Akintunde Ehindero et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 8, 2020

13455497 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 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.
13/455,497 04/25/2012 Akintunde Ehindero DC-19194 4214
160816 7590 10/08/2020
Terrile, Cannatti & Chambers, LLP - Dell
P.O. Box 203518
Austin, TX 78720
EXAMINER
ROSS, SCOTT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/08/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AKINTUNDE EHINDERO, RAJIV NARANG, and
YINGCHI CHEN
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, 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 to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, 16–18, 21, and 22.
This appeal is related to prior appeal 2016-005211, where we affirmed the
Examiner’s patent eligibility and obviousness rejections. 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) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Dell Products L.P. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed:
A system and method are disclosed for social targeting
within a social media environment. A sample set of social media
interactions containing a reference to an intent to purchase a
product is processed to generate a prioritization index. The
prioritization index is then used to monitor social media
interactions in a target social media environment to identify
social media users exhibiting propensity-to-purchase behavior.
A propensity-to-purchase value is then generated for each of the
identified social media users and they are ranked accordingly.
The ranked social media users are then converted into sales leads
for nurturing.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below (emphases added), is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for social targeting via
a social targeting system executing on an information handling
system, comprising:

receiving user data to the social targeting system, the user
data comprising data representing social media interaction of a
user;

processing, via the social targeting system, a first set of
social media interaction data to generate a second set of social
media interaction data containing a reference to an intent to
purchase a product, the first set of social media interaction data
associated with a first set of social media users and the second
set of social media interaction data associated with a second set
of set of social media users;

processing, via the social targeting system, the second set
of social media interaction data to generate a prioritization
index;

processing, via the social targeting system, a third set of
social media interaction data with the prioritization index to
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
3
generate a propensity-to-purchase value for individual users of
a third set of social media users, the propensity-to-purchase
value representing a likelihood of an individual user to purchase
a target product or service, the third set of social media
interaction data associated with the third set of social media
users; and

performing, via the social targeting system, ranking
operations to rank the third set of social media users according
to their respective propensity-to-purchase value; and

wherein the prioritization index is generated from a site
visit index and a purchase index, the site visit index indicating a
social media user activity with content related to a product line
featured in a social marketing campaign;

the site visit index comprises information relating to a
number of site visits made by the individual user, within a
predetermined timeframe, along with recency and frequency of
the site visits;

the purchase index comprises information relating to a
proximity to a next purchase cycle of the individual user, a
number of times that a purchase cycle has been missed, whether
a purchase has been made since a last visit, and whether the
individual user is a bulk purchaser;

the site visit index is determined as:
Visit Index = ∑ (MV *Wwebsite)

where: Momentum of Visit (MV) = ∑Visits* Recency
where: Visits = Number of Visits
Recency = Recency of the Visit [1/(gap between the visit
week and the last week considered in the visit window)]
WWEBSITE = Weight for the website
where: WA= 1, WB = 1, WVENDOR = 0.5; and,
the purchase index is determined as:

Purchase Index= R * PV * SOW
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
4
where: Magnitude of Vendor Revenue (R) = Revenue generated
in the past
PV = Closeness to realizing a Purchase =
(CW - LPW) - Integer (CW - LPW)
PC PC
Integer (CW-LPW) +1
PC

where: CW = Current Week
LPW = Last Purchase Week
PC= Purchase Cycle (average of the
differences between consecutive purchases made
Last Purchase Week)
SOW= Share of Wallet.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, 16–18, 21, and 22 stand rejected 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.
OPINION

35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 13, Appellant does not
set forth separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 12. As a result,
we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and address
Appellant’s arguments thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Independent claims 7 and 13 will fall with independent claim 1. Arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
5
not been considered and are deemed to be waived.2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(iv).
a. Legal Principles
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, under Step 2A, 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

2 We note that Appellant did not file a Reply Brief to respond to the
Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s patent eligibility arguments.
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
6
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If, under Step 2A, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, then,
under Step 2B, “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. (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Id.
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,
2019 (“Revised Guidance”).3 Under the Revised Guidance, Step 2A of the
Alice two-step framework is divided in two prongs. For Step 2A, Prong 1,
we look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions falling into

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
Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
7
certain groupings of abstract ideas (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes). For Step 2A, Prong 2, if the claim recites
such a judicial exception, we look to whether the claim recites any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–
(h)).
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then determine, under Step 2B
of the Alice two-step framework, 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.

b. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner determines that the claimed invention is directed to
social targeting, by receiving a first set and second set of data,
mathematical modeling to generate a prioritization index, the
prioritization index generated from a site visit and purchase
index, processing a third set of data with the prioritization index
to determine a user probability of purchase, and ranking users by
probability to purchase, which is an abstract idea reasonably
categorized as organization of human activity (advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and
mathematical concepts.
Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3. The Examiner additionally determines that the
claim sets forth “additional elements unencompassed by the identified
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
8
abstract idea include a computer system, processor, data bus, computer-
usable medium embodying computer program code.” Final Act. 3. The
Examiner also determines that the abstract idea is not integrated into a
practical application. Final Act. 3. The Examiner identifies all of the steps
of the claimed invention as part of the recited abstract idea. Ans. 4–5. The
Examiner determines that the recited “computer” and “a social targeting
system executing on an information handling system” are the additional
elements of the claim that “essentially amount to the computer on which the
abstract idea is implemented.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner determines that
“the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the
implementation of the abstract idea by the additional elements fails to
describe” any of the enumerated applications. Final Act. 5.
“When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits
that each of these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application because, in view of Figures 1-2, and the associated
paragraphs of Appellant’s specification, these elements are generic
computing elements merely provide a generic environment in which to carry
out the abstract idea.” Ans. 8.
With regards to step 2B, the Examiner explains that “[t]he claim does
not include additional elements that, either alone or in combination, are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the
additional elements of the claim essentially amount to the computer on
which the abstract idea is implemented.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner
determines that the additional elements and computer functions of
communication network and processor to be well-understood, routine, and
conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Ans. 9–
10.
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
9

Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the claims do not per se recite mathematical
concepts, methods of organizing human activity or mental processes, the
claims were previously amended to make it clear that the prioritization
index, the site visit index and the purchase index are all processed via a
hardware processor. Appeal Br. 2.
Appellant argues that the claims are directed to a practical application
and more specifically, the claims are generally directed to the practical
application providing a pricing index associated with user interactions within
a social media environment. Appeal Br. 3.
Appellant argues “the claims do not recite matter that falls within the
mental organization of human activity and mathematical concepts groupings
of abstract ideas set forth in the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant additionally argues that even if it is
determined that the claims fall into either the method of organizing human
activity grouping or the mathematical concepts grouping, the combination of
the additional elements of the claim use the mathematical formulas and
calculations in a specific manner that limits the use of the mathematical
concepts to the practical application of generating a propensity-to-purchase
value for individual users of a set of social media users. Id. at 7.
Appellant further argues that because the “claims as a whole, which
include these limitations, were found to distinguish over the cited art. Thus,
the claims are directed to an inventive concept and should be found to be
eligible under step 2B of the revised guidelines. Appeal Br. 9.

Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
10
c. Discussion
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is
reviewable de novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
i. Step 2A, Prong 1
For Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Revised Guidance, we agree with the
Examiner that the emphasized portions of claim 1, reproduced above, recite
elements that fall within the abstract idea groupings of human activity
(advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
and mathematical concepts. Final Act. 2. The Revised Guidance requires us
to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract
idea). According to the Revised Guidance, to determine whether a claim
recites an abstract idea, we must identify limitations that fall within one or
more of the designated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas.
According to the October Update produced by the USPTO, “a claim recites a
judicial exception when the judicial exception is ‘set forth’ or ‘described’ in
the claim.” See October 2019 Update. The Revised Guidance lists mental
processes as one such grouping and characterizes mental processes as
including, inter alia, “concepts performed in the human mind (including
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We find
that the elements of independent claim 1 describe this judicial exception.
We note that Appellant has not identified that the Specification
specifically defines the limitation “via a social targeting system executing on
an information handling system.” See generally Appeal Br. 6–9.
We find that the emphasized portions of claim 1 set forth the human
activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations) and mathematical concepts. We find that the limitations of claim
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
11
1 recite the steps of a mathematical concepts and one of certain methods of
organizing human activity; see also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to
another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
We acknowledge that claim 1 specifies a “computer” and “a social
targeting system executing on an information handling system.” However,
these additional device elements do not further define or otherwise limit
these additional device elements to any particular thing or environment.
Thus, we find claim 1 recites elements that fall within the abstract idea
groupings of mathematical concepts and one of certain methods of
organizing human activity.

ii. Step 2A, Prong 2

For Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance, we find that claim 1,
as a whole, does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical
application of the abstract idea. The Revised Guidance states that “[a] claim
that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
The Revised Guidance further states that integration should be evaluated by
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and, based on certain considerations,
“evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.”
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. The Revised Guidance identifies considerations such
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
12
as whether additional elements yield an improvement to a particular
technology or a computer itself, correspond to the implementation of the
judicial exception with a particular machine, and/or apply the judicial
exception in some way beyond simply linking the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Appellant argues that even if it is determined that the claims fall into
either the method of organizing human activity grouping or the
mathematical concepts grouping, the combination of the additional elements
in the claim use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific
manner that limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical
application of generating a propensity-to-purchase value for individual users
of a set of social media users. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant identifies the totality
of the claim limitations to be the “additional elements,” which we find to be
the recited abstract idea. As a result, we find Appellant’s argument
unavailing.
Here, as discussed above, claim 1 incorporates additional device
elements. The “additional elements” in the claim beyond the recited abstract
idea, are “computer” and “social targeting system executing on an
information handling system.”
The Specification discloses that the “additional elements” are generic
components and “[i]nformation handling systems may include a variety of
hardware and software components that may be configured to process, store,
and communicate information and may include one or more computer
systems, data storage systems, and networking systems.” Spec. ¶ 3. The
Specification further discloses:
an information handling system may be a personal computer, a
network storage device, or any other suitable device and may
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
13
vary in size, shape, performance, functionality, and price. The
information handling system may include random access
memory (RAM), one or more processing resources such as a
central processing unit (CPU) or hardware or software control
logic, ROM, and/or other types of nonvolatile memory.
Additional components of the information handling system may
include one or more disk drives, one or more network ports for
communicating with external devices as well as various input
and output (I/O) devices, such as a keyboard, a mouse, and a
video display. The information handling system may also
include one or more buses operable to transmit communications
between the various hardware components.
Spec. ¶ 21 (emphasis added).

For the practical application analysis, Appellant contends that:
Additionally, even if it is determined that the claims fall into
either the method of organizing human activity grouping or the
mathematical concepts grouping, it is respectfully submitted that
the combination of the additional elements of the claim use the
mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner
that limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical
application of generating a propensity-to-purchase value for
individual users of a set of social media users. More specifically,
the claims include the limitations of using a site visit index and a
purchase index to generate a prioritization index, which is in tum
used to generate a propensity-to-purchase value for individual
users. The site visit index comprises information relating to a
number of site visits made by the individual user, within a
predetermined timeframe, along with recency and frequency of
the site visits and the purchase index comprises information
relating to a proximity to a next purchase cycle of the individual
user, a number of times that a purchase cycle has been missed,
whether a purchase has been made since a last visit, and whether
the individual user is a bulk purchaser. Thus, the use of the [site
visit] index and the purchase index are limited to the practical
application of generating a propensity-to-purchase value which
is then used to rank a set of social media users according to their
respective propensity-to-purchase value.
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
14
Appeal Br. 7 (emphases added).

We disagree with Appellant and find that the nominal recitation of
“computer-implemented” and “via a social targeting system executing on an
information handling system” individually and in combination do not
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
We find that these additional device elements do not integrate the
human activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors;
business relations) and mathematical concepts of claim 1 into a practical
application. For instance, we do not find that these additional device
elements yield an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself or to
the particular technology of managed inventory, neither do we find that
these additional device elements are any particular machine that is necessary
to implement the judicial exception or transform something to a different
state. Additionally, we do not find that these additional device elements
apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way to any particular technological
environment. We further agree with the Examiner’s finding for Step 2B of
the Alice two-step framework that these additional device elements, as
claimed, correspond at most to a generic computing structure. See Final Act.
3; see also Ans. 9–10.
In addition, we determine that claim 1 recites insignificant pre-
solution activity (“receiving . . . the user data”). See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (addressing
insignificant pre-solution activity). The recited insignificant extra-solution
activity does not help integrate the recited human activity (advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
15
mathematical concepts into a practical application of the abstract idea and
because the received data may merely be stored data.
We find that the claimed invention merely includes insignificant
extra-solution activity which does not result in a “practical application.”
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585–86 (1978) (“In essence, the method
consists of three steps: an initial step which merely measures the present
value of the process variable (e.g., the temperature); an intermediate step
which uses an algorithm to calculate an updated alarm-limit value; and a
final step in which the actual alarm limit is adjusted to the updated value.
The only difference between the conventional methods of changing alarm
limits and that described in respondent’s application rests in the second
step—the mathematical algorithm or formula.”).
Thus, we conclude that claim 1, as a whole, does not integrate the
recited human activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations) and mathematical concepts into a practical
application of the abstract idea.
Therefore, based on our analysis under the Revised Guidance, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Specifically, we find that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of a human
activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations) and mathematical concepts. As result, we focus our attention on
Step 2B of the Alice two-step framework.

iii. Step 2B
For Step 2B, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
claim 1 recites significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2B of the
Alice two-step framework requires us to determine whether any element, or
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
16
combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 221. As discussed in the previous section, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that the additional device elements, when considered individually
and in an ordered combination, correspond to nothing more than a generic
computing structure used to implement the human activity (advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and
mathematical concepts. In other words, these components, as claimed, are
well-understood, routine, and conventional and “behave exactly as expected
according to their ordinary use.” See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As discussed in the previous section,
Appellant’s Specification describes the computing environment in which the
invention is performed. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 21.
We note that the Appellant has not identified that the Specification
specifically defines the limitation “via a social targeting system executing on
an information handling system.” See generally Appeal Br. 6–9. Moreover,
Appellant has not identified that the Specification gives any indication that
such a computing environment is anything other than a well-understood,
routine, and conventional computing environment. See Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Thus, implementing the abstract idea with these generic computer
components “fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that claim 1 does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As a result, Appellant’s Specification is drafted at a high level and
does not indicate that the computer or processor or the social targeting
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
17
system executing on an information handling system is more than well-
known, routine, and conventional hardware to perform the claimed method.
Appellant further argues that the claims as a whole, which include these
limitations, were found to distinguish over the cited art. Thus, the claims are
directed to an inventive concept and should be found to be eligible under
step 2B of the Revised Guidance. Appeal Br. 9.
We disagree with Appellant because Appellant does not provide any
citation to the Specification to support the attorney arguments. Attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at *3–4
(BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd09004693.pdf; see also
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we find the use of a well-known
computer to be well-understood routine or conventional for mathematical
calculations.
Therefore, because Claim 1 is directed to the abstract ideas of certain
human activity (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors;
business relations) and mathematical concepts and does not provide
significantly more than the abstract idea itself, we agree with the Examiner
that claim 1 is ineligible for patenting and affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because Appellant does not set forth
separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 7 and 13 and
dependent claims 2, 4–6, 8, 10–12, 14, 16–18, 21, 22, we affirm the patent
eligibility rejection of these claims for the same reasons.
Appeal 2020-003350
Application 13/455,497
18

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s patent eligibility rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14, 16–
18, 21, 22
101 Patent Eligibility 1, 2, 4–8,
10–14, 16–
18, 21, 22

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