Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2022

2021003127 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2022)

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. 14/885,465 10/16/2015 Eswar Priyadarshan 535040 (P9037USC1) 9404 77970 7590 03/07/2022 Polsinelli -- Apple Inc. c/o Polsinelli PC PO Box 140310 Kansas City, MO 64114-0310 EXAMINER REINHARDT, RICHARD G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2022 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): Apple@Polsinelli.com patentdocketing@polsinelli.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ESWAR PRIYADARSHAN, KENLEY SUN, DAN MARIUS GRIGOROVICI, RAVIKIRAN CHITTARI, JAYASURYA VADREVU, and PRASAD RALLABANDI ____________ Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Eswar Priyadarshan, Kenley Sun, Dan Marius Grigorovici, Ravikiran Chittari, Jayasurya Vadrevu, and Prasad Rallabandi (Appellant)2 seek review 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed October 15, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed April 12, 2021 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 12, 2021 (“Ans.”); and Final Office Action mailed April 16, 2020 (“Final Act.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 21-40, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a way of electronic content delivery and more specifically of intelligent targeting of invitational content to a user based on the user’s previous activities. Spec. ¶ 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 21, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 21. A method comprising: [1] transmitting, by a server to a computing device associated with a user, a first web page comprising invitational content selected from a pool of invitational content, wherein the invitational content comprises an offer for the user to complete a conversion action associated with the invitational content by performing a set of pre-defined actions required for the conversion action; [2] receiving, by a server and over a network, network usage data associated with the user, the network usage data comprising data received by the server over the network; Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 3 [3] determining that the user associated with the computing device completed a subset of the set pre-defined actions required for the conversion action by analyzing the network usage data received by the server over the network; [4] determining which additional actions from the set of pre- defined actions were not completed by the user at the computing device; [5] identifying an estimated cause for the user's failure to complete the conversion action based on the data received by the server over the network, the data associated with the network usage data comprising an indication of the additional actions that were not completed by the user; [6] assembling a content package for presentation to the user at the computing device, the content package comprising the invitational content adjusted according to a different configuration, the different configuration requiring a different set of pre-defined actions for completing the conversion action, the different configuration being determined based on the estimated cause for the user's failure to complete the conversion action; and [7] serving, by the server to the computing device, a second web page comprising the content package. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 4 Claims 21-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 21-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. There are no issues of indefiniteness. The rejection is uncontested. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES Facts Related to Claim Construction 01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “conversion.” Facts Related to Appellant’s Disclosure 02. If the primary content providers receive compensation based on the number or rate of conversions of invitational content provided by secondary content providers, the resulting low conversion rate will result in lower revenues for the primary content providers. At the same time, the lower number or rate of conversions of invitational content can result in lower exposure or sales for the secondary content provider. In the case of an arrangement based on the number of impressions, the primary content provider would be compensated, but the lower number or rate of conversions of invitational content can result in lower exposure or sales for the secondary content provider. Spec. para. 31 (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 5 ANALYSIS Claim Construction Initially we construe the term “conversion” which is undefined lexicographically. The Specification makes clear that whatever conversions are, they drive revenues. Lower conversions result in lower revenues. The invitational content is to lead to such conversions. FF 02. Thus we construe conversions as some action that leads to commercial revenue. Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 13 Claim 21, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, [] determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, [] consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this 3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”). Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 6 analysis as 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.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)) (citations omitted). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 21 recites transmitting web page data, receiving network usage data, determining data showing completion criteria being met, determining data representing uncompleted actions, identifying data representing a cause, assembling data representing content, and serving web page data. Determining completion and non-completion and identifying data Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 7 representing cause are rudimentary data analysis. Assembling data is generating data. Serving data is transmitting data. Thus, claim 21 recites transmitting, receiving, analyzing, and generating data. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 21 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include: (1) mathematical concepts;4 (2) certain methods of organizing human activity;5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 21 recites the concept of managing commercial revenue generation. Specifically, claim 21 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to perform market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify 4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); and SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 8 consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation. The advice to perform market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation involves performing a set of pre-defined actions required for the conversion action, which is an economic act, and identifying an estimated cause for the user’s failure to complete the conversion action, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 21 recites “performing a set of pre-defined actions required for the conversion action,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is eliciting conversion revenues. Similarly, claim 1 recites “identifying an estimated cause for the user’s failure to complete the conversion action,” which is also characteristic of managing conversion revenues. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to basic transmitting of data and processing data. Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 21 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 21 result in managing commercial revenue generation by performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitation 2 recites receiving data. Limitations 1 and 3-7 recite generic and conventional transmitting, receiving, analyzing, and generating of conversion activity data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation. To advocate performing market research on conversion revenue Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 9 generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to electronic content delivery and more specifically to intelligent targeting of invitational content to a user based on the user’s previous activities. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 21 recites managing commercial revenue generation. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial revenue generation is a commercial interaction. The concept of managing commercial revenue generation by performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation is one idea for eliciting such revenues. The steps recited in claim 21 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Advertising). Alternately this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of transmitting, receiving, analyzing, and generating data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 10 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 21, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data transmission, reception, analysis, and generation and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation.”). As such, claim 21 recites transmitting, receiving, analyzing, and generating data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 21 recites managing commercial revenue generation by performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 21 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e., integrated into a practical application.7 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 11 Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “to a new and useful end,” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the §101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “buildin[g] block[s]” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Step 2 is a pure data gathering step. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 1 and 6 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Step 7 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 3-5 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 21 simply recites the concept of managing commercial revenue generation by performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not recite any particular implementation. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 12 Claim 21 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The 21+ pages of specification do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial revenue generation by performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 21 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing commercial revenue generation by performing market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation 8 The Specification describes mobile phones, smart phones, tablets, or other types of user terminals or a general purpose computer. Spec. ¶¶ 27 and 58. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 13 or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 21 is directed to achieving the result of managing commercial revenue generation by advising one to perform market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 21 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 14 eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for transmitting, receiving, analyzing, and generating data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “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 Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 15 and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 21 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data transmission-reception- analysis-generation is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 21 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 21 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 16 This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of managing commercial revenue generation by advising one to perform market research on conversion revenue generation actions to modify consumer behavior to increase such revenue generation, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action 2-6 and Answer 4-12 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “the subject matter recited in claim 1 require[s] a computing device and a network to receive, access, and analyze the network usage data, and such actions cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” Reply Br. 2. Simply reciting conventional computer hardware cannot confer eligibility. Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent- Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 17 eligible. No such inventive concept is present here. Instead, the claims “add” only generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database.” These generic computer components do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324- 1325 (2016) (citations omitted). Further, reciting conventional actions in an automated context cannot confer eligibility. “The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, reciting such hardware does not negate a determination that claims are drawn to mental concepts. we do not rely on the pen and paper test to reach our holding of patent eligibility in this case. At the same time, we note that, in viewing the facts in FairWarning’s favor, the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1098 (citations omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the rejection “selectively disregards certain elements in the claims and fails to consider the claims as a whole and the context of the claims.” Reply Br. 2. The analysis above examines the claim elements separately and as a whole. Appellant next analogizes the claims with those in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Reply Br. 3-7. But as the court in Customedia said: Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 18 And in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., we held patent eligible claims directed to an improved method of network security “using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity . . . generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports using hierarchical monitors.” We concluded that the “focus of the claims was on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities,” namely “providing a network defense system that monitors network traffic in real-time to automatically detect large-scale attacks.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). The instant claims cite no comparable network defense system or comparable computer capabilities. As the court in Customedia said, it was this capability rather than the type of data received, as Appellant argues, that conferred eligibility in SRI. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that portions of the present claims cannot be performed by a person as a mental process. For instance, it is not practical for a person to “identify[] an estimated cause for the user's failure to complete the conversion action based on the data received by the server over the network,” as recited in claim 21. A person would need to intercept the data, decode that data, and analyze the decoded data, which the Office acknowledges a human cannot practically do without a computer Reply Br. 6. Again, Appellant argues the computer context, which therefore uses computer data, to distinguish. But this is no more persuasive here than above. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that: the present claims provide a technical solution to a technological problem and recite significantly more than the claims in Electric Power Group. Moreover, [the] present claims assemble a content package for presentation at a Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 19 computing device based on an estimated cause for a failure to complete a conversion action associated with web page content. Reply Br. 7. The claims present a marketing solution to a marketing management problem, viz, how to elicit a prospective consumer’s response. Assembling content is conventional collation, predating computer technology. No technological implementation details are recited, so there is no technological solution recited. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1269. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that: the claims are not directed to organizing human activity and [Appellant] again traverses the Office’s allegation that the claims qualify as a commercial activity under Section 101, such as a fundamental economic practice, etc. Third, claim 21 does not recite any subject matter directed to business or economic practices Reply Br. 8. The claims are directed to eliciting a consumer response to an invitation for a revenue generating conversion. Eliciting consumer response is classic marketing management, and hence directed to organizing human activity and commercial practice. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claims improve a user experience and address problems with estimated causes for a failure to complete a conversion action associated with a web page, which is a technical improvement.” Reply Br. 9. Improving a user experience in a revenue generating process is classic marketing management. No Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 20 technological details are recited that would also add a technological improvement to how the management is performed. Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims found patent eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 9-10. But the court in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC addressed Appellant’s Core Wireless argument. Relying principally on Core Wireless, TT argues the claimed invention provides an improvement in the way a computer operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly. Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1093 (citations omitted). The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists users in processing information more quickly. Claims 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention This rejection is uncontested. Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2021-003127 Application 14/885,465 21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is proper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 21-40 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 21-40 101 Eligibility 21-40 21-40 112(b) Indefiniteness 21-40 Overall Outcome 21-40 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) (2011). AFFIRMED