Ex Parte Deng et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 24, 201914729017 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/729,017 06/02/2015 87851 7590 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 05/29/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Peter Xiu Deng 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 26295-29351/US 7423 EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2019 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): ptoc@fenwick.com fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER XIU DENG, WILLIAM JOSEPH FLYNN III, JOSHUA WISEMAN, MATTHEW CAHILL, and MARKE. ZUCKERBERG Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 1 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Peter Xiu Deng, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Appellants identify Facebook, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Claim 21 was subject to a restriction requirement. Final Act. 2. The Examiner decided that "claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention." Id. See also Advisory Action mailed December 21, 2016. This is not an appealable matter. "There are a host of Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 We AFFIRM. SUMMARY OF DECISION THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed matter and emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: [(a)] maintaining profile stores of a subject user and a viewing user of an online social networking system, the profile stores including biographical information items; [(b)] selecting two or more biographical information items from the subset of biographical items from the subject user's profile store for display to the viewing user, the selecting based at least in part on the two or more items each comprising a characteristic in common between the subject user and the viewing user; [(c)] concatenating, by a processor, the two or more selected biographical information items into a short biography of the subject user for displaying to the viewing user on a profile page of the subject user, the short biography specific to the viewing user; and [(d)] providing, by the processor, the profile page of the subject user for display to the viewing user, the profile page comprising a first section comprising the short biography various kinds of decisions an examiner makes in the examination proceeding-mostly matters of a discretionary, procedural or nonsubstantive nature-which have not been and are not now appealable to the board or to this court. . . . [A] requirement for restriction under § 121 is now one of those discretionary matters no longer tantamount to a rejection of the claims ... " In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, we do not consider the Appellants' challenge of the Examiner's decision to withdraw claim 21 from consideration. App. Br. 5-7 and Reply Br. 6. 2 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 specific to the viewing user and a second section comprising further profile information about the subject user from the subject user's profile store, the further profile information viewable by other users of the online social networking system. App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming patent- ineligible subject matter. 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter? ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC §101 as claiming patent- ineligible subject matter. Representative claim The Appellants argued claims 1-10 and 12-20 as a group. See App. Br. 7-11. In accord with the Appellants' discussion, we select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims 2-1 0 and 12- 3 The Appellants state that the Examiner rejected "claims 1-8 and 14--19." App. Br. 7. In the Reply Brief, the Appellants state that the Examiner rejected "claims 1-8, 14--19, and 21." Reply Br. 2. However, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 3. Claim 21 is withdrawn- and not rejected- as discussed in the preceding footnote. 3 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 20 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 1 is reproduced above, with added emphasis. Preliminary comment In their briefs, the Appellants refer to prior USPTO guidance. See App. Br. 8. Said guidance has been superseded by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter "2019 Revised 101 Guidance." Id. at 51 ("Eligibility-related guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon."). Accordingly, our analysis will not address the sufficiency of the Examiner's rejection against the earlier guidance. Rather, our analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Introduction 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor." In that regard, claim 1 covers a "process" and thus nominally recites statutory subject matter for which a patent may be obtained. 4 This is not in dispute. 4 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which requires determining whether "the claim is to a statutory category." 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. See also sentence bridging pages 53 and 54 ("consider[] whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101"). 4 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 However, the § 101 provision "contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent-eligibility on the ground that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Alice step one - the "directed to" inquiry According to Alice step one, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept" (id. at 218 (emphasis added)). The Examiner determined that the claims are directed to "social networking profiles" and "an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device and is simply a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible." Final Act. 4 (citing Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). According to the Examiner, the claimed process of combining data to create a social networking profile for a user is similar to the device profiles at issue in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Id. at 3--4. The Examiner also indicated that the 5 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Appellants' claims recite collecting information, namely social networking profile stores and biographical information items, and analyzing information using mathematical algorithms such as "selecting biographical information items based on a common characteristic and grouping [ concatenating] the biographical information items together for placement in a section of a webpage." Ans. 4 (bracketed matter original). The Examiner determined that "[t]he advance [the claims] purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertively inventive technology for performing those functions." Id. at 5. According to the Examiner, the Appellants' claims "are unlike the claims in Enfish" because "the focus of the claims is not on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Id. The Appellants contend that "[t]he first legal error is that the examiner fails to clearly identify in the FOA what he believes to be the abstract idea presented in the pending claims." App. Br. 8. According to the Appellants, the Examiner cited prior court decisions "without any comparison of these cases to the pending claims." Id. at 9. We do not agree. As discussed above, the Examiner compared the Appellants' claimed method to the claimed inventions in Content Extraction and Digitech, and concluded that the claims here are similarly directed to an abstract idea, namely a process that employs mathematical algorithms to create a social network profile by gathering and combining data. The Appellants acknowledge as much. See App. Br. 9 ("In paragraph 10 the examiner states that the claims are directed to 'social networking profiles' 6 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 and 'clearly [ re ]cite an ineligible abstract process of gathering and combining data."'). The Appellants cite Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) and argue that "the claimed invention similarly recites a specific, structured interface in the form of a profile page provided to the viewing user that is paired with multiple functionalities related to the page's structure." The Appellants also reproduce the "providing" step of claim 1 and argue that "independent claim 1 recites an element of the interface that is depicted in FIGS. 4A--4C." App. Br. 10. Accordingly, there is a dispute over what claim 1 is directed to. Is it directed to "a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results," (Ans. 5) or "a specific, structured interface in the form of a profile page provided to the viewing user that is paired with multiple functionalities related to the page's structure" (App. Br. 10)? 7 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Claim Construction 5 We consider the claim as a whole 6 giving it the broadest reasonable construction 7 as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification 8 at the time of filing. Claim 1 calls for a method comprising four steps (a}-( d), as discussed in detail below. The method as claimed nominally involves two computer components: ( 1) "an online social networking system," and (2) "a processor." 5 "[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim." Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that "claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101." However, the threshold of § 101 must be crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims. Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 6 "In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). 7 2019 Revised 101 Guidance 5 3 n.14 ("If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation .... " ( emphasis added)). 8 "First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. . . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is important to read the claims 'in light of the specification."' Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F .3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Linn, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), among others). 8 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 As to ( 1) "an online social networking system," the Specification discloses: Social networking systems have become prevalent in recent years because they provide a useful environment in which users can connect to and communicate with other users. A variety of different types of social networking systems exist that provide mechanisms allowing users to interact within their social networks. Spec. para. 3. In light of the Specification, we construe "online social networking system" as a system that provides an environment in which users can connect to and communicate with other users. As to (2) "a processor," the Specification discloses: Any of the steps, operations, or processes described herein may be performed or implemented with one or more hardware or software modules, alone or in combination with other devices. In one embodiment, a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described. Embodiments of the invention may also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, and/or it may comprise a general-purpose computing device selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. Such a computer program may be stored in a non- transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, or any type of media suitable for storing electronic instructions, which may be coupled to a computer system bus. Furthermore, any computing systems referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability. 9 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Id. at paras. 52-53. In light of the Specification, we construe "a processor" as encompassing a generic computer processor of a general-purpose computing device. Turning to the steps of the claimed method, claim 1 recites: 1. A method comprising: [(a)] maintaining [information A] of a subject user and a viewing user of an online social networking system including [information Al]; [ (b)] selecting [ information A2 and information A3] from [information Al] for display to the viewing user, the selecting based on [information A2 and information A3] each comprising [information BJ; [(c)] concatenating, by a processor, [information A2] and [information A3] into [information CJ for displaying to the viewing user on [information DJ; [( d)] providing, by the processor, [information DJ for display to the viewing user, [information DJ comprising a first section comprising [information CJ and a second section comprising [information E], [information E] viewable by other users of the online social networking system. Claim 1 ( emphasis added), where Information A is "profile stores"; Information Al is "biographical information items"; Information A2 is "a biographical information item from the subset of biographical items from the subject user's profile store"; Information A3 is "a biographical information item from the subset of biographical items from the subject user's profile store"; Information B is "a characteristic in common between the subject user and the viewing user"; Information C is "a short biography of the subject user, the short biography specific to the viewing user"; Information D is "a profile page of the subject user"; 10 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Information Eis "further profile information about the subject user from the subject user's profile store." As to information A ("profile stores"), the Specification discloses that "[t]he social networking system 130 stores user profiles describing the users of a social network in a user profile store 240" and "[ t ]he user profiles include biographic, demographic, and other types of descriptive information." Spec. para. 28. The Specification also discloses that "the user profile store 240 may include data structures suitable for describing a user's demographic data, behavioral data, and other social data." Id. at para. 30. In light of the Specification, we construe information A ("profile stores") as any data structures suitable for describing demographic data, behavioral data, and other social data of a user. As to information Al ("biographical information items"), the Specification discloses: The user profile store 240 includes various biographical information items. The term biographical information item, as used herein, can include any user profile information, including profile information that is not typically considered biographical in nature. For example, the user profile may include information about a user's work experience, residence city, relationship status, hometown, educational experience, languages spoken, birth date, check-ins, media content in the user's profile, etc. Id. at para. 28. In light of the Specification, we construe information Al ("biographical information items") as any user profile information, including profile information that is not typically considered biographical in nature. As to information A2 and A3 ("a biographical information item from the subset of biographical items from the subject user's profile store"), in the context of the claim, we construe information A2 as a first biographical 11 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 information item and information A3 as a second biographical information item from the subject user's profile store. In light of the Specification, as discussed above, the first and second biographical information items include any user profile information from the subject user's profile store. As to information B ("a characteristic in common between the subject user and the viewing user"), the Specification discloses, by way of example, that "user association information, such as the viewing user being tagged in a photograph or the viewing user sharing a hometown in common with the user may be considered relevant to the viewing user and thus may be included in the short biographical summary shown to the viewing user." Id. at para. 38. As another example, "a common educational experience between the user and the viewing user may be included .... " Id. In light of the Specification, we construe information B ("a characteristic in common between the subject user and the viewing user") as any information in common between the subject user and the viewing user. As to information C ("a short biography of the subject user, the short biography specific to the viewing user"), the Specification discloses that "[ t ]he short biography according to one embodiment can include any user profile information, including profile information that is not strictly biographical in nature." Id. at para. 34. In light of the Specification, we construe information C ("a short biography of the subject user, the short biography specific to the viewing user") as any user profile information, including profile information that is not strictly biographical in nature. As to information D ("a profile page of the subject user"), the Specification discloses: 12 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 One common characteristic of social networking systems is providing a user profile page where the user can provide biographical and other information such as relationship status, current place of residence, hometown, educational experiences, and work experiences. Typically the information is organized into sections pertaining to the different types of information and few limits are placed on how much biographical information the user may add. Id. at para. 4. In light of the Specification, we construe information D ( "a profile page of the subject user") as a page of any social networking system where the user can provide biographical and other information such as relationship status, current place of residence, hometown, educational experiences, and work experiences. As to information E ("further profile information about the subject user from the subject user's profile store"), the Specification discloses that "[t]he user profiles include biographic, demographic, and other types of descriptive information." Id. at para. 28. In light of the Specification, we construe information E ("further profile information about the subject user from the subject user's profile store") as any information about a user including biographic, demographic, and other types of descriptive information. As to step (a) ("maintaining profile stores ... "), 9 the Specification discloses that "user profiles are maintained 310, where the user profiles include biographical information items for each user" and "social networking system 130 maintains additional information inherent to each 9 The Appellants indicate that limitation (a) is described in the Specification at paragraphs 8, 9, 25, 36, 37, and Figures 3 and 4A---C. App. Br. 2 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter). 13 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 biographical information item." Id. at para. 36. Figure 2 depicts social networking system 130 as including a user profile store 240. "The social networking system 130 stores user profiles describing the users of a social network in a user profile store 240" and "user profile store 240 includes various biographical information items." Id. at para. 28. "For example, the user profile store 240 contains data structures with fields suitable for describing a user's profile." In light of the Specification, we construe "maintaining" in step (a) as encompassing storing biographical information items of users in a data store, including, for example, storing biographical information in fields of a data structure. As to step (b) ("selecting two or more biographical information items . . . "), 10 the Specification discloses that the two or more most relevant items are selected 330 for inclusion in the short biography for the user. The selection is based at least in part on the additional information associated with the biographical information items. For example, temporal information, e.g., when an item was added to the user's user profile, may be considered temporally relevant and thus be included in the short biographical summary. Likewise, user association information, such as the viewing user being tagged in a photograph or the viewing user sharing a hometown in common with the user may be considered relevant to the viewing user and thus may be included in the short biographical summary shown to the viewing user. Thus, the items selected 330 as most relevant may differ between different users viewing the user's user profile. In some embodiments more than one piece of additional information goes into the selection 330 of relevant items, e.g., a common educational experience 10 The Appellants indicate that limitation (b) is described in the in the Specification at paragraphs 8, 9, 27, 33, 38, 39, 47--49, and Figures 3 and 4A---C. App. Br. 2 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter). 14 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 between the user and the viewing user may be included, as well as birth date information when the viewing user if viewing the profile on the birth date. Id. at para. 38. In light of the Specification, we construe "selecting" in step (b) as encompassing selecting information about the subject user based on any information in common between the subject user and the viewing user. As to step ( c) ("concatenating [ ... ] the two or more selected biographical information items into a short biography ... "), 11 the Specification discloses that "[t]he two or more biographical information items selected as most relevant then are concatenated 340 into a short biography for the user, which is transmitted 350 for display on the user's profile page." Id. at para. 39. Various examples of short biography 410 are shown in Figures 4A---C for a user named "John Doe." In the embodiment of Figure 4A, short biography 410 includes various biographical items 415 including "Professor at Prestigious University; Lives in San Jose, CA; Married to Jane Doe; Studied Computer Science at Big Tech School; Speaks English, French, Japanese; Born October 5." See also, id. at para. 44. Each biographical item is separated by a graphical icon, such as a briefcase icon associated with work experience. See id. at para. 45. In the embodiment of Figure 4A, "the short biography also includes photographs 425." Id. at para. 4 7. In the embodiment of Figure 4 B, "the short biography 410 is a one-line biography and includes two biographical information items 415" and "no icons are shown with the items 415." Id. at para. 48. In the embodiment of 11 The Appellants indicate that limitation ( c) is described in the Specification at paragraphs 8, 9, 27, 39, 40, 46, and 49 and Figures 3 and 4A---C. App. Br. 2 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter). 15 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Figure 4C, "short biography 410 includes five biographical content items 415a--415e." Id. at para. 49. We do not see that the Specification contains an express definition or ascribes any special meaning to the term "concatenating." We construe "concatenating" in step ( c) as having its ordinary and customary meaning of "joining" or "linking." 12, 13 As to step (d) ("providing[ ... ] the profile page of the subject user for display to the viewing user"), 14 the Specification discloses that the short biography for the user "is transmitted 350 for display on the user's profile page." Id. at para. 39. For example, "[t]he short biography may be transmitted 350 for display on the user's profile page in a prominent fashion, e.g., at the very top of the user profile." Id. at para. 41. The Specification further discloses that "web server 210 links the social networking system to one or more user devices 110 via the network 120" and "web server 210 serves web pages, as well as other web-related content, such as Java, Flash, XML, and so forth." Id. at para. 24. In light of the Specification, we construe "providing" in step ( d) as encompassing transmitting data 12 "concatenate." In Dictionary of Computing, 6th ed. Bloomsbury, 2010. ("to join together two or more sets of data") https:// search. credoreference. com/ content/ entry/ acbcomp/ concatenate/ 13 "concatenate." In Dictionary of Information and Library Management, 2nd ed. A&C Black, 2006. ("to link two or more information units, e.g. character strings or computer files, so that they form a single unit") https:// search. credoreference. com/ content/ entry/ acbinfomanage/ concatenate/ 14 The Appellants indicate that limitation ( d) is described in the Specification at paragraphs 8, 9, 39, and 41 and Figures 3 and 4A---C. App. Br. 2 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter). 16 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 comprising a profile page ( e.g., a web page) from a web server to a user device via a network. The Abstract Idea 15 Above, where we reproduce claim 1, we identify in italics the limitations we believe recite an abstract idea. 16 Based on our Claim Construction analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations describe a type of information gathering and processing, more particularly, a certain information gathering and processing scheme for "creating a short biography of biographical information for presentation on [ a social network user's] user profile." Spec. para. 7. Creating a short biography of biographical information is a concept performed in the human mind that falls within the enumerated "[ m ]ental processes" grouping of abstract ideas set 15 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines "whether a claim is 'directed to' a judicial exception," such as an abstract idea. Step 2A is two-prong inquiry. 16 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. "To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the Examiner believes recites an abstract idea .... " Id. at 54. 17 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. 17 The Examiner's characterization of what the claims are directed to is similar to our own. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4--8. We have reviewed the record and find no error in our or the Examiner's characterization of what claim 1 is directed to. Improvement in Computer Functionality (Appellants' Argument) The Appellants' central argument is that "the claimed invention [ ... ] recites a specific, structured interface in the form of a profile page provided to the viewing user that is paired with multiple functionalities related to the page's structure" (App. Br. 10), and therefore an improvement to the way computers operate. According to the Appellants, each of the "elements [ recited in claim 1] that define the structure of the GUI has a prescribed functionality," specifically "the first section presents the short biography 17 This corresponds to Prong One (b) ("Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception") of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. "To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: ... (b) determine whether the identified limitation( s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the [2019 Revised 101 Guidance]." Id. at 54. This case implicates subject matter grouping "(b )": (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)[.] Id. at 52. 18 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 specific to the viewing user, whereas the second section includes other profile information also visible to other users." Id. at 10-11. The Appellants' argument is not persuasive at least because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Claim 1 does not require a graphical user interface ("GUI") with specific functionality. Rather, claim 1 merely requires providing a profile page for display, the profile page having first and second sections comprising specified informational content. Specifically, the first section comprises "the short biography specific to the viewing user" and the second section comprises "further profile information about the subject user from the subject user's profile store." The only functionality of the claimed profile page - and the specified informational content thereof- is that it is "for display to the viewing user." As we pointed out above in our Claim Construction analysis, the Specification discloses that social networking systems typically provide user profile pages with biographical information and other information "organized into sections pertaining to the different types of information." Spec. para. 4. The difference between the claimed "profile page" and other well-known profile pages is that the claimed "profile page" comprises said certain types of information in the first and second sections. But that difference alone is not patentably consequential. This is so because "[ c ]laim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101." Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We do not see how-and the Appellants do not explain how - claim 1 requires any functional relationship between the 19 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 content of the information displayed on the profile page and the substrate (i.e., the profile page itself). Nor have the Appellants pointed to any technical problems associated with obtaining or displaying the claimed informational content. The Appellants cite Trading Technologies as matching this case. We disagree. Unlike in that decision, here no improvement in computer functionality has been shown. See Trading Techs.,675 F. App'x at 1006 ("[T]he claimed subject matter is 'directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate' [quoting Enfzsh], for the claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality to a trading system 'directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.' [quoting Enfzsh]."). The bare fact that the claims require a particular arrangement of information on a profile page displayed to a user is not sufficient to demonstrate an improvement to computer technology. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344--45 (Fed. Cir. 2018): We have recognized that "[i]nformation as such is an intangible" and that collecting, analyzing, and displaying that information, without more, is an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54; see also id. at 1355 (noting claim requirement of" 'displaying concurrent visualization' of two or more types of information" was insufficient to confer patent eligibility). We have also held that claims directed to displaying two different information sets sequentially are abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( claims directed to abstract idea of "showing an advertisement before delivering free content"). Similarly, we have held that claims directed to a single display of information collected from various sources are abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 20 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 1341--42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims which recited creating a "dynamic document" using content from multiple electronic records ineligible under § 101 ). Recitation, as in this case, of the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract absent a "specific improvement to the way computers [ or other technologies] operate." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. See also Trading Techs. Intl, Inc. v. !BG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("the claims here fail because arranging information along an axis does not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.") Information collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Contrary to InvestPic's suggestion, it does not matter to this conclusion whether the information here is information about real investments. As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is "limited to particular content" or a particular "source," that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing cases).); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("tailoring of content based on information about the user - such as where the user lives or what time of day the user views the content - is an abstract 21 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 idea that is as old as providing different newspaper inserts for different neighborhoods") ( citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Steps (a), (b ), ( c ), and ( d), which call for maintaining information, selecting information based on other information, concatenating information, and providing information for display, are information-processing functions commonly associated with generic data processing systems/computer processors. Cf Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F .3d 1315, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Remotely accessing and retrieving user- specified information is an age-old practice that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet."). Tailoring content for display to a particular viewing user in a social network is also an abstract idea. Cf Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims directed to "targeting advertisements to certain consumers, and using a bidding system to determine when and how advertisements will be displayed" held to be directed to an abstract idea). As to step ( c) "concatenating," no details of the concatenating are recited in the claims. As discussed above in our Claim Construction analysis, step ( c) merely amounts to joining or linking two or more biographical information items. The Specification does not disclose a new way of concatenating information items by computers. Although the Specification discloses details about various exemplary results of the concatenating step - short biography 410 and its exemplary content - no details are provided as to how the computer achieves those results. The Specification merely discloses that "short biography engine 225 produces a 22 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 short, unbiased biography for users of the social networking system from biographical content items and/or photographs within the user's profile." Spec. para. 27. After selecting items for inclusion in the short biography, "short biography engine 225 concatenates the selected items and provides them to the user interface engine 250 for including in the user interface including the user profile page." Id. No new way of concatenating biographical content items is disclosed. Rather, the Specification appears to indicate that there is no need to disclose any details of the concatenating step because the details are well-known to those skilled in the art. See id. at para. 51 ("[ t ]hese algorithmic descriptions and representations are commonly used by those skilled in the data processing arts to convey the substance of their work effectively to others skilled in the art" and "[t]hese operations, while described functionally, computationally, or logically, are understood to be implemented by computer programs or equivalent electrical circuits, microcode, or the like."). "The 'abstract idea' step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335, cited in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court inAncora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) stated: We examine the patent's "'claimed advance' to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea." 23 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018). "In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on 'the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool."' Id. ( quoting Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1285-86 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Computers are improved not only through changes in hardware; "[ s ]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology .... " Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335; see Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304. We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements. Id. at 1347. The Specification's description of the problem and solution shows the advance over the prior art by the claimed invention to be the information gathering and processing scheme recited per steps (a}-(d), as we have emphasized in claim 1 reproduced above. See Spec. para. 7 ("Display of the short biography allows a viewer to easily find key biographical information about the user without having to check all the various sections of the user profile for the biographical information items."). The heart of the invention is that recited information gathering and processing scheme, not any "social networking system," or "processor" or their combination, which, as the Specification discloses, are merely generic. Cf Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328 ("the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using an index to search for and retrieve data ... an abstract concept"); Trading Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. !BG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1094.("The specification makes clear that this invention helps the trader process information more quickly. This is not an improvement to computer functionality, as alleged by TT."). 24 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Additionally, computers having processors and social networking systems, both individually and in communication with each other, were well known 18 at the time the application was filed. See Spec. para. 2 ("Social networking systems have become prevalent in recent years because they provide a useful environment in which users can connect to and communicate with other users."). 18 Cf Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation, 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("the claims recite ... a generic computer element-a processor"); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App'x 1005, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential) ("[T]he claims at issue ... require 'a computer with a central processing unit,' 'a memory,' 'an input and output terminal,' 'a printer,' in some cases 'a video screen,' and 'a program ... enabling' the steps of managing a game of bingo .... [T]he claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea."); Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 680 F. App'x 977, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential) ("we find here that 'interfaces,' 'program stores,' and 'processors' are all generic computer components"); and Smart Systems Innovations, 873 F.3d at 1372 ("Taken together, the Asserted Claims are directed to the formation of financial transactions in a particular field (i.e., mass transit) and data collection related to such transactions. The Asserted Claims are not directed to a new type of bankcard, turnstile, or database, nor do the claims provide a method for processing data that improves existing technological processes. Rather, the claims are directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data. We have determined that claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea."). 25 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 The claim provides no structural details 19 that would distinguish the "social networking system" and "processor" from those that were well known at the time the application was filed. Claim 1 describes the "social networking system" and "processor" functionally; that is, via steps they are required to perform. The steps are discussed in more detail above. Based on the record before us, the recited information gathering and processing scheme does not ask the "social networking system" and "processor" to go beyond their common functions. Although computer instructions can be patentably significant (see Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327, and Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1349) here the instant record does not sufficiently support the view that any instructions that would be associated with the resulting steps as claimed improve the functioning of the claimed "social networking system" and "processor." To the contrary, the record supports viewing these limitations as amounting to a mere instruction to implement the recited information gathering and processing scheme on generic computer components. Cf Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26 ("the claims at issue amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer."). 19 Cf Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App'x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential) ("Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the abstract idea identified by the district court."). 26 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find there is no integration into a practical application. Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, the record supports the view that the claimed subject matter is directed to an information gathering and processing scheme using generic computer components as tools. 20 We have considered all the Appellants' arguments challenging the Examiner's determination under step one of the Alice framework and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the Examiner's determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Alice step two - Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept? 21 Step two is "a search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 573 U.S. at217-18 (alteration in original) (quoting 20 See the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 ("The courts have also identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: An additional element merely recites the words 'apply it' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea .... "). 21 This corresponds to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. See id. at 56 ("[I]f a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself)."). 27 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)). In that regard, the Examiner determined: The [ claims do] not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims amount to a generic computer performing generic computer functions, mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and/or limitations that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field such as maintaining profiles and customizing their display for different users that visit the profile on the Internet. Final Act. 3. We agree with the Examiner. We are unpersuaded that claim 1 presents an element or combination of elements indicative of a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities, thereby rendering the claimed subject matter sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the information gathering and processing scheme itself. We have reviewed the Specification and we can find no suggestion of any improvements to the system as a result of performing the recited steps. The Specification is focused on the information gathering and processing scheme, not on the social networking system or processor computer elements, individually or in the combination as claimed. Rather than focusing on the said elements, the Specification focuses on the information gathering and processing scheme, the computer elements being merely a conduit for performing said scheme. Indeed, the Specification notes that each of these components is conventional. Cf In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Put differently, the 28 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 telephone unit itself is merely a conduit for the abstract idea of classifying an image and storing the image based on its classification. Indeed, the specification notes that it 'is known' that 'cellular telephones may be utilized for image transmission,' id. at col. 1 11. 31-34, and existing telephone systems could transmit pictures, audio, and motion pictures and also had 'graphical annotation capability,' id. at col. 111. 52-59."). The Specification evidences the conventionality of the claimed social networking system, 22 and processor computer elements, 23 individually and in the combination as claimed, and the recited steps require nothing more than to use them for their commonly associated processing functions. Much like the "data storage unit" and "computer, coupled to said data storage unit" in the claims of Alice (U.S. Patent 7,149,720, claim 1), "the claims here do [not do] more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea ... on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. The Appellants cite BASCOM as matching this case. According to the Appellants, the combination of selecting biographical items common between the subject user and viewing user to create a short biography specific to a viewing user, which is combined with further profile information viewable by other users in a profile page for the subject user for display to the viewing user, is unconventional in the art. Reply Br. 6. 22 See, e.g., Spec. para. 3 ("Social networking systems have become prevalent in recent years ... ") 23 See, e.g., Spec. para. 53 ("any computing systems referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability.") 29 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 We disagree. Unlike in that decision, here no improvement in computer functionality has been shown. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he claims may be read to 'improve[ J an existing technological process."' ( emphasis added) ( citation omitted)). As stated in Interval Licensing LLC: Importantly, we have found a number of software-based claims to be patent-eligible, observing that "[ s ]oftware can make non- abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route." Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016); id. at 1339 ( claims directed to a self-referential table "de-signed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory"); see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348--49 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to improved content filter); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to a technical improvement in animation techniques); Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims which were directed to "particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices" were patent-eligible). Other software-based claimed inventions, however, have failed to pass section 101 muster, because they did not recite any assertedly inventive technology for improving computers as tools and/or because the elements of the asserted invention were so result-based that they amounted to patenting the patent- ineligible concept itself. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354, 1355 (claims lacking "any requirements for how the desired result is achieved") ( emphasis in original); SAP Am., Inc.[ v. InvestPic, LLC], 890 F.3d [1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018)] ("the focus of the claims [ wa ]s not any improved computer or network"). Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344 (first and last alterations in original). 30 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 In Trading Technologies Int 'l v. !BG LLC, our reviewing court addressed claim limitations directed to displaying particular information to a user including "displaying an order icon at a location that corresponds to the desired price level along the price axis, the order icon indicating the user's order at the electronic exchange." 921 F.3d at 1094. The court concluded that "[ t ]hese limitations do not change our analysis, as simply displaying all the bids and offers in the aggregate, including the user's bids and offers, is not enough." Id. Here, the Appellants have not persuasively explained how the argued limitation of providing a profile page to a viewing user, the profile page comprising first and second sections comprising the specified information, amounts to significantly more than simply displaying particular information using generic computer components. The Appellants cite Berkheimer v. HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and the corresponding US PTO Memorandum entitled "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer)," Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19, 2018 (the "Berkheimer Memo"). Reply Br. 5. Although the Appellants acknowledge that "overcoming § 103 is not dispositive for the § 101 analysis," the Appellants contend that "under Berkheimer, it follows that a lack of prior art showing the claimed invention is evidence that the claimed invention may in fact go beyond that which is conventional, well-understood, or routine in the art." Id. The Appellants contend that the claimed "concatenating" step distinguishes over the prior art, and "[ t ]he examiner has provided no 31 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 evidence under any of the categories in the Berkheimer Memo to support his conclusion of conventionality." Id. at 5---6. As an initial matter, we note that independent claims 1 and 14 require concatenating biographical information items. Dependent claim 6 recites "concatenating the two or more selected most temporally relevant photographs to include with the short biography for the user." Claim 19 contains a similar limitation. In the Reply Brief, the Appellants do not specify claim numbers, and appear to argue about the "concatenating" limitations of independent claims 1 and 14. 24 Because the Specification does not distinguish between concatenating operations that involve biographical information items and concatenating operations that involve photographs, we find that the analysis is essentially the same for the "concatenating" limitations in each of claims 1, 6, 14, and 19. The Appellants' argument is unpersuasive at least because concatenating information is part of the abstract idea itself. See Trading Techs. Int'! v. !BG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, 'no matter how groundbreaking the advance."') ( quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As discussed above in our Claim Construction analysis, the claimed "concatenating" is construed as joining or 24 As to said "concatenating" step, the Appellants cite pages 11-13 of the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 5. On page 11 of the Appeal Brief, the Appellants reproduce the "concatenating" limitation of dependent claims 6 and 19. The Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 6 and 19 except to say that the Examiner did not specifically address them. App. Br. 11. 32 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 linking information. The creation of a biography ( of any length) necessarily involves joining or linking biographical information. Additionally, we do not see that the Appellants have raised a genuine issue of fact as to the conventionality of the claimed concatenating. The Appellants have not cited any evidence ( e.g., in the Specification), to show that the claimed concatenating is in any way inventive or involves any alteration of computer functionality. The court in Berkheimer held that "[t]he patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact." Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 (quoting Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The§ 101 inquiry 'may contain underlying factual issues."')). But the court also held that"[ w ]hen there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the claim element or claimed combination is well-understood, routine, [and] conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field, this issue can be decided on summary judgment as a matter of law." Id. at 1368 (emphasis added). This qualification has been subsequently reiterated. If there is a genuine dispute of material fact, Rule 56 requires that summary judgment be denied. In Berkheimer, there was such a genuine dispute for claims 4--7, but not for claims 1-3 and 9. . . . ... [I]n accordance with Alice, we have repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility for the many claims that have been defended as involving an inventive concept based merely on the idea of using existing computers or the Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no alteration of computer functionality. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1371-74 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Order On Petition for Rehearing En Banc) (Moore, J., concurring); see also Aatrix 33 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Order On Petition for Rehearing En Banc) (Reyna, J., dissenting) ("A factual allegation or dispute should not automatically take the determination out of the court's hands; rather, there needs to be justification for why additional evidence must be considered-the default being a legal determination."). The Specification does not disclose any new way of concatenating any type of information, including biographical information items ( as called for in independent claims 1 and 14) and photographs (as called for in dependent claims 6 and 19). Details of the concatenating operation are entirely absent from the Specification. As discussed above, the Specification merely discloses that "short biography engine 225 produces a short, unbiased biography for users of the social networking system from biographical content items and/or photographs within the user's profile." Spec. para. 27. After selecting items for inclusion in the short biography, "short biography engine 225 concatenates the selected items and provides them to the user interface engine 250 for including in the user interface including the user profile page." Id. No new way of concatenating biographical information items, photographs, or other content is disclosed. Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed "concatenating" limitation, either individually or in the combination as claimed. Finally, as to the question of preemption, the Appellants argue that "the claims do not preempt the entire field of 'maintaining social networking profiles."' App. Br. 9. 34 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 With respect to the pre-emption concern, "[ w ]hat matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept's every practical application." CLS Bankint'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring). Pre-emption is not a separate test. To be clear, the proper focus is not preemption per se, for some measure of preemption is intrinsic in the statutory right granted with every patent to exclude competitors, for a limited time, from practicing the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 154. Rather, the animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add "significantly more" to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. See Mayo[, 566 U.S. at 72-73]. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise§ 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. Id. See also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 13 79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."). Because we find the claimed subject matter covers patent-ineligible subject matter, the pre-emption concern is necessarily addressed. "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, ... preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, 788 F.3d at 1379. No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two 35 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to transform the concept into an inventive application. We have considered all of the Appellants' remaining arguments (including those made in the Reply Brief) and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the determinations that representative claim 1, and claims 2-10 and 12-20 which stand or fall with claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an "inventive concept," we sustain the Examiner's conclusion that they are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially excepted from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App'x 991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("We have considered all of Lending Tree's remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly, because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an 'inventive concept,' we hold that they are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101."); see also, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Dependent claim 11 Regarding dependent claim 11, the argument, in its entirety, is this: that claim 11 "introduces an additional user interface element (the 'control') with a specific functionality (add items to profile)." App. Br. 11. No further explanation is provided. Claim 11 recites "in response to one or more items in the set of default biographical information items being absent from the user's user profile, 36 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 including a control within the short biography for the user to add the one or more items to the user's user profile." Id. at 18 (Claims Appendix). Although the Appellants do not cite any portions of the Specification as relevant to the argued limitation, we note that the Specification discloses that "the short biography 410 includes a control for editing the user's user profile, which is displaced along with a pencil icon in this embodiment." Spec. para. 45. In light of the Specification, the "control" of claim 11 amounts to an icon that a user can select to add corresponding information to the user's user profile. As discussed above, merely displaying an icon on a user interface is not sufficient to provide an inventive concept under step two of the Alice framework. We further note that the Specification discloses that allowing users to edit user profile pages by adding information is a typical feature of existing social networks. See Spec. para. 4 ("One common characteristic of social networking systems is providing a user profile page where the user can provide biographical and other information ... "); Id. ("few limits are placed on how much biographical information the user may add."). On this record, we find that the Appellants have not persuasively explained how the argued limitation of "including a control within the short biography for the user to add the one or more items to the user's user profile" amounts to significantly more than simply displaying particular information using generic computer components. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter is affirmed. 37 Appeal 2018-006011 Application 14/729,017 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 38 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation