Ex Parte Sim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13909312 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/909,312 06/04/2013
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
05/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Bill Sim
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.
26295-23508 4217
EXAMINER
UBALE, GAUTAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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 RICHARD BILL SIM, JUN YANG, MATHEW VARGHESE,
EITAN SHAY, FENG YAN, and SADIK GOKHAN COGLAR
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19, 21, and 22, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. Claim 20 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Facebook, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, the "invention relates to advertising, and in
particular to monitoring conversion of advertisements and determining fees
charged to advertisers." Spec. ,-r 1. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
accessing, by an online system, an ad history associated
with a user identifier of a user of the online system, the ad
history identifying advertisements presented to the user;
selecting an ad for presentation to a client device of the
user;
providing the selected ad for display to the client device;
storing, by the online system, a content identifier (ID)
associated with the selected ad in the ad history associated with
the user identifier of the user;
receiving, by the online system, the user identifier of the
user and a content ID after a conversion event has occurred
using a different device associated with the user;
retrieving, by the online system, the ad history associated
with the received user identifier;
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Nov. 30, 2015
("Final Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Apr. 28, 2016 ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief filed Dec. 30, 2016 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed Nov. 2, 2016 ("Ans."), and the original Specification filed June 4,
2013 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
matching, by the online system, the received content ID
with the content ID associated with the selected ad stored in the
ad history;
determining, by the online system, that the ad caused the
conversion event based at least in part on whether a time
between the conversion event and the providing of the selected
ad to the client device is less than a threshold time period for
conversion of the ad; and
determining, by the online system, a fee for presentation
of the selected ad to the user, the fee determined based on the
determination that the ad caused the conversion event.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App 'x).
Rejection on Appeal 3
Claims 1-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19, 21, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of Appellants' arguments in the Briefs
(App. Br. 6-16; Reply Br. 2-8). For the reasons discussed infra, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims under § 101.
Applicable Law
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, which we understand is a withdrawal of the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 10. The Examiner also withdrew
the rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 10.
3
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citation omitted).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. For
example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. The
"directed to" inquiry asks not whether "the claims involve a patent-ineligible
concept," but instead whether, "considered in light of the specification, ...
'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.'" Enfzsh,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations
omitted). In that regard, we determine whether the claims "focus on a
specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are
"directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke
generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
4
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claim is
not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it is considered patent eligible
under § 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect,
Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually
and 'as an ordered combination'" to determine whether there are additional
elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
In other words, the second step is to "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."' Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea "'cannot
be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment' or adding 'insignificant postsolution activity."'
Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal citation omitted).
Appellants 'Arguments4
Appellants argue the Examiner's conclusion that the claims are
"directed to targeted advertisements based on [a] fee that caused ad
conversion" is nonsensical and not possible because "the claimed
'conversion' occurs before the fee is determined." App. Br. 7. Appellants
4 Appellants argue claims 1-19, 21, and 22 as a group. App. Br. 6-16;
Reply Br. 2-8. We consider method claim 1 to be representative of the
claimed subject matter on appeal and, therefore, we decide the § 101
rejection of claims 1-19, 21, and 22 on the basis of representative claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
also argue that the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter because "they,
at best, merely relate to or involve ... [an] abstract idea," which is
insufficient to meet the first step of the Alice test. Id. at 8. According to
Appellants, the Examiner "improperly ignores the claim language and
dissects the claims" in concluding they are directed to an abstract idea. Id. at
8-9. Appellants argue the Examiner fails to meet the burden under
35 U.S.C. § 132 to provide notice and reasons for the rejection. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also argue that, contrary to the Examiner's finding the claims do
not recite a particular way the idea is implemented or how it is performed,
"[t]he claims clearly recite a particular way to attribute a conversion that
occurs on one client device to an impression that occurs on a different client
device associated with the same user." App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue
that, like the claims in certain examples provided in USPTO guidelines, the
"claims are directed to a 'business challenge that is particular to the
Internet,' namely processes for determining/tracking conversions whether an
advertisement impression occurs on a client device associated with a user
and a conversion occurs on a different client device associated with the
user." Id. at 10-11. Appellants also argue the claims recite patentable
subject matter because "[t]he invention provides a solution specifically
customized to address an online environment where ad impressions and ad
conversions can occur on separate devices." Id. at 11-12; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants also contend the clamed invention is not directed to an abstract
idea because the claims do not preempt all means of the abstract idea noted
in the Answer. Reply Br. 3--4.
In regard to the second step of the Alice test, Appellants argue "[t]he
claims of DDR Holdings and the claims of this application are similar in that
6
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
they both recite methods for detecting various forms of data and data
objects, processing the data and data objects, and performing an action based
on the processing" and consequently the claims "'overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.'" Id. at 13-14.
Appellants further argue "[t]here is no traditional business analog for the
claimed invention outside of interconnected computer networks, let alone
outside of social networking systems." Id. at 14. According to Appellants,
"the communications with the client devices occur over a computer network
and do not have a brick/[ mortar] counterpart." Id. at 15. Appellants further
argue that, like the claims in DDR Holdings, the claims here "amount to
more than simply stating 'apply the abstract idea on the Internet."' Id.
Appellants further contend claim 1 is similar to Internet content filtering
addressed in Bascom where the Federal Circuit "noted that an inventive
concept can be found in non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces." Reply Br. 7-8; see Bascom Global Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F. 3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Alice Step One
The Examiner concludes claims 1-19, 21, and 22 are directed to an
abstract idea, specifically:
accessing an ad history associated with user ... , selecting an
ad for presentation ... , storing content identifier associated
with the selected ad ... , receiving user identifying information
associated with user ... , retrieving the advertisement history ..
. , determining that the ad caused the conversion ... ,
determining a fee for presentation ... , etc. is fundamental
economic practices and a method of organizing human
activities. That is, it is directed to targeted advertisements
based on fee that caused ad conversion, which the Office finds
to be analogous to both fundamental economic practices and the
7
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
claimed steps as a method of organizing human activities. For
instance, the claims merely describe the abstract idea of doing
something, they do not articulate a particular way the idea is
implemented or how it is being performed.
Final Act. 3--4.
Considering the focus of claim 1 as a whole, we agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea-the
fundamental economic practice of distributing advertisements and
determining a fee for presenting advertisements to users. We see no
meaningful difference in claim 1 and similar or analogous claims in other
cases that our reviewing court has concluded are directed to an abstract idea.
See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ("automatic pricing method and apparatus for use in electronic
commerce"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014) ("using advertising as an exchange or currency"); Content Extraction
& Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is
undisputedly well-known.").
We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to a
combination of concepts that "are identified by the courts as ... abstract
ideas." Ans. 7. In that regard, we agree with the Examiner that the steps of
"storing" a content identifier associated with the ad, "receiving" the user
identification and content ID after a conversion event has occurred using a
different device, "retrieving" the ad history associated with the user
identifier, "matching" the received content ID with the content ID associated
with the selected ad stored in ad history, and "determining" the ad caused
the conversion event are analogous to the abstract idea of comparing new
8
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
and stored information and using rules to identify options. Id. (citing
SmartGene). In SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA,
555 Fed. App'x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit concluded the
claims were patent ineligible because they did "no more than call on a
'computing device,' with basic functionality for comparing stored and input
data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely."
We note that the step of "determining" the ad caused the conversion
event is based in part on whether the time between the conversion event and
providing the selected ad to the client device is "less than a threshold time
period for conversion of the ad." Claim 1 also recites the step of
"determining" a fee for presentation of the selected ad to the user. We
conclude that both of these "determining" steps could be performed by a
human with pen and paper and involve mathematical calculations. In that
regard, our reviewing court has held that "analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."
See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (claims focus on the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing
it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis); Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
"[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter." Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance
Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855
9
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea ... to another
abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of
abstract ideas). Thus, the fact that claim 1 combines abstract ideas that are
analogous to "comparing new and stored information and using rules to
identify options" and "analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms" does not render claim 1 any less
abstract.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred in concluding claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. 5 App. Br. 7-12.
First, Appellants' argument criticizing the rejection because the Examiner
concluded claim 1 is "directed to targeted advertisements based on [a] fee
that caused ad conversion" (see App. Br. 7) is not persuasive because the
Examiner's statement is obviously misplaced when considered in context of
the Examiner's rejection as a whole. The Examiner's recitation of the claim
steps and overall analysis of claim 1 evidence that the Examiner was well
aware that the claimed conversion occurs before the fee is determined. See
Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 6-7. Second, contrary to Appellants' argument, the
Examiner did not improperly dissect the claim. App. Br. 8-9. Instead, as
5 Although Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to meet the burden
under 35 U.S.C. § 132 to provide notice and reasons for the rejection (see
Reply Br. 3), we disagree. The Examiner stated the statutory basis for the
rejection and performed the two-part Alice test. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 6-
10. Thus, we conclude the Examiner provided an adequate explanation of
the rejection under§ 101 and met the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132.
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
10
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
discussed supra, the Examiner considered the different concepts in claim 1
and, in doing so, considered all of the limitations of claim 1.
Third, Appellants' argument that the Examiner is incorrect in
concluding claim 1 does not recite a particular way the idea is implemented
because claim 1 recites "a particular way to attribute a conversion that
occurs on one client device to an impression that occurs on a different client
device" is not persuasive. See id. at 9-10; Reply Br. 4. Contrary to
Appellants' argument, the step of "determining the ad caused the conversion
event" is directed to the results of the functions of "providing" the ad to one
client device, "receiving" the user identifier and content ID after a
conversion event occurred using a different device, "retrieving" the user's ad
history, "matching" the received content ID with the content ID associated
with the selected ad, and "determining" the ad caused the conversion event
based on whether the time period between the conversion and the selected ad
"is less than a threshold time period for conversion of the ad." Thus, the
step of "determining the ad caused the conversion event" is directed to the
results of storing, comparing, and manipulating data, rather than "any
particular assertedly inventive technology for performing these functions" or
"do[ing] so in a non-abstract way." See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Commc 'ns, LLC., 874 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding
claims directed to the functional results of converting, routing, controlling,
monitoring, and accumulating records manipulate data "but fail[] to do so in
a non-abstract way" (id. at 1338)).
Fourth, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
claims are directed to a business challenge particular to the internet and
provide a solution "customized to address an online environment." App. Br.
11
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
10-12. Although Appellants correctly argue that "ad impressions and ad
conversions can occur on separate devices" in the method of claim 1, the
claim does not recite any specific technical way to "provid[ e] the selected
advertisement to a client device" or "receiv[ e information] ... [that] a
conversion event has occurred [on] a different [client] device." App. Br. 12;
Spec. i-f 6; see Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (admonishing that "the important
inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim"; "the complexity of the
implementing software or the level of detail in the specification does not
transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible
system or method"). Appellants have also not identified any portion of the
Specification, or provided any evidence or technical reasoning,
demonstrating that claim 1 achieves a technical advance or improvement
pertaining to the hardware or software used in the online environment of
claim 1, including transmitting an advertisement, receiving information
regarding a conversion event, or determining whether a time period is less
than a threshold time period.
Fifth, we also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the
claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea because the claims do
not preempt all means of the abstract idea noted in the Answer." Reply Br.
3--4. "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility ....
Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject
matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption
concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs.,
12
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("that
the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do[ es] not make them any less
abstract").
Alice Step Two
Regarding step two of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the
additional claim elements, considered individually and as an ordered
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Ans. 9-10. The Examiner finds the limitations of "an online system" and "a
client device" are recited at a high level of generality and as performing
generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Id. at 9;
see Spec. ,-r 83. The Examiner also concludes the terms "apparatus" and
"computing device," as used in the claims, are construed as a general-
purpose computing device, consistent with paragraph 83 of the
Specification. Id. The Examiner further finds the "[g]eneric computer
components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than
implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system." Id. at 9-10.
Thus, the Examiner concludes "the claim does not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea." Id. at 10. For the reasons stated by the
Examiner, we agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding step two of
the analysis. Initially, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that
the claims here are similar to the claims in DDR Holdings and consequently
the claims overcome a problem arising in the "realm of computer networks,"
for which there is no traditional business analog. App. Br. 13-14. In DDR
13
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
Holdings, the Federal Circuit explained that the patent-eligible claims
specified "how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a
desired result ... that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of
events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." DDR Holdings, LLC
v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The court
reasoned that those claims recited a technological solution "necessarily
rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks." Id. at 1257. That is not the case
here. The mere fact that the method of claim 1 is performed in an "online
system" does not establish that claim 1 is directed to a "problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks."
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, claim 1 does not "focus on a
specific means or method that improves the relevant technology," but is
"directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
invoke[s] generic processes and machinery." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314
(citation omitted). This is not enough to transform an abstract idea into
patent-eligible subject matter. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining
that claims that "amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction
to apply the abstract idea ... using some unspecified, generic computer" "is
not 'enough' to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("[T]he claim
language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient
detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.").
Second, are we not persuaded by Appellants' argument that what is
missing in the Examiner's analysis "is any discussion of the points of
14
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
novelty that actually distinguish the claims from the prior art-i.e., the
inventive concepts that provide 'something more' than the alleged abstract
idea." Reply Br. 5. A finding of novelty or non-obviousness does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
patent-eligible. Although the second step in the Mayo/Alice framework is
termed a search for an "inventive concept," the analysis is not an evaluation
of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for "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 Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
72-73). "Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not
by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry." Ass 'n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). A novel and non-obvious
claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89
(1981) ("The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the
process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of
a claim falls within the§ 101 categories of possibly patentable subject
matter").
Third, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "[ c ]laim 1
involves an ordered combination of steps that is significantly more than any
abstract idea, similar to Internet content filtering addressed in Bascom."
Reply Br. 7. We agree with Appellants that the court in Bascom noted that
an inventive concept can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces. See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350.
However, the claims here are distinguishable from those in Bascom. In
15
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
Bascom, the system claims were directed to a "'content filtering system for
filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network,'" which the
court held were directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1348--49. The court
further held the claims included an inventive concept in the ordered
combination of system components, including a local client computer and a
remote ISP server connected to the client computer and Internet computer
network providing for "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific
location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features
specific to each end user." Id. at 1350. Claim 1 here does not involve a
similar or analogous arrangement or "ordered combination" of components.
Thus, we see nothing in the limitations of claim 1, considered "both
individually and as an ordered combination," that transforms the claimed
abstract idea of claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Ans. 5.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of grouped claims 2-19, 21, and 22,
under§ 101. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, such arguments are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19, 21, and 22
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv)(2016).
16
Appeal2017-003451
Application 13/909,312
AFFIRMED
17