Brett Lester et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2020

11933249 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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.
11/933,249 10/31/2007 Brett A. Lester 51813 3430
23589 7590 11/12/2020
Hovey Williams LLP
10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
Overland Park, KS 66210
EXAMINER
CHOY, PAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2020 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):
uspatents@hoveywilliams.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRETT A. LESTER, SCOTT A. EVANS, LARRY D. MILEY,
SCOTT R. CARPENTER, and DAN W. SCHWARTZ
____________

Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
method and system of managing a messaging campaign directed to an
audience. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious and reciting non-
statutory subject matter. 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. Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as
Celeritasworks, LLC (see Br. 4).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of Oct. 31, 2007
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action of May 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief
of Sept. 10, 2019 (“Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer of Dec. 31, 2019
(“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“A campaign is an organization of advertising, marketing, sales,
and/or informational activities aimed at communicating one or more
messages” to an audience in a geographic area (Spec. ¶ 4). Businesses,
utilities, or government entities may design campaigns to advertise to, or
otherwise instruct, the public (id. ¶¶ 5, 6). However, campaign entities may
not be able to determine the effectiveness of their campaigns, specifically as
to the choice of communication mechanisms, reaching the intended
audience, or making a difference in a geographic area (id. ¶ 7). The
Specification teaches “a need to identify the effectiveness of advertising,
marketing, sales, and/or informational campaigns . . . relative to a geography
and, generally, to identify campaign information” (id. ¶ 8).
The Claims
Claims 4–11 and 20–31 are on appeal. Independent claim 25 is
representative and reads as follows:
25. A computer-implemented method of managing campaign
data for one or more campaigns, the method comprising the
following steps, wherein each step is performed by a processor
of a computer:
storing campaign data for at least one campaign
described in a campaign dataset and geospatial data described
in a geospatial layer for a campaign area to which a campaign
message for the campaign is directed, the campaign data
including:
audience data identifying a target audience to which the
campaign message is directed;
at least one campaign type for the campaign, the at least
one campaign type identifying how the campaign message is
directed to the target audience;
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

3
at least one campaign attribute designating a format of
the at least one campaign type; and
a plurality of campaign events conveying the campaign
message by the at least one campaign type to the target
audience in the campaign area;
receiving selection of one of a research tool and a
navigation tool;
in response to receiving selection of the research tool,
displaying first selectors for state, county, zip code, audience
type, content type, and name;
in response to receiving a selection of one of the first
selectors, initiating a first query of the geospatial data and the
campaign data to the data management system based on the
selection;
in response to receiving selection of the navigation tool,
displaying second selectors for state, county, zip code, city, and
address;
in response to receiving a selection of one of the second
selectors, initiating a second query of the geospatial data and
the campaign data to the data management system based on the
selection;
receiving selected geospatial data and selected campaign
data from the data management system in response to the first
query or the second query;
generating map data based on the selected geospatial data
and at least some selected campaign data, the at least some
selected campaign data comprising the plurality of the
campaign events for the at least one campaign type directed to
the target audience, the map data identifying at least a portion
of the campaign area to which the campaign message is directed
to the target audience and at least one campaign event for the at
least one campaign type directed to the target audience, wherein
campaign symbology identifies each of the plurality of
campaign events, and
wherein the map data is generated by:
selecting a spatial layer with the selected geospatial data;
selecting a campaign dataset with the at least some
selected campaign data, wherein the campaign dataset has one
or more common data attributes with the selected spatial layer;
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

4
selecting a common data attribute from the spatial layer
and the campaign data set; and
linking the spatial layer to the campaign dataset using the
common data attribute;
displaying the generated map data; and
displaying, adjacent to the generated map data, additional
information based on whether the selection is for state, county,
zip code, audience type, content type, and name.

(Br. 40–41).

The Rejections
A. The Examiner rejected claims 4–11 and 20–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Popowich,3 Gardenswartz,4 and Evans5 (Final Act. 16–30).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 4–11 and 20–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to an abstract idea (Final Act. 8–15).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds Popowich teaches a method and system for
managing an advertising campaign (Final Act. 16–18). The Examiner finds
Popowich specifically teaches storing and geographically displaying
campaign information including geospatial data, audience data, campaign
type, campaign attributes, and campaign events (id.). The Examiner finds
Gardenswartz teaches targeted advertising by directing a campaign message
through different channels to targeted audiences (see id. at 17–18). The
Examiner finds Evans teaches a method for managing awareness campaigns
including a graphical user interface with query and navigation tools to select

3 Popowich et al., US 2007/0192189 A1, published Aug. 16, 2007.
4 Gardenswartz et al., US 6,055,573, issued Apr. 25, 2000.
5 Evans et al., US 2007/0016565 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007.
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

5
campaign datasets and display campaign data on a map (see id. at 18–20).
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Popowich in view of Gardenswartz to include the
teaching of Evans in order to gain the commonly understood
benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a
more optimal solution for linking dataset[s] between tables of
different database[s] to enhance the data availability.
(Final Act. 20).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Popowich,
Gardenswartz, and Evans render the claims obvious?
Findings of Fact (“FF”)
1. Popowich teaches a system and process for managing
advertising campaigns including the steps of identifying advertisements to
display to target audiences (Popowich ¶¶ 20, 30).
2. Popowich teaches a computer system that provides advertisers
with information regarding advertising materials, locations and times of
events, and target audiences (Popowich ¶ 71, Fig. 2).
3. Popowich teaches the system facilitates identifying target
audiences and suitable advertisements and advertising locations. For
example, an advertiser can use client software “to review data regarding
available advertisements, advertising facilities, and target audiences,
including for example vast amounts and types of demographic and consumer
data during given time periods” (Popowich ¶ 76).
4. Popowich teaches the system includes an interactive graphical
user interface with a map display for identifying locations with a desired
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

6
proximity of a target venue and a desired audience (Popowich ¶¶ 81–83, Fig.
3).
5. Popowich teaches the map may display various information of
advertising units, including an assigned name, a physical location (e.g.,
street address, cross-street, city), number of units located at the site, and
number and type of advertisements to be displayed (Popowich ¶ 102).
6. Popowich teaches the graphical interface may further display
various campaign attributes, including the type of campaign coordinated, the
start and end dates of the campaign, the type(s) of markets targeted, and the
number and type(s) of advertisements (Popowich ¶¶ 161–162, Figs. 25, 26).
7. Popowich teaches the graphical interface may list planned
events at a selected venue, including information about the events, such as
demographics of expected audiences (Popowich ¶ 175, Fig. 33).
8. Gardenswartz teaches a process for sending targeted messages
to consumers. The messages may be audio, visual, or audiovisual messages
to be played and/or displayed to a consumer over a computer network,
including banner ads, interstitial ads, and real-time moving videos
(Gardenswartz 18:6–25).
9. Gardenswartz teaches “different marketing strategies may be
monitored by tracking consumers’ responses to being presented with
different advertisements” (Gardenswartz 4:20–25).
10. Evans teaches a community awareness management (CAM)
system for linking datasets from a community awareness program (CAP)
with spatial layers to create linked CAM datasets (Evans ¶ 16).
11. Evans teaches
The CAP generally identifies an item, a device, a system,
a person, another entity, an event, a location, a point, or an area
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

7
in which a person or entity has or may have an interest . . . The
item, device, system, person, other entity, event, location, point,
or area of interest often is identified geographically and is
referred to herein as an interest area
(Evans ¶ 32).
12. Evans teaches that the CAP may also identify audience data,
transaction data, including an audience member name, an audience member
type, an address, a city, a county, a phone number, and a transaction type
(e.g., email, ground mail, phone call, personal communication, business
relations, and training) (Evans ¶¶ 35–37).
13. Evans teaches the CAM system links CAM datasets with spatial
layers. “The spatial layers and the CAM datasets include features, and
features include spatial attributes and/or CAM data attributes.” (Evans
¶ 71).
14. Evans teaches CAM data includes geospatial data. “Geospatial
data comprises geographic data and/or spatial data,” including “location data
or position data, such as a latitude, a longitude, an address, a city, a state, a
county, streets, street crossings, and/or other data” (Evans ¶¶ 71–72).
15. Evans teaches a spatial processing system that “renders
geospatial data and CAM data to the user interface for display, including
map data, asset data, interest area data, buffer area data, audience data,
journal data, document data, and other CAM data” (Evans ¶ 87).
16. Evans teaches the spatial processing system includes a query
tool, such as a search or filter tool, to perform nested queries. The query
tool can: (1) identify a collection of feature data from the contacts special
layer; (2) dynamically link documents to spatial or CAM data; and (3)
generate spatial and CAM data for display (Evans ¶¶ 92–96, 118–120).
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

8
17. Evans teaches the display may include images identifying
geographic areas and CAM data, including:
interest areas, buffer areas, point features, contacts, other
audience members, other locations of interest, such as buildings
and CAP assets, other program data, and other feature data. A
point feature is a geocoded location that indicates a location of
a person, place, or thing, such as a CAP asset, a contact or other
audience member, and other features
(Evans ¶ 149).
18. Evans teaches a graphical user interface with a map. The map
may include spatial data and CAM data. The map interface includes
functions buttons, including directional buttons, filter and search tools. The
search and filter tools can be used to locate specific audience members
(Evans ¶¶ 209–219).
19. Evans teaches CAP data may further include “audit
information, post office data related to the audit program, program
specifications, including regulations and legal information, identifications of
users, associated parties, and other program data used to manage the CAP”
(Evans ¶ 159).
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Analysis
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning regarding the
scope and content of the prior art (Final Act. 16–30; FF 1–19) and agree that
the claims would have been obvious over the combination of Popowich,
Gardenswartz, and Evans. We address Appellant’s arguments below.
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

9
Appellant contends “there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine Popowich and Gardenswartz” or Popowich, Gardenswartz, and
Evans (Br. 30). Specifically, Appellant argues that: (1) “[m]odifying
Popowich to include the teaching of Gardenswartz would not be obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art because the electronic data of Gardenswartz
cannot be displayed on the portable toilets, trailers, waste[] bins, and the like
of Popowich;” and (2) the three references describe disparate unrelated
databases so that “attempts to link the datasets would not be successful”
(id.).
We find these arguments unpersuasive. All three references relate to
computerized systems for storing and analyzing advertising campaign data
(see FF 1, 2, 8, 10). Although the references describe different types of
advertising—physical (Popowich), virtual (Gardenswartz), and public
awareness (Evans)—“familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. As pointed out by the Examiner, modifying
Popowich with Gardenswartz expands the reach of Popowich’s advertising
campaign with electronic advertisements directed to local consumers (see
Ans. 13). Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not erred in
identifying a reason to combine the references.
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument against linking the
disparate databases. Both Popowich and Evans teach databases that gather,
store, and analyze advertising information for target audiences (FF 3, 4, 11,
12). The references further teach interactive maps that display the
advertising and audience information (FF 5–7, 13–18). Accordingly, the
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

10
Examiner combines familiar elements according to known methods. See
550 U.S. at 416. Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not
be able to link the datasets. However, “[a]n assertion of what seems to
follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind
of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470. Absent contrary
evidence, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Appellant argues that even if the references could be combined, the
combination does not teach all of the claimed elements (Br. 31).
Specifically, Appellant argues that the combined prior does not teach
displaying “campaign data” on a map (id. at 31–32). Appellant argues that
“campaign data” is distinguishable from Popowich’s advertising data and
Evans’ “audience or asset data” (see id.).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because the combined
prior art teaches the claimed campaign data. The Specification defines a
campaign as “the organization of advertising, marketing, sales, and/or
informational activities aimed at communicating one or more messages to a
particular audience and/or a broad audience” (Spec. ¶ 22). The claimed
campaign data includes: (1) audience data identifying a target audience, (2)
campaign type identifying how the campaign message is directed, (3)
campaign attributes designating a format of a campaign type, and (4) a
plurality of campaign events conveying the campaign message (Br. 40).
Popowich teaches advertiser software for managing advertising campaigns
that stores and lists target audience data (FF 3), campaign type (FF 6),
campaign attributes (FF 5, 6), and campaign events (FF 7). Likewise, Evans
teaches a system for managing community awareness campaigns that stores
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

11
and lists target audience data (FF 12), campaign type (FF 11), campaign
attributes (FF 13), and campaign events, e.g., training (FF 11, 12). Because
both references teach graphically displaying advertising or public awareness
information on a map, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary
skill in the art to display the combined campaign data in a similar manner.
Appellant further argues that the prior art does not teach selectors for
“displaying data regarding campaigns by state, county, zip code, audience
type, content type, and name” (Br. 32). Appellant argues that Popowich’s
“selectors are (links) to directory trees and other data sets providing
information that might be useful to an installer or other party considering the
route/schedule” (id.). Appellant argues that Evans’ selectors that “search an
address, locate counties, locate audiences, locate zip codes, or locate cities”
are limited to “audience data” or “asset data” and “do not allow for
displaying data regarding campaigns” (id.).
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because, as discussed
above, the combined prior art teaches a system for displaying campaign data.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use
Evans’ selectors to display Popowich’s campaign data regarding campaigns
by state, county, zip code, audience type, content type, and name.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Appellant argues dependent claims 20 and 30 are separately
patentable (Br. 32). Specifically, Appellant argues that the prior art does not
teach displaying additional data adjacent to the generated map including a
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

12
name of an audience, description of a campaign event, and the type of
campaign event (id. at 32–33).6
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Popowich teaches a
map with adjacent data including events, types of advertisements, and
audience demographics (FF 7). Likewise, Evans teaches geographically
identifying an event relevant to the community awareness program (FF 11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate the event
information, including the description of the event and the type of event, into
the prior art map display.
Finally, Appellant argues that dependent claim 24 is separately
patentable because it “recites that the additional data displayed adjacent to
the generated map data includes a location of a post office for the associated
selection of a zip code” (Br. 34). Appellant argues that “Evans does not
disclose, in the text or in the figures, displaying post office location data
adjacent to generated map data, as claimed” (id.).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. The combined prior
art teaches displaying maps including zip code information and specific
address information for locations of interest, e.g., buildings (FF 5, 17).
Evans further teaches including post office information as part of the
program data (FF 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to include post office address information as part of the
program data, and displaying the address as additional map information.
The obviousness analysis “can take account of the inferences and creative

6 Appellant argues that Evans’ Figure 67 is illegible (Br. 33). It appears that
Evans is the publication of Appellant’s own application. If Appellant seeks
to distinguish Evans based on Figure 67, we encourage Appellant to provide
the original source material or correct the illegibility of the reference.
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

13
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.

Conclusion of Law
A preponderance of the evidence of record support the Examiner’s
conclusion that the combination of Popowich, Gardenswartz, and Evans
renders the claims obvious.

B. 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to the concept of
“managing campaign data for one or more campaigns including storing
campaign data, receiving selection, and generating map data for the
campaign events” (Final Act. 11). The Examiner finds that this concept falls
within certain methods of organizing human activity that have been
previously considered patent-ineligible abstract ideas (id.).
Appellant contends the claimed features “reflect an improvement in
the functioning of a computer and an improvement to the technical field of
analyzing data related to events and populations (in this case, a campaign)
with respect to geography and displaying the analysis on a map to be shown
on a monitor” (Br. 17).
Principles of Law
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
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

14
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. See, 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. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance
with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed
to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party
to mitigate settlement risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and therefore 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) and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)) or software “purporting to improve the
functioning of the computer itself” (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

15
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.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised
guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”).7 Under the
Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we first
look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1);
and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h))
(Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’”
the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the
judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In
so doing, we thus, consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field”
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

7 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50–
57 (January 7, 2019).
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

16
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
(Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Analysis
Applying the Guidance to the facts on this record, we find that
Appellant’s claims 4–11 and 20–31 are directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Because the same issues are present in each of the claims, we focus
our consideration on representative claim 25. The same analysis applied
below to claim 25 also applies to the other rejected claims.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial
exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Guidance
identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as
abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing
human behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental
processes.
Claim 25 reasonably falls within one of the three judicially-excepted
groupings listed in the Revised Guidance: fundamental economic practices
involving managing an advertising campaign. See Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see
also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Like the basic concept of tailoring content to a user, as
in Intellectual Ventures I, the basic concept of customizing a user interface is
an abstract idea).
Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to identify which specific
limitations in the claim recite an abstract idea (Br. 15–16).
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

17
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. As identified by the
Examiner, the claims recite a method of managing campaign data, i.e.,
advertising data, by: (1) storing campaign data, (2) selecting the campaign
data, (3) receiving selected campaign data, (4) generating map data, and (5)
displaying map data (Ans. 4–5). Each of the limitations of the claims recite
computer-implemented steps for gathering and analyzing data in the process
of managing advertising, which is a long prevalent fundamental practice.8
See In re Morsa, 809 Fed. Appx. 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Here, the claim
recites both targeted advertising and bidding to display the advertising,
which are both abstract ideas relating to customizing information based on
the user and matching them to the advertiser.”) Accordingly, we conclude
that the steps of claim 25 recite the judicial exception of certain methods of
organizing human activities.
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having determined that the claims are directed to a judicial exception,
the Guidance directs us to next consider whether the claims integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2.
“[I]ntegration into a practical application” requires that the claim recite an
additional element or a combination of elements, that when considered
individually or in combination, “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.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.

8 “That act requires . . . advertising the same for at least three weeks in a
newspaper.” Beaty v. Lessee of Knowles, 4 Peters, 152 (1830).
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

18
We agree with the Examiner that a judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application when the claims are drawn to the mere use of “a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55; see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (determining whether the claims at issue were focused on a “specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities” or “a process that qualifies
as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”).
Appellant argues that the claims at issue “reflect an improvement in
the functioning of a computer and an improvement to the technical field of
analyzing data related to events and populations” (Br. 17.) Specifically,
Appellant cites to the steps of: (1) selecting a spatial layer; (2) selecting a
campaign dataset having common attributes with the spatial layer; (3)
selecting common data attributes from the layer and dataset; and (4) linking
the layer and dataset with the common data attribute (id.)
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. Each of the recited
steps are purely functional steps that “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. Thus
claim 25 does not recite structural elements of either computer hardware or
software that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that is
more than the abstract idea itself. Instead, these steps do “nothing more than
instruct the user on how to implement the abstract idea using generic
computer components.” Morsa, 809 Fed. Appx. at 918. We conclude that
the ineligible subject matter is not integrated into a practical application.
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

19
C. Guidance Step 2B
Having determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application, the Guidance requires us to evaluate the additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide
an inventive concept, such as a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field, or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 51.
Appellant cites Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2018), for the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” test (see Br. 21).
Appellant contends, based on the Berkheimer Memorandum, that the
Examiner “has made no demonstration that [the claimed] features are well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (id.).
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. The Examiner has
provided abundant evidence, particularly in the obviousness analysis,
demonstrating that both the process steps and the structural components of
the claim were well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry as evidenced by the affirmed obviousness rejection
above (see FF 1–19). Moreover the Specification describes the computer
components used to perform the process as conventional generic-computing
devices (see Spec. ¶ 98). Because we affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection for the reasons given above, we also rely on the evidence relied
upon in that determination to show that the claim elements were well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
Appeal 2020-003199
Application 11/933,249

20
We therefore find the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4–11, 20–31 103 Popowich,
Gardenswartz,
Evans
4–11, 20–31
4–11, 20–31 103 Eligibility 4–11, 20–31
Overall
Outcome
4–11, 20–31

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

AFFIRMED