–14, 21, and 28
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because Ryks and
Ehlen do not teach at least
determining whether the candidate driving metrics
represented by the second model over the other time interval are
influential in causing the metric-of-interest by comparing the
first and second models using a statistical causality technique,
the comparing including comparing a fit of the first and second
models to the data for the plurality of metrics[,]
as recited in claim 1, limitation (c)(4).In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the Examiner primarily relies on Ryks. Ryks relates to techniques for
enabling a retailer to identify items that, if dropped from inventory, would
likely result in a customer walking out of the retailer. See Ryks ¶¶ 17–21.
The method measures the repeatability of an item (i.e., how often a customer
purchases a particular item) and exclusivity of the item (i.e., a measure of
the particular item not being substitutable for another item in a category),
and uses this information to determine which items to stock. Id. ¶ 21.
Specifically, a retailer uses a walker grid to decide whether to drop an item
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

24
from inventory. Id. ¶ 74. The walker grid is a graph of a unit sales index
versus a repeat index. Id. ¶ 76, Fig. 5.
The Examiner finds that the walker grid shown in Figure 5 of Ryks is
the claimed first model representing values of the selected metric-of-interest
over a time interval, as recited in limitation (c)(1), and also the claimed
second model representing the values of the candidate driving metrics, as
recited in limitation (c)(3).5 Final Act. 31–32. The Examiner also finds that
Figure 5 of Ryks teaches determining whether the determined candidate
driving metrics represented by the second model are influential in causing
the metric-of-interest by comparing the first and second data models using a
statistical causality technique, as recited in limitation (c)(4). Id. at 33. In
particular, the Examiner finds that the grid of Figure 5 enables walker items
to be identified for certain product categories, and reasons this is a “causality
technique because the system is drawing conclusions about walker items
based on metric data from the items.” Id.
Yet, we fail to see how a walker grid that graphs a unit sales index
versus a repeat index for items in a retailer’s inventory teaches the claimed
two models. See Ryks ¶¶ 74–80, Fig. 5. Instead, the walker grid appears to
teach a single model for predicting walker items based on the unit sales
index versus a repeat index. Id. ¶ 81, Fig. 6. In particular,
[i]tems that have a repeatability value above a determined
repeatability threshold (e.g., an adjustable repeat index value),
an exclusivity value above a determined exclusivity threshold
(e.g., an adjustable exclusivity index value), and a unit sales

5 The Examiner acknowledges that Ryks’ second model is not generated
over another time interval, as required by the claim language, and relies on
Lei for this feature. Id. at 32–33.
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

25
index value below a unit sales threshold (e.g., an adjustable unit
sales index value) are identified as potential walker items.
Id. ¶ 81. Therefore, rather than determining whether determined candidate
driving metrics represented by the second model are influential in causing
the metric-of-interest, as required by limitation (c)(4) of the claim language,
the walker model presumes that metrics regarding exclusivity and
repeatability influence whether an item in inventory is a walker item. That
is, the model presumes exclusivity and repeatability, whose values are
represented in the walker grid, are driving metrics for whether an item is a
walker item, a metric-of-interest. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Final
Act. 33), Ryks does not teach or suggest comparing first and second models
using a statistical causality technique to determine that the driving metrics
are influential, as required by limitation (c)(4).
The Examiner acknowledges that Ryks does not teach that comparing
the first and second models includes “comparing a fit of the first and second
models to the data for the plurality of metrics,” as further required by
limitation (c)(4), and relies on Ehlen for this aspect of the claim language.
Id. at 34 (citing Ehlen ¶¶ 48–49). Ehlen relates to providing automated
analysis and summarization of consumer-generated product reviews.
Ehlen ¶¶ 4, 11. In Ehlen, sentences from reviews are analyzed individually
by at least one model per attribute and scored to indicate the “goodness-of-
fit” for that sentence to the attribute. Id. ¶ 48. Sentences with a higher
probability of addressing an attribute can be retained for subsequent
sentiment analysis and summarization. Id. Two or more attribute models
can be used to analyze each sentence. Id. ¶ 49. When multiple attribute
models are used, the resulting scores can be summed or weighed and
summed. Id. Thus, Ehlen teaches using two models for an attribute of a
Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

26
sentence and combining the scores, but it does not teach comparing first and
second models using a statistical causality technique. Ehlen also teaches
using two models for two attributes, but it does not teach comparing a fit of
the first and second models, much less that this comparing is included in a
step of determining whether candidate driving metrics represented by a
second model are influential in causing the metric of interest by comparing
the first and second models using a statistical causality technique, as
required by claim (c)(4).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6, 8, 11–14, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable. The Examiner’s rejections of dependent
claims 2–5, 7, and 28 do not cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 2–5, 7, and 28 for the same reasons set forth above with
respect to independent claim 1.
Independent Claims 22 and 25, and Dependent Claims 23, 24, 26, and 27
Independent claims 22 and 25 recite language similar to independent
claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are based on the same erroneous findings described above with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 22
and 25, and dependent claims 23, 24, and 26. The Examiner’s rejection of
claim 27 does not cure the rejection of independent claim 25. Therefore, we
also do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2020-003085
Application 14/788,576

27
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 11–
14, 21–28
101 Eligibility 1–8, 11–
14, 21–28

22–26, 28 103 Ryks, Lei, Ehlen 22–26, 28
27 103 Ryks, Lei, Ehlen,
Ali, Lozano
27
1, 6, 8,
11–14, 21
103 Ryks, Hoyne, Lei,
Ehlen
1, 6, 8,
11–14, 21
2 103 Ryks, Hoyne, Lei,
Ehlen, Ali
2
3 103 Ryks, Hoyne, Lei,
Ehlen, Lozano
3
4, 5 103 Ryks, Hoyne, Lei,
Ehlen, Klein
4, 5
7 103 Ryks, Hoyne, Lei,
Ehlen, Nonez
7
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 11–
14, 21–28

Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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