Ex Parte Kalin

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 2, 2019

14307265 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/307,265 06/17/2014
26167 7590 05/06/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AT)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Kalin
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.
E2017-700440 7865
EXAMINER
CIVAN,ETHAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2019 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT KALIN 1
Appeal 2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and LISA M. GUIJT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-20. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Etsy, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest and also is the Applicant
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of searching for an item within an
electronic commerce platform, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system of the electronic
commerce platform, a search query for an item and a request for
advanced search results for the item from a user of a client
computing system;
responding to the request for advanced search results by
generating a first web page having a first user interface
configured to enable the computing system to interrogate the
user;
transmitting the first web page to the client computing
system;
interrogating the user, based on the search query, for
additional information about the item through the first user
interface;
responding to the request for advanced search results by
searching a plurality of user profiles in a database of the
electronic commerce platform based upon the search query and
the additional information, the plurality of user profiles
comprising profiles of users other than the user;
identifying one or more search facilitator profiles among
the plurality of user profiles, the one or more search facilitator
profiles representing one or more search facilitators who can
assist the user in locating the item;
generating, subsequent to identifying the one or more
search facilitators, a second web page including a second user
interface configured to enable the computing system to
establish an interactive session between the user and at least one
of the one or more search facilitators;
transmitting the second web page to the client computing
system; and
establishing, by execution of instructions by a processor
of an interactive session component of the electronic commerce
platform, an interactive session between the user and the at least
2
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
one of the one or more search facilitators through the second
user interface, the interactive session to enable the user and the
at least one of the one or more search facilitators to
communicate with each other.
Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTI0N2
Claims 1-20 are rejected as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20 As Directed to a Judicial Exception
Appellant argues claims 1-20 as a group. Br. 6-12. We select claim
1 as representative, with claims 2-20 standing or falling with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that claim 1 recites steps of
instructing how to search for items by receiving, analyzing, and displaying
results of search queries and determines that the steps recite an abstract idea.
Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 7-8. The Examiner also determines that a method of
searching for items is a fundamental economic practice in the economy that
can be performed as mental steps that seek to organize, store, and transmit
information. Final Act 4--5.
2 The Examiner withdrew the following rejections: (1) Claims 1-12 and 15-
20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Finali (WO
02/27601 A2, pub. Apr. 4, 2002), Hofmann (US 2002/0107853 Al, pub.
Aug. 8, 2002), and Beckmann (US 7,788,212 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2010) and
(2) claims 13 and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Finali, Hoffman, Beckmann, and Bedard (US 2006/0282304 Al, pub.
Dec. 14, 2006.
3
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
The patent laws provide 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, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However,
"this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
Mayo Collaborative Services set forth a framework to distinguish
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)). First, we determine whether the claims are directed
to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, we next consider the claim elements
individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether additional
elements transform the claims into a patent-eligible application. Id. This
search for an inventive concept seeks an element or combination of elements
"sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id. at 217-218.
Recently, the PTO published guidance for evaluating subject matter
eligibility. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 ("Revised Guidance"). Under Step One, a determination is
made whether the claims are in a statutory category of patentable subject
matter, i.e., do they recite a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition
of matter, identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,
53-54; See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70.
4
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Next, at Revised Step 2A, Prong One, an evaluation is made whether
a claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea set forth in Section I
of the Revised Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Id. at
54. To determine if a claim recites an abstract idea, specific limitations that
recite an abstract idea must be identified (individually or in combination),
and a determination made whether the limitation(s) falls within one or more
of the subject matter groupings in Section I of the Revised Guidance. Id.
(III.A. Revised Step 2A). The three groupings are (1) mathematical concepts,
relationships, formulas, or calculations, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity, fundamental economic principles and practices, commercial
interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions and
(3) mental processes and concepts formed in the human mind. Id. at 52.
If a claim recites a judicial exception, Prong Two of Revised Step 2A
requires a determination to be made whether the claim as a whole integrates
the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. "A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on,
or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on
the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id. If a judicial exception is
integrated, the claim is patent eligible. See id. at 54--55.
If a claim does not "integrate" a recited judicial exception, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception and further analysis is required under Step
2B to determine whether the claim contains additional elements, considered
individually or in combination, that provide an inventive concept, such that
the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception
itself. Id. at 56.
5
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Step One: Does Claim 1 Fall within a Statutory Category of§ 101?
The Examiner finds claim 1 is directed to a method of instructing how
to search for items. Final Act. 2. Appellant asserts that claim 1 recites a
method of searching for an item in an electronic commerce platform. Br. 4
(Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter). We agree with the parties that
claim 1 falls within a statutory category of 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree that claim 1 recites a method of searching for items through
receiving a search query and transmitting a first web page to interrogate a
user for additional information used to identify a search facilitator who assist
the user's search via an interactive session. Final Act. 2-3. We determine
that claim 1 recites an abstract idea of organizing human activity (1) for a
fundamental economic practice of searching for items to buy/a commercial
interaction such as sales activities and (2) managing interactions between
people involved in sales activity. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52.
Indeed, Appellant argues that
[ t ]he claims recite a specific method for identifying search
facilitators who may best assist a user in locating a desired item
within an electronic commerce platform and for facilitating
communication between the user and a search facilitator so that
the search facilitator may assist the user in locating the desired
item.
Br. 7. The Specification also describes the invention as facilitating searches
of electronic commerce sites. Spec. 1: 11-13. The method enables a user to
obtain the assistance of a search facilitator who communicates with user to
help the user identify, locate, and/or obtain items to buy. Id. at 11: 19-12:2,
12: 17-13:5 (personal shopper). Toward this end, an interactive session is
established between the user and search facilitator. Id. at 11: 1-12:2, Fig. 4.
6
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Claim 1 recites steps of the fundamental practice of searching for an
item to buy and organizing human activity/sales activity by "receiving ... a
search query for an item and a request for advanced search results for the
item from a user" and in response thereto "generating a first web page ... to
interrogate the user," "transmitting the first web page to the client computing
system [ of the user] for "interrogating the user ... for additional information
about the item through the first user interface." The advanced search request
is used to refine the search and identify a search facilitator who can help the
userfindanitemofinterest. Spec. 7:2-11, 8:11-25, 10:6-31.
In response to the advanced search query and additional information,
the computing system "search[ es] a plurality of user profiles in a database of
the electronic commerce platform based upon the search query and the
additional information" to "identify[] one or more search facilitator profiles
... representing one or more search facilitators who can assist the user in
locating the item" sought in the search query. These steps organize the sales
activities of the user and manage interactions between the user and a search
facilitator (personal shopper) who can assist the user in locating the item.
Other steps of managing the commercial sales activities and personal
interactions between a user and a search facilitator involve "generating ... a
second web page including a second user interface configured to enable the
computing system to establish an interactive session between the user and
... one or more search facilitators," and "transmitting the second web page
to the client computing system" for "establishing ... an interactive session
between the user and the at least one of the one or more search facilitators
through the second user interface ... to enable the user and the at least one
of the one or more search facilitators to communicate with each other."
7
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Claim 1 recites steps of organizing human activity in a fundamental
economic practice (i.e., commercial sales activities) and managing personal
behavior, activities, and interactions between a user seeking an item and a
search facilitator who "assist the user in locating the item." The user's sales
activities are managed by receiving a request for an item and an advanced
search request for assistance. Spec. 8: 11-21. This step is akin to a person
walking into a brick-and-mortar store and asking for information about an
item to purchase or perusing the displayed items in the store, perhaps in
particular sections of the store, e.g., clothing, jewelry, and sporting goods.
The next steps involves organizing sales activities and managing the
user's sales activities by asking for additional information about the item or
area of interest of the user shopping on the ecommerce platform. This step
is akin to employees of a brick-and-mortar store asking a customer for more
information about the item(s) of interest that they seek to buy.
Claim 1 recites steps to organize a user's sales activity and manage
interactions with a search facilitator by requesting additional information
from the user about the item that is being sought to search a database of
search facilitator profiles to identify a search facilitator "who can assist the
user in locating the item." This step is akin to finding a sales associate with
expertise to assist a shopper in finding an item. These steps manage the
activities, relationships, interactions, and behavior of the user and a search
facilitator involved in a commercial sales transaction and sales activities.
The final steps of sending a second web page to a user so the user can
establish an interactive session with a search facilitator and establish such a
session also manages sales activities and interactions/communication of a
user (shopper) and a search facilitator (personal shopper). Spec. 12: 16-13: 5.
8
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does Claim 1 Recited an Integrated Application?
Appellant argues that the claims do not recite "steps instructing how
to search for items" as the Examiner determines but instead "recite a specific
method for identifying search facilitators who may best assist a user in
locating a desired item within an electronic commerce platform and for
facilitating communication between the user and a search facilitator so that
the search facilitator may assist the user in locating the desired item." Br. 7.
Appellant quotes the Specification's disclosure that online searching cannot
account for the specialized expertise and subjective judgments that human
beings are uniquely capable of, and people who have specialized knowledge
with respect to certain items are similar to a personal shopper and "may be
well suited to assist a buyer in seeking those items by offering suggestions or
advice on how to locate and acquire the items." Id. at 8. "[T]heir subjective
judgments and recommendations can be included in the search, which may
improve the search results." Id. at 9 (emphasis added).
We determine claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea of managing
the activities and interactions of people involved in a sales transaction on an
ecommerce site into a practical application because it is not integrated in any
improvements in computers or ecommerce technology. Instead, it recites
generic computers and networks performing generic functions of collecting
information about an item a user wants to buy, analyzing the information in
a generic database to identify search facilitators who can assist the user in
locating the item through unspecified means, and displaying the results of
the analysis with a generic web page used to initiate communication via an
interactive session. Any integration or meaningful improvement in database,
computer, web page, or network functionality of this process is not claimed.
9
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
The Specification describes this method as something that people
refer to as "personal shoppers" "who are people who help others shop for
products or services by providing advice, offering suggestions, and/or
facilitating purchases based on the customer's requests." Spec. 12: 1 7-21.
Claim 1 recites this commercial sales activity on a generic "ecommerce
platform." The personal shopper is located by searching a plurality of user
profiles in "a database" in an unspecified way. There is no indication that
the database or the database query is inventive or integrated in a way that
imposes a meaningful limit. The database identifies one or more search
facilitator profiles of persons who can assist the user in locating the item.
Appellant argues that the Specification discloses that "a person having
specialized knowledge with respect to certain items ( similar to a personal
shopper), or a class of items, may be well suited to assist a buyer seeking
those items by offering suggestions or advice on how to locate and acquire
the items. Spec. 7:27-8: 1 ( emphasis added). "By involving other people
and/or resources in the search, in particular knowledgeable ones, their
subjective judgments and recommendations can be included in the search,
which may improve the search results." Id. at 14:13-15 (emphasis added).
However, reciting this method on generic computers that perform generic
functions does not integrate it into a practical application or improve a user's
ecommerce shopping experience in a tangible, concrete way via technology.
Furthermore, the Specification discloses that the helpers "may include
sellers, businesses, or other sources of dress shirts that the user may transact
with to obtain the item." Id. at 12: 11-13. Thus, the facilitators may have a
financial bias to recommend their products to a user rather than products that
best meet a user's needs or interests. They inject bias into the sales process.
10
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Nor do steps of establishing an interactive session between the user
and a search facilitator to "enable the user and ... search facilitator[] to
communicate with each other," improve network/communication technology
or integrate it into a practical application. The Specification discloses that
the communications between a user and search facilitator include any type of
communication, such as text, graphics, video, and/or voice. Id. at 11: 19--23.
As the Examiner points out, claim 1 recites generalized steps that can
be performed as mental steps and involve collecting sales information and
then analyzing it and displaying the results. Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 7-8.
Providing web pages and search facilitators appropriate to a user does
not integrate the abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application. See
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016); see also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (conveying regional content to out-of-region
electronic devices involves the familiar concept of information distribution
performed by nearly every form of media with local distribution and is not
integrated into a particular technology or a particular practical application of
performing that function but can be implemented in myriad ways, and does
not apply or use the abstract idea in a way that imposes a meaningful limit
on the judicial exception); Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., 677 F. App'x 679, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) (holding
that tailoring content based on information about the user-such as where
the user lives or what time of day the user views the content- and merely
"selecting and sorting information by user interest or subject matter [is] a
longstanding activity of libraries and other human enterprises" that does not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
11
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Here, the claimed steps of organizing and managing sales activities
and interactions of a user (shopper) and search facilitator who may assist the
user in trying to find an item on an ecommerce platform does not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application with meaningful limitations on
its use. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), the court
examined a system that provided web pages tailored to an individual user
comprising an interactive interface configured to provide dynamic web site
navigation data to the user. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court held that providing
customized information to a user based on information known about the user
and navigation data was similar to fundamental business practices long
prevalent and was not integrated into a practical application. Id. at 1369--70.
Here, claim 1 uses a search query and additional information about a
user to search a database of others who may be able to assist a user (shopper)
in finding an item on the ecommerce platform. The method recites generic
technology that matches a user with a search facilitator who tries to assist the
user in finding an item. Claim 1 recites generic computer and networking
technology to manage human interaction and communications on a generic
ecommerce platform in sales transactions, which are fundamental economic
practices. Final Act. 5. There is no indication that the computing system,
search query, web pages, or interactive session represent technological
innovations or impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. They do
no more than link it to a particular technological "ecommerce" environment
without transforming the subject matter or imposing a meaningful limitation
on its use. Claim 1 merely applies the abstract idea on a generic computer
and network system, which are used as basic tools to perform the idea.
12
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
In Voit Technologies LLC v. Del-Ton, claims to entering, transmitting,
locating, compressing, storing, and displaying data (including text and image
data) to facilitate the buying and selling of items, without more, did not
integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See Voit Technologies
LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., No. 2018-1536, 2019 WL 495163, at 2 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (non-precedential) ("Voit fails to explain how employing different
formats, as claimed, improves compression techniques or the functioning of
the computer. Instead, the specification demonstrates that the Asserted
Claims are directed to use of generic computer components performing
conventional compression techniques to carry out the claimed invention.").
In West View Research v. Audi, claims to a computerized apparatus
capable of interactive information exchange with a user via a microphone,
one or more processors, a touch-screen input and display device, a speaker,
an input apparatus, and a computer program did not provide an integration
into a practical application. West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, 685 F.
App'x 923, 925-26 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) ("Under step one of
the Alice test, ... [t]hese claims do not go beyond receiving or collecting
data queries, analyzing the data query, retrieving and processing the
information constituting a response to the initial data query, and generating a
visual or audio response to the initial data query.") (quoting Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding
that merely "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis," without more, can be "a familiar class
of claims 'directed to' a patent-ineligible concept.")). These decisions
indicate claim 1 does not provide an integration into a practical application
or meaningful limit on the judicial exception. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 7-8.
13
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites steps
that involve collecting information via queries, analyzing the information in
the queries, and displaying certain results, which steps are analogous to the
claims in Electric Power Group. Ans. 7-8. The step of receiving a search
query involves collecting information about a user's interest in an item that
may be found on the ecommerce platform. The transmission of a first web
page to the user in response to a request for an advanced search by the user
also involves the collection of additional information from the user about the
item that is sought. See Spec. 10:6-31, Fig. 3. The Specification indicates
that the additional information is collected by automatically generating more
questions "based on one or more heuristic rules, manually generated by a
human operator, or both." Id. at 10:24--25. Claim 1 does not recite the use
of heuristic rules or manual generation or integrate the steps of generating a
first web page, transmitting the first web page to the user, and interrogating
the user for additional information into a practical application. It simply
recites a generic step of "interrogating the user, based on the search query,
for additional information about the item through the first user interface."
The generic steps of searching a plurality of user profiles in a database
based on the search query and additional information to identify one or more
search facilitator profiles who can assist the user in locating the item also are
recited at a high level of generality without a particular methodology or
technological integration that they do not impose a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (holding that
information as such is an intangible and presenting the results of collecting
and analyzing information, without more, such as identifying a particular
tool for presentation, is an ancillary part of the collection and analysis).
14
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Recite an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any elements, individually
or as an ordered combination, that transform the abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application, e.g., by providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 21 7-18. Appellant argues that the claims represent an improvement in the
field of electronic search technology by providing human expertise and
subjective judgments to assist a user shopping at an ecommerce site. Br. 8-9
(quoting Spec. 7:27-8:14, 14:13-20). These portions of the Specification
describe the involvement of knowledgeable people who use their subjective
judgments and recommendations to be included in the search results "which
may improve the search results." Spec. 14:13-15 (emphasis added). In
addition, Appellant argues that the claims do not preempt all uses of steps
that instruct how to search for items. Br. 8.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellant does not explain whether
the improvement to search technology involves an improvement to computer
or other technology beyond simply connecting a user with another person
(search facilitator/personal shopper) in an interactive session. Ans. 8; see
also Voit, 2019 WL 495163, at 3 ("Voit has to do more than simply restate
the claim limitations and assert that the claims are directed to a technological
improvement without an explanation of the nature of that improvement.").
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites generic computer
components that perform generic functions. The computing system and
processor perform computing functions. The web pages and user interface
provide generic interface. The database stores and searches. The interactive
session provides generic communication. Final Act. 5---6. The components
are not claimed or disclosed as innovative in the Specification. Id. at 6.
15
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
The Specification describes these generic components thusly:
One or more users 10, each using a client computing system,
connect with an e-commerce platform 12 through a network 14,
such as the Internet or other communication network. E-
commerce platform 12 includes a web server 20, a search
engine 22, at least one database 24, an interrogation component
26 and an interactive session component 28. Web server 20
includes software that enables e-commerce platform 12 to
generate web pages and otherwise communicate with each user
10 over network 14. Search engine 22 includes software that,
in response to receiving search queries from user 10, searches
the contents of database 24. Database 24 includes, among other
things, listing data associated with each item listed with the e-
commerce system, and user data associated with each user of
the e-commerce system.
Spec. 8:28-9:5, see Fig. 1. Nor does mere use of the Internet provide an
inventive concept, without more. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[T]he use of the Internet is not sufficient to save
otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under§ 101.").
Whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, claim 1
recites generic components and functions at too a high level of generality to
provide an inventive concept. E.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d at 1368 (holding that instructing one to apply an
abstract idea on generic computer elements that perform generic computer
tasks does not make the abstract idea patent-eligible) ( citing Alice, 573 U.S.
at 225); Ultramercial, 772 F .2d at 716 (holding that "each of those eleven
steps merely instructs the practitioner to implement the abstract idea 'with
routine, conventional activit[ies],' which is insufficient to transform the
patent-ineligible abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.").
16
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Even if we assume claim 1 recites a new ordered combination of steps
of searching an ecommerce platform by connecting a user with a search
facilitator in an interactive session, the steps individually and as an ordered
combination lack an inventive concept. E.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("The claims here are ineligible
because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter.");
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("But, a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.");
Versata Develop. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ( affirming unpatentability of claims that improved an abstract idea,
but not a computer's performance).
Claim 1 lacks an inventive step because it recites generic components
individually and in a combination that perform generic functions involving
data collection and transmission at a high level of generality. E.g., Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding that the claims do not require a new
source or type of information or new techniques for analyzing it and thus do
not require an inventive set of components or methods such as measurement
devices or techniques that would generate new data); RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract
idea ... to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-
abstract. "); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-
94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811
F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer
components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" do not satisfy
the inventive concept requirement).
17
Appeal2018-003958
Application 14/307 ,265
Even the steps involved in facilitating communication with a search
facilitator are recited as generic functions without any technical details or an
inventive concept therein. These steps involve generic data collection and
an "interactive session" with a search facilitator via generic communications
such as text, graphics, video, and/or voice. Spec. 11: 19--28. In short, if a
person wants a personal shopper to help them find an item on an automated
ecommerce site, they request an advanced search and provide additional
information about the item. A database searches profiles to identify a search
facilitator who may be able to help the shopper. Then, an interactive session
is arranged so the user can communicate with the search facilitator. All of
these steps are recited at a high level of generality without any innovation in
computer or network hardware or software.
Arguments about preemption (Appeal Br. 14--15) are resolved by our
§ 101 analysis. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (where patent claims
are deemed patent ineligible, "preemption concerns are fully addressed and
made moot").
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-20 as directed to a judicial
exception under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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
18