Conor Mcgovern

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2019

13838355 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2019)

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.
13/838,355 03/15/2013 Conor McGovern D12-162-02585-00-US 1076
79340 7590 09/24/2019
MANNAVA & KANG, P.C.
3201 Jermantown Road
SUITE 525
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
JESSEN, DEREK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2019 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):
ASHOKM@MANNAVAKANG.COM
docketing@mannavakang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CONOR McGOVERN

Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–20. Claim 11 has been
canceled. See App. Br. 39–49 (Claims Appendix). 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 Accenture
Global Services Limited. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “multi-channel customer
attribution analytics utiliz[ing] data from multiple sources at a micro-
segment granularity (e.g., individual, household, set of like households or
like individuals) and apply[ing] a range of analytics techniques to give a low
granularity view on mass and targeted media exposure and marketing return
on investment (ROI).” Spec. ¶ 16. Claims 1 and 13, which are illustrative,
read as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a mixed marketing channel modeling module executable
by at least one processor to determine, from data received from
data sources, a mixed marketing channel model for households
in a macro level geographic area,
wherein the data is associated with advertising
performed in the macro level geographic area through a
plurality of marketing channels, including an Internet
marketing channel, a television marketing channel, and a
print marketing channel, and
wherein the macro level geographic area includes a
plurality of microsegments comprising geographic areas
that are each smaller than the macro level geographic area
and that are each within the macro level geographic area;
an attribution analysis module executable by the at least
one processor to determine values for variables associated with a
microsegment of the plurality of microsegments, wherein the
values include attributes of a household in the microsegment, and
indications of whether the household in the microsegment
viewed advertising provided by at least one of the marketing
channels to the microsegment; and
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

3
a marketing analytics engine executable by the at least one
processor to apply the mixed marketing channel model and the
values for the variables to identify other microsegments that are
estimated to be similar to the microsegment,
wherein the data from the data sources comprises data for
the households, and the data is made anonymous through a blind
matching process that is executed to anonymously match the data
for the households at a data platform;
wherein to execute the blind matching process, a
syndicated data provider sends, to a neutral data service provider,
subscriber profile data including personally identifiable
information for each of the households comprising name and
address, and cross reference data for each of the households
including a set top box identifier for the television marketing
channel, a cookie-level identifier for the Internet marketing
channel, and a mailing address for the print marketing channel,
and
an audience demographic dataset comprised of
anonymous subscriber profiles for the households created by
matching the names and addresses to household demographic
information for the households, wherein the anonymous
subscriber profiles in the audience demographic dataset includes,
for each household, the cross reference data and the household
demographics and does not include the personally identifiable
information, and sending the audience demographic dataset to
the data platform,
wherein the syndicated data provider collects consumption
events regarding viewing of the advertising in the macro level
geographic area, and the consumption events include the cross
reference data, wherein each consumption event is tagged with
one of: a set top box identifier from the cross reference data if
the consumption event is in the television marketing channel, a
cookie-level identifier from the cross reference data if the
consumption event is in the Internet marketing channel, and a
mailing addresses if the consumption event is in the print
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

4
marketing channel, and sends the consumption events tagged
with the cross reference data to the data platform, and
the data platform receives the cross reference dataset and
associates each consumption event with an anonymous
subscriber profile in the audience demographic dataset based on
the cross reference data in each consumption event, the cross
reference data in each anonymous subscriber profile, and the
cross reference data in the cross reference dataset,
wherein each consumption event associated with the
anonymous subscriber profile is provided to the attribution
analysis module to iteratively determine the values for the
variables for the microsegment.
13. A method comprising:
determining, from data received from data sources, a
mixed marketing channel model for households in a macro level
geographic area,
wherein the data is associated with advertising
performed in the macro level geographic area through a
plurality of marketing channels, including an Internet
marketing channel, a television marketing channel, and a
print marketing channel, and
wherein the macro level geographic area includes a
plurality of microsegments comprising geographic areas
that are each smaller than the macro level geographic area
and that are each within the macro level geographic area;
determining, by at least one processor, values for variables
associated with a microsegment of the plurality of
microsegments, wherein the values include attributes of a
household in the microsegment, and indications of whether the
household in the microsegment viewed advertising provided by
at least one of the marketing channels to the microsegment;
identifying other microsegments that are estimated to be
similar to the microsegment based on the mixed marketing
channel model and the values for the variables,
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

5
wherein the data from the data sources comprises data for
the households, and the data is made anonymous through a blind
matching process that is executed to anonymously match the data
for the households at a data platform, wherein the blind matching
process includes:
sending subscriber profile information to a neutral
data service provider, wherein the subscriber profile data
includes personally identifiable information for each of the
households comprising name and address, and cross
reference data for each of the households including a set
top box identifier for the television marketing channel, a
cookie-level identifier for the Internet marketing channel,
and a mailing address for the print marketing channel;
creating an audience demographic dataset
comprised of anonymous subscriber profiles for the
households by matching the names and addresses to
household demographic information for the households,
wherein the anonymous subscriber profiles in the audience
demographic dataset includes, for each household, the
cross reference data and the household demographics and
does not include the personally identifiable information;
sending the audience demographic dataset to the
data platform;
collecting consumption events regarding viewing of
the advertising in the macro level geographic area,
wherein the consumption events include the cross
reference data;
tagging each consumption event with one of: a set
top box identifier from the cross reference data if the
consumption event is in the television marketing channel,
a cookie-level identifier from the cross reference data if
the consumption event is in the Internet marketing
channel, and a mailing addresses if the consumption event
is in the print marketing channel;
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

6
sending a cross reference dataset to the data
platform; and
sending the consumption events tagged with the
cross reference data to the data platform;
associating each consumption event with an anonymous
subscriber profile in the audience demographic dataset via the
cross reference data for the consumption events based on the
cross reference data in each consumption event, cross reference
data in each anonymous subscriber profile of a plurality of
anonymous subscriber profiles determined for the households
from the subscriber profile data, and the cross reference data in
the cross reference dataset; and
re-determining the values for the variables for the
microsegment based on each consumption event associated with
the anonymous subscriber profile.

Rejections
Claims 1–10 and 12–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility.
Final Act. 2–6.
Claims 1–3, 8–10, 12–14, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hunt et al. (US
2008/0319829 A1; published Dec. 25, 2008) (“Hunt”), Addressable TV and
the 30-Second Spot, The CMO’s Guide to Addressable TV Advertising:
Accountability and Performance for TV Ad Spend, An Experian White Paper
(Experian Marketing Services 2011) (“Experian”), and Woda et al. (US
2009/0119151 A1; published May 7, 2009) (“Woda”). Final Act. 7–23.
Claims 4–6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hunt, Experian, Woda, Kasravi
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

7
(US 2006/0136293 A1; published June 22, 2006), and Gershkoff (US
2010/0057534 A1; published Mar. 4, 2010). Final Act. 23–26.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hunt, Experian, Woda, and Fairfield et
al. (US 8,214,238 B1; issued July 3, 2012) (“Fairfield”). Final Act. 26.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, Appellants do not substantively argue the claims separately, but
instead, rely on the same arguments for all claims. See App. Br. 13–27. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select independent claim 13
as the representative claim. Remaining claims 1–10, 12, and 14–20 stand or
fall together with claim 13.

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
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and
Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

8
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims
before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use
of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 130
S. Ct. 3218 (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, 130 S. Ct. 3218
(2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)). 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)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 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))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

9
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
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 (internal citation 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.

PTO GUIDANCE
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Memorandum”). Under that guidance, 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); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

10
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a
judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

OUR REVIEW
STEP 1
Under “Step 1” of the analysis, we determine whether the claimed
subject matter falls within the four categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54. Claim
13 is directed to a method and, therefore, falls within the four categories of
patentable subject matter—a process.

Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance

Step 2A, Prong 1 (Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?)
Under “Step 2A, Prong One” of the analysis, we determine whether
the claim recites a judicial exception. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Claim 13 recites, among other things, the limitation “determining, from data
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

11
received from data sources, a mixed marketing channel model for
households in a macro level geographic area.” This limitation, as drafted, is
a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, could be
performed in the human mind or by a person using pen and paper. The
Specification provides “[t]he mixed model may be determined from logistic
regression or other modeling techniques.” Spec. ¶ 22. As such, this step
encompasses a user manually performing the claimed process. Thus, this
limitation recites a mental process—an abstract idea. Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52.
The Specification further provides that logistic regression “is a
powerful and well-established statistical technique that estimates
probabilities of the target categories” and “[l]ogistic regression results are in
the form of continuous functions that estimate the probability of membership
in each target outcome.” Spec. Fig. 9. Thus, this limitation, as drafted, is a
process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, determines a
mathematical formula or equation for performing a mathematical
calculation. As such, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept—an
abstract idea. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Claim 13 further recites:
determining, by at least one processor, values for variables
associated with a microsegment of the plurality of
microsegments, wherein the values include attributes of a
household in the microsegment, and indications of whether the
household in the microsegment viewed advertising provided by
at least one of the marketing channels to the microsegment;
identifying other microsegments that are estimated to be
similar to the microsegment based on the mixed marketing
channel model and the values for the variables,
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

12
. . .
creating an audience demographic dataset comprised of
anonymous subscriber profiles for the households by matching
the names and addresses to household demographic information
for the households, wherein the anonymous subscriber profiles
in the audience demographic dataset includes, for each
household, the cross reference data and the household
demographics and does not include the personally identifiable
information;
. . .
collecting consumption events regarding viewing of the
advertising in the macro level geographic area, wherein the
consumption events include the cross reference data;
tagging each consumption event with one of: a set top box
identifier from the cross reference data if the consumption event
is in the television marketing channel, a cookie-level identifier
from the cross reference data if the consumption event is in the
Internet marketing channel, and a mailing addresses if the
consumption event is in the print marketing channel;
. . .
associating each consumption event with an anonymous
subscriber profile in the audience demographic dataset via the
cross reference data for the consumption events based on the
cross reference data in each consumption event, cross reference
data in each anonymous subscriber profile of a plurality of
anonymous subscriber profiles determined for the households
from the subscriber profile data, and the cross reference data in
the cross reference dataset; and
re-determining the values for the variables for the
microsegment based on each consumption event associated with
the anonymous subscriber profile.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest
reasonable interpretation, could be performed in the human mind or by a
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

13
person using pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer
components. That is, other than reciting that values for variables associated
with a microsegment of the plurality of microsegments are determined “by at
least one processor,” nothing in the claim precludes these steps from
practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by at
least one processor” language, the claim encompasses a user manually
performing the claimed processes. Thus, these limitations recite mental
processes—an abstract idea. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that these limitations
do not recite an abstract idea because the limitations:
[D]escribe: determining attributes of a household in the
microsegment viewed advertising; identifying other
microsegments that are estimated to be similar to the
microsegment based on the mixed marketing channel model and
the household attributes and the indications; and re-determining
the household attributes and the indications based on
consumption events. These features are neither directed to
collecting data nor comparing data but instead refer to a non-
abstract, iterative approach to determining microsegment
information from macro-level data.
App. Br. 17–18. Each of these limitations can be performed in the human
mind or by a person using pen and paper. For example, a person could:
determine values that include attributes of a household in the microsegment
and indications of whether the household in the microsegment viewed
advertising provided by at least one of the marketing channels to the
microsegment for variables associated with a microsegment of the plurality
of microsegments; identify other microsegments that are estimated to be
similar to the microsegment based on the mixed marketing channel model
and the values for the variables; match the names and addresses to
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

14
household demographic information for the households to create an audience
demographic dataset comprised of anonymous subscriber profiles for the
households; collect consumption events regarding viewing of the advertising
in the macro level geographic area; tag each consumption event with one of:
a set top box identifier from the cross reference data if the consumption
event is in the television marketing channel, a cookie-level identifier from
the cross reference data if the consumption event is in the Internet marketing
channel, and a mailing addresses if the consumption event is in the print
marketing channel; associate each consumption event with an anonymous
subscriber profile in the audience demographic dataset via the cross
reference data for the consumption events based on the cross reference data
in each consumption event; and re-determine the values for the variables for
the microsegment based on each consumption event associated with the
anonymous subscriber profile.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2 (integration into Practical Application)2
Under “Step 2A, Prong Two,” we determine whether the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of
the exception. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Claim 1 recites various
hardware components such as “at least one processor” and “a data platform”
and

2 We acknowledge that some of the considerations at Step 2A, Prong 2,
properly may be evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of the Office
guidance). For purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the
Office, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of the Office
guidance). See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.25, 27–32.

Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

15
wherein the data is associated with advertising performed in the
macro level geographic area through a plurality of marketing
channels, including an Internet marketing channel, a television
marketing channel, and a print marketing channel,
wherein the macro level geographic area includes a plurality of
microsegments comprising geographic areas that are each
smaller than the macro level geographic area and that are each
within the macro level geographic area;
. . .
wherein the data from the data sources comprises data for the
households, and the data is made anonymous through a blind
matching process that is executed to anonymously match the data
for the households at a data platform, . . .
sending subscriber profile information to a neutral data service
provider, wherein the subscriber profile data includes personally
identifiable information for each of the households comprising
name and address, and cross reference data for each of the
households including a set top box identifier for the television
marketing channel, a cookie-level identifier for the Internet
marketing channel, and a mailing address for the print marketing
channel;
. . .
sending the audience demographic dataset to the data platform;
. . .
sending a cross reference dataset to the data platform; and
sending the consumption events tagged with the cross reference
data to the data platform;
App. Br. 39–41 (Claims Appendix).
We find these additional limitations fail to integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. For example, the claims do not (1)
improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

16
applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer), (3) do
not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4)
are not applied in any 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. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55; MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
The Specification describes the claimed “at least one processor” as “a
central processing unit, ASIC or other type of processing circuit.” Spec.
¶ 24. The Specification fails to provide any meaningful description of the
claimed “data platform.” As such, the claimed processor is merely used as a
generic computer for automating the claimed process. This component,
therefore, fails to cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a
practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 212 (explaining that “requiring
generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention”).
The additional limitations:
wherein the data is associated with advertising performed in the
macro level geographic area through a plurality of marketing
channels, including an Internet marketing channel, a television
marketing channel, and a print marketing channel,
wherein the macro level geographic area includes a plurality of
microsegments comprising geographic areas that are each
smaller than the macro level geographic area and that are each
within the macro level geographic area;
. . .
wherein the data from the data sources comprises data for the
households, and the data is made anonymous through a blind
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

17
matching process that is executed to anonymously match the data
for the households at a data platform,
. . .
wherein the subscriber profile data includes personally
identifiable information for each of the households comprising
name and address, and cross reference data for each of the
households including a set top box identifier for the television
marketing channel, a cookie-level identifier for the Internet
marketing channel, and a mailing address for the print marketing
channel;
fail to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because
they merely narrow the recited abstract ideas by more particularly describing
the data received from the data sources, the macro level geographic area, and
the subscriber profile data. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” are
“a familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept”);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to “collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data” are abstract).
Further additional limitations:
sending subscriber profile information to a neutral data service
provider,
. . .
sending the audience demographic dataset to the data platform;
. . .
sending a cross reference dataset to the data platform; and
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

18
sending the consumption events tagged with the cross reference
data to the data platform;
also fail to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application
because they merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity. See
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a
computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no
further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”); MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.”
Appellant argues the claims provide “an improvement in computer-
related technology, and the claims recite detailed steps and features
describing how the improvement is achieved rather than merely claiming the
outcome.” App. Br. 21. Appellant further argues “to analyze behavior at
lower granularities, personal identifiable information (PII) of specific
individuals may be discoverable” and, therefore, “the technical problem
addressed by the present application is how to enable anonymously
analyzing electronically-captured data at lower granularities.” App. Br. 21
(citing Spec. Fig. 10; ¶ 45); see also Reply Br. 9–10. Appellant argues the
claims are like the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because:
In the present application, the improvement is in the computer-
related technology for enforcing data privacy, and the claims
recite a particular way to achieve the desired outcome of data
privacy through a specific, detailed blind matching process that
makes data anonymous for a particular application. Thus, like
McRO, the claims are directed to an improvement in computer
technology and are not directed to an abstract idea.
App. Br. 22.
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

19
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. In McRO, the Federal
Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed
to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation
techniques” through the “use[ of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to
achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.”
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the
claimed rules allow computers to produce accurate and realistic lip
synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that
previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules are
limiting because they define morph weight sets as a function of phoneme
sub-sequences. Id. at 1313 (internal citations omitted).
The present situation is unlike that in McRO, where computers were
unable to make certain subjective determinations, i.e., regarding morph
weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed
invention by human animators. Although enforcing data privacy through a
blind matching process, which makes data anonymous for a particular
application, may improve a business process, i.e., targeted ad campaigns, it
does not achieve an improved technological result such as, for example,
improving the efficiency of the processing system itself. Simply using a
computer to gain efficiency over a manual process is not sufficient to
distinguish a claim from a patent-ineligible abstract idea. See OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying
on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
Because the additional elements fail to integrate the recited abstract
ideas into a practical application thereof, claim 13 is directed to the recited
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

20
abstract ideas. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (“If, however, the
additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical
application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and
requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it
amounts to an ‘inventive concept’).”).

Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Memorandum
Turning to the second step of the Alice inquiry, we now look to
whether claim 13 contains any “inventive concept” or adds anything
“significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible
application. Alice, 573 U.S. at 216; Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
When viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more
(i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional
elements in the claim (e.g., “at least one processor,” data platform) amount
to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic
computer components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
See Spec. ¶ 24. Moreover, Appellant does not direct our attention to
anything in the Specification that indicates the claimed computer
components perform anything other than well-understood, routine, and
conventional processing functions, such as receiving, processing, and storing
data. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification,
requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network,
and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired
information”); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 (“That a computer receives and
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

21
sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not
even arguably inventive”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–26 (receiving, storing,
sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept).
In short, the claims do no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions.
Appellant argues the claimed “blind matching process” does not
“describe functions that are normally or typically performed by a computer,
nor has the Examiner provided any explanation or evidence that such
functions are generic computer functions.” App. Br. 25.
As discussed above, the recited steps of the claimed “blind matching
process” include steps that recite an abstract idea (e.g., the claimed “creating
an audience demographic data set,” “collecting consumer consumption
events,” and “tagging each consumer event”) and steps that recite
insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., the claimed “sending” steps). The
recited functions do not go beyond generic functions, and the claim does not
adequately identify technical means for performing the claimed steps that
are arguably an advance over conventional computer technology. See Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351. The steps of the claimed “blind matching
process” are described and claimed generically rather than with the
specificity necessary to show how the steps provide a concrete solution to a
technical problem addressed by the claims. That is, the claims at issue do
not require any nonconventional computer components, or even a “non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”
(BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); rather, they merely call for performance of the
claimed “blind matching process” on a set of generic computer components.
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

22
For the foregoing reasons, we find claim 13 is directed to a patent-
ineligible abstract concept and does not recite something “significantly
more” under the second prong of the Alice analysis. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13, and claims 1–10, 12, and 14–
20, which fall with claim 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends the combination of Hunt, Experian, and Woda
fails to teach or suggest:
wherein to execute the blind matching process, a
syndicated data provider sends, to a neutral data service provider,
subscriber profile data including personally identifiable
information for each of the households comprising name and
address, and cross reference data for each of the households
including a set top box identifier for the television marketing
channel, a cookie-level identifier for the Internet marketing
channel, and a mailing address for the print marketing channel,
and
an audience demographic dataset comprised of
anonymous subscriber profiles for the households created by
matching the names and addresses to household demographic
information for the households, wherein the anonymous
subscriber profiles in the audience demographic dataset includes,
for each household, the cross reference data and the household
demographics and does not include the personally identifiable
information, and sending the audience demographic dataset to
the data platform,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 32–34; Reply Br. 15–17. Appellant argues
the cited references fail to teach or suggest sending both subscriber profile
data including personally identifiable information and an audience
demographic dataset comprised of anonymous subscriber profiles for the
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

23
households to a neutral data service provider, as required by claim 1. App.
Br. 32–33; Reply Br. 16–17.
The Examiner relies on Hunt for teaching the claimed subscriber
profile data and audience demographic dataset. Ans. 13–14 (citing Hunt
¶¶ 146, 148, 359, 1627). In particular, the Examiner finds:
Hunt discloses in paragraph 1627 that the data analytic system
may be associated with tracking personally identifiable
information associated with a household by using a scheduler
process which can provide on-demand or published reports
relating to groups and users and date and time stamps. Paragraph
359 of Hunt describes Hunt uses timestamps such as for
transactions to track particular users. Paragraph 148 of Hunt
discloses that analytic data platform 100 may provide shopper
insights, consumer tracking, loyalty insights and neighborhood
insights.
Ans. 13–14. The Examiner reasons, “the above-referenced sections of Hunt
describe that consumption events associated with anonymous subscriber
profiles are tracked to iteratively determine values for the variable for a
microsegment but still personally identifiable information is sent to a neutral
data service provider.” Ans. 14. We disagree.
Hunt describes a data loading facility that may be used to extract data
from available data sources. Hunt ¶ 146. Hunt teaches that the data may
include “consumer or customer data (e.g. household, individual,
demographics, household groupings, etc.).” Id. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 14) that Hunt teaches that the analytic platform may use the
data to provide shopper insights, consumer tracking and targeting, loyalty
insights and neighborhood insights. Hunt ¶ 148. We also agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 14), that Hunt teaches the use of timestamps. Hunt ¶ 359.
However, consistent with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 32–33; Reply
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

24
Br. 16–17), we disagree that Hunt teaches that the timestamps are used to
track particular users. Instead, Hunt teaches that “[s]ynchronization 170
may comprise controlling access to a resource” and that “synchronization
170 may be embodied as . . . a totally ordered global timestamp.” Hunt
¶ 359. The Examiner’s findings fail to explain how using a global
timestamp to control access to a resource, as taught by Hunt, teaches or
suggests “an audience demographic dataset comprised of anonymous
subscriber profiles,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1;
independent claims 13 and 20, which recite corresponding limitations; and
claims 2, 3, 8–10, 12, 14, 17–19, which depend from claims 1 and 13.
Claims 4–7, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Hunt, Experian, Wade, and various additional references. See Final
Act. 23–26. The Examiner does not find that the additional references cures
the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1, discussed above. Accordingly,
we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 4–7, 15, and 16.
We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10 and 12–20 § 101 1–10 and 12–20
Appeal 2018-005255
Application 13/838,355

25
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8–10, 12–14,
17–20
§ 103(a)
Hunt, Experian,
Woda
1–3, 8–10,
12–14, 17–20
4–6, 15, 16 § 103(a)
Hunt, Experian,
Woda, Kasravi,
Gershkoff
4–6, 15, 16
7 § 103(a)
Hunt, Experian,
Woda, Fairfield
7
Overall Outcome 1–10 and 12–20

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10 and 12–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10 and 12–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Since at least one rejection encompassing all claims on appeal is
affirmed, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
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