Ex Parte Hegeman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

13294094 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/294,094 11/10/2011
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
07/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Hegeman
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.
26295-18559 9898
EXAMINER
LI,SUNM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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 JOHN HEGEMAN, RONG YAN, and
GREGORY JOSEPH BADROS
Appeal2018-005552 1
Application 13/294,094
Technology Center 3600
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, BETH Z. SHAW, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's non-
final rejection of claims 3-6, 8, and 11-23. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2018-005546.
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns "optimizing advertisement bidding,
and more particularly to determining advertisement bids for advertisers
based on an advertising budget and/or weighted performance categories
provided by the advertisers." Specification ,r 2, filed November 10, 2011
("Spec."). Claims 17, 22, and 23 are independent. Claim 17 illustrates the
claimed invention:
17. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for an ad from a client associated with
a user of an online system;
responsive to the ad request and before sending an ad from
a plurality of ads,
determining, by a processor, a bid for each ad in the
plurality of ads, wherein
determining a bid for each ad comprises:
determining a budget associated with the ad,
retrieving historical statistics for the user
from a database;
determining an impression value for the ad
depending on a predicted likelihood of the user
performing one or more actions associated with
performance the ad, wherein the predicted
likelihood is based on the retrieved historical
statistics,
determining a pacing value for the ad,
wherein the pacing value for the ad comprises the
value of displaying the ad based on a remaining
impressions goal for the ad, and
determining a bid for the ad specific to the
user of the ad request based on the determined
budget, the determined pacing value, and the
determined impression value; and
2
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
selecting the ad for display to the user of the client.
Appeal Brief 15-16, filed January 8, 2018 ("App. Br.").
REJECTIONS
Basis
3---6, 8, and 11-23 § 101
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner's§ 101 rejection and Appellants'
arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner's reasoning,
findings, and conclusions in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 10,
2017 ("Non-Final Act.") and the Answer mailed March 8, 2018 ("Ans.").
Section 101 Rejection
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof' is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
"Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."
Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is "directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine "the elements of
[the] claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
3
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claim for an "inventive concept," "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. at 217-18 ( alteration in original) ( quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Patent Office has revised its guidance about this framework. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under the Revised Guidance, to decide
whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the
claim (1) recites subject matter that falls within one of the abstract idea
groupings listed in the Revised Guidance and (2) fails to integrate the recited
abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 51, 54. If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as noted above, we
then determine whether the claim has an inventive concept. The Revised
Guidance explains that when making this determination, we should consider
whether the additional claim elements add "a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field" or "simply append[] well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
With these principles in mind, we tum to the merits of the § 101
rejection. Appellants argue claims 3---6, 8, and 11-23 together for this
rejection, so as permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal for this
rejection based on claim 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
Abstract Idea
The Examiner determined that claim 17 recites limitations that fall
within the "mental processes" and "certain methods of organizing human
activity" abstract idea groupings identified in the Revised Guidance. See,
e.g., Non-Final Act. 15 (determining that the claims recite limitations that
"can be done mentally or by paper [and] pen"); Ans. 4 (determining that the
claims are directed toward a "long-prevalent economic practice"); see also
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (explaining that the abstract idea
exception includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing
human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices). For
the reasons discussed below, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred.
Mental Processes
Claim 17 recites limitations that encompass acts that people can
perform in their minds or using pen and paper. For example, claim 17 recites
"receiving a request for an ad from a client associated with a user of an
online system." App. Br. 15. People can perform this step by, for instance,
reading the recited request from a computer screen or a piece of paper. Cf
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (determining that a claim step that "requires 'obtaining information
about other transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is
identified with the [] credit card transaction'----can be performed by a
human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a
preexisting database"). Even if this step required physical actions such as
clicking a mouse, this step would not make claim 17 patent eligible. See
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 ("[E]ven if some physical steps are required
5
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a
keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer
patentability. ").
Claim 17 also recites "responsive to the ad request and before sending
an ad from a plurality of ads" "determining, by a processor, a bid for each ad
in the plurality of ads." App. Br. 15. The claim recites that "determining a
bid for each ad comprises" "determining a budget associated with the ad"
and "retrieving historical statistics for the user from a database." App. Br.
15. Claim 1 7 does not meaningfully limit how the method determines a
budget associated with the advertisement, and the written description does
not explicitly limit this step to a particular method. This step is so broadly
worded that it encompasses people mentally deciding how much money they
want to spend on the advertisement. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373
( determining that a claim step "is so broadly worded that it encompasses
literally any method" for performing the step, including "even logical
reasoning that can be performed entirely in the human mind"). And people
can retrieve historical statistics for the user from a database by reading the
statistics from a preexisting database. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372.
Even if people could not mentally retrieve the recited statistics, this data-
gathering step would not make claim 1 7 patent eligible. See CyberSource,
654 F.3d at 1372.
Claim 1 7 recites three other steps for determining a bid for each
advertisement. The claim first recites "determining an impression value for
the ad depending on a predicted likelihood of the user performing one or
more actions associated with performance [ ofJ the ad, wherein the predicted
likelihood is based on the retrieved historical statistics." App. Br. 15. The
6
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
claim next recites "determining a pacing value for the ad, wherein the pacing
value for the ad comprises the value of displaying the ad based on a
remaining impressions goal for the ad." App. Br. 15. The claim then recites
"determining a bid for the ad specific to the user of the ad request based on
the determined budget, the determined pacing value, and the determined
impression value." App. Br. 16. To the extent that the written description
describes these steps, the written description indicates that they encompass
mathematical calculations that people can perform in their minds or using
pen and paper. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 50 ( disclosing that the potential value of an
impression can be determined by "summing the products of each
performance weighting and the associated predicted performance value for a
particular performance category, for each performance category for which
an advertiser 220 provides a weighting, and multiplying the sum by the
value of an ad to the advertiser 220"), 54 ( explaining that a pacing value
may be "the ratio of the remaining budget to the remaining impressions"), 56
("In one embodiment, the bid balance module 460 determines the value of
the bid 460 to be the sum Vi*Ai + VP *Ap."), Fig. 4 (showing the information
used to determine certain values and weights, including budget information).
Finally, claim 17 recites "selecting the ad for display to the user of the
client." App. Br. 16. Neither the claim nor the written description limits this
step to a particular selection method. This limitation thus encompasses, for
example, a person mentally selecting the ad with the highest determined bid.
Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he limited,
straightforward nature of the steps involved in the claimed method make
evident that a skilled artisan could perform the steps mentally.").
7
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
Despite the broad language recited in these limitations, Appellants
take issue with the Examiner's determination that the claimed method "can
be done mentally or by paper [and] pen." Reply Brief 6, filed May 8, 2018
("Reply Br."). Appellants assert that the McR02and Enfish 3 decisions
involved claim elements that "could have also been performed by a human
on pen and paper," yet the Federal Circuit determined that the claims in
these cases were patent eligible. Reply Br. 6 ( quotation marks omitted). In
Appellants' view, these decisions "emphasize that the criteria for patent-
eligibility is not whether the steps could be performed by pen and paper, but
whether those steps were a specific and unconventional means for achieving
a beneficial result." Reply Br. 6 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants have not shown that claim 17 has the specificity or the
unconventionality of the claims at issue in McRO and Enfzsh. In McRO, the
claim before the court was "focused on a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. The rules were "limited" and had "specific
characteristics," and the claim incorporated "the specific features of the rules
as claim limitations." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 1316. In contrast, claim 17 at
best broadly recites that certain steps "depend[] on" or are "based on"
specified information or values but does not meaningfully limit how the
steps are performed. See App. Br. 13-14. And to the extent that the written
description discusses the recited steps, the written description does not limit
the steps to a particular method or suggest that the steps employ special
2 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
3 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
8
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
rules. Claim 17 is thus distinguishable from the patent-eligible claim in
McR0. 4
As for Enfzsh, the claims at issue were "directed to a specific
improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in [a] self-referential
table." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Here, Appellants have not shown that the
claimed invention improves the way computers operate. The written
description indicates that the "invention" concerns "optimizing
advertisement bidding, and more particularly to determining advertisement
bids for advertisers based on an advertising budget and/or weighted
performance categories provided by the advertisers," Spec. ,r 2, not
improving how computers perform. In fact, when the written description
discusses computer components, the written description does so in a manner
that suggests these components are generic and perform generic functions.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 64 ( disclosing that computer code "can be executed by a
computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or
processes described"), 65 ( explaining that the invention may relate to an
apparatus that comprises "a general-purpose computing device"). Claim 17
is therefore not directed to a specific improvement to the way computers
operate like the claims in Enfzsh.
Appellants also contend that the Thales 5 and Finjan 6 decisions
support their position. See App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 5. But Appellants have
4 The claim in McRO also went "beyond merely ... carrying out a
fundamental economic practice." McRO, 837 F.3d at1315. As discussed
below, claim 17 does not.
5 Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
6 Appellants do not provide a citation for the Finjan decision. See Reply Br.
5. Given the thrust of Appellants' argument, we understand Appellants to
refer to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
9
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
not shown that claim 17 is sufficiently similar to the claims in Thales and
Finjan. In Thales, the claims were "directed to systems and methods that use
inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner." Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348-
49. And in Finj an, the claims at issue used "a new kind of file that enable [ d]
a computer security system to do things it could not do before." Finjan, 879
F.3d at 1305. Appellants have not shown that claim 17 employs computer
components in an unconventional manner, nor have Appellants shown that
the claimed method makes computers perform differently, much less that the
method uses new types of files to do so.
In sum, the limitations discussed above recite steps that people can
perform in their minds or using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 7 recites
mental processes. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (determining that
a claim whose "steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
using a pen and paper" is directed to an unpatentable mental process). This
is true even though claim 1 7 recites that a processor performs certain steps.
"Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still
found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via
pen and paper or in a person's mind." Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am.,
Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 ("If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category .... "). We therefore conclude that claim 17 recites mental
processes, one of the abstract idea groupings identified in the Revised
Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Claim 17 thus recites
an abstract idea.
10
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Claim 1 7 recites a method that, in response to receiving an
advertisement request from a client associated with a user and before
sending an advertisement, ( 1) determines advertisement bids based on a
determined budget, a determined pacing value, and a determined impression
value; and (2) selects an advertisement for display to the user. See App. Br.
15-16. This is a business practice that is not meaningfully different from
other business practices that courts have determined are abstract ideas. See,
e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]e hold that the concept of delivering user-selected
media content to portable devices is an abstract idea .... "); Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ("There is no dispute that newspaper inserts had often been tailored
based on information known about the customer-for example, a newspaper
might advertise based on the customer's location. Providing this minimal
tailoring----e.g., providing different newspaper inserts based upon the
location of the individual-is an abstract idea."); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that using an
advertisement as an exchange or currency is an abstract idea); Morsa v.
Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2014), ajf'd, 622 F.
App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that the claims at issue are drawn
to the abstract ideas of "targeting advertisements to certain consumers, and
using a bidding system to determine when and how advertisements will be
displayed," both of which are "fundamental, long-standing, well-known
concepts" that "have 'no particular concrete or tangible form' and are
therefore abstract").
11
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
Appellants assert that "inventions with a business aim have been
[ determined] eligible post-Alice" and point to the Trading Technologies 7 and
DDR Holdings 8 decisions as examples. App. Br. 5---6 ( quotation marks
omitted). In Trading Technologies, the Federal Circuit agreed with a district
court that claims that required "a specific, structured graphical user interface
paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user
interface's structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified
problem in the prior state of the art" were patent eligible. Trading
Technologies, 675 F. App'x at 1004. Appellants have not adequately
explained why claim 17 is analogous to the claims in Trading Technologies.
See App. Br. 5---6. And in DDR Holdings, "the claimed solution [was]
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257. Appellants have not shown that is the case here. Rather, claim
1 7 appears directed to "nothing more than the performance of an abstract
business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not
patent-eligible." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256.
For at least the above reasons, we determine that claim 1 7 recites
limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity
abstract idea group identified in the Revised Guidance. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (explaining that certain methods of organizing
human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices,
commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or
7 Trading Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. CQG, INC, 675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
8 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
12
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
relationships or interactions between people). For this additional reason,
claim 1 7 recites an abstract idea.
Practical Application
Because we determine that claim 1 7 recites abstract ideas, we next
consider whether claim 17 integrates these abstract ideas into a practical
application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. In doing so, we
consider whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas
that, individually or in combination, "integrate the [ abstract ideas] into a
practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the
Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54--55.
The only additional element for both abstract ideas is the recited
"processor." See App. Br. 15-16. The written description indicates that the
recited processor is a generic computer component that performs generic
functions. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 64 ( disclosing that computer code "can be
executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps,
operations, or processes described"), 65 ( explaining that the invention may
relate to an apparatus that comprises "a general-purpose computing device").
Using a generic computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is
not enough to integrate the recited mental processes and certain methods of
organizing human activity into a practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at
223-24 ("[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the
sort of 'additional featur[ e]' that provides any 'practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract
idea] itself."' (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
13
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
For the above reasons, we determine that claim 17 does not integrate
the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Inventive Concept
Finally, we consider whether claim 17 has an inventive concept, that
is, whether the additional claim element "'transform[ s] the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 ( quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). As discussed above, this requires us to evaluate
whether the additional claim element adds "a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field" or "simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determined that the additional element recited in claim
17 encompasses "a generic computer [ used] to perform generic functions
that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously
known in the industry." Ans. 8. Appellants contend that the Examiner failed
to provide support for this determination as required by the Berkheimer, 9
Aatrix, 10 and Exergen 11 decisions and Office guidance 12 about these
decisions. See Reply Br. 7-8.
9 Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
10 Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
11 Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., 725 F. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
12 USPTO, Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining
to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
(Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419 .PDF ("Berkheimer Memo").
14
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
We disagree. The Examiner pointed to the written description to
support this determination, see Ans. 7-9, and the written description
adequately does so. As discussed above, the only additional element for both
abstract ideas is the recited processor. See App. Br. 15-16. The written
description describes the processor and the functions it performs at a high
level with few technical details, indicating that both the processor and its
accompanying functions were well known to those in the art. See, e.g., Spec.
,r,r 63---64; see also Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F .2d
1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("[A] patent need not teach, and preferably
omits, what is well known in the art."); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("The claimed mobile
interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a
generic component ( software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the
performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific
resources."). This is sufficient to support the Examiner's determination. See
Berkheimer Memo 3 ( explaining that a specification that describes
additional elements "in a manner that indicates that the additional elements
are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe
the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)" can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional).
Appellants contend that some of the "determining" steps recited in
claim 17 provide an inventive concept. See App. Br. 9-10. According to
Appellants, using "impression values or pacing values to determine bids on a
per-user basis is not a standard or conventional application in the advertising
industry, nor is it a routine or conventional application in the field of social
networking systems." App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that
15
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
claim 17 is analogous to the claims in BASCOM13 because this "particular
arrangement of claim elements" provides "detailed, technical improvements
over prior art ways of determining a bid for an advertisement." App. Br. 11.
We disagree. Appellants rely on the identified abstract ideas to
provide an inventive concept, but an "abstract idea itself cannot supply the
inventive concept, 'no matter how groundbreaking the advance."' Trading
Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. !BG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). And
in BASCOM, the court determined an inventive concept existed "in the non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,"
specifically installing "a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the
end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user."
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The claimed invention in BASCOM
"represent[ ed] a software-based invention[ ] that improve[ d] the
performance of the computer system itself." BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351
(second alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). Appellants have
not shown that the additional element recited in claim 1 7 is arranged in an
unconventional manner that improves the performance of a computer
system. As discussed above, the written description indicates that the recited
processor is conventional computer component that performs well-
understood, routine, and conventional functions.
In sum, the additional element for the recited abstract ideas "simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
13 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
16
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56. We therefore determine that claim 17 does not recite an
inventive concept.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, claim 1 7 is directed to an abstract
idea and does not have an inventive concept. We therefore sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 7 under § 101.
17
Appeal2018-005552
Application 13/294,094
3---6, 8, and 11-23
Outcome
CONCLUSION
§ 101 3---6, 8, and 11-23
3---6, 8, and 11-23
No period for taking any action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
18