Ezekiel Kruglick

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2019

13643041 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/643,041 10/23/2012 Ezekiel Kruglick MTCW002902 4591
154241 7590 09/26/2019
IP Spring - AI
180 N. LaSalle St.
Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60601
EXAMINER
GRIFFIN, TAMARA JEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2019 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):
ajay.gambhir@ipspring.com
docket@ipspring.com
paralegalteam@ipspring.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte EZEKIEL KRUGLICK
____________

Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON J. CHUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 21, 24, 26–28, 30, and
67–74 which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br.
5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 Appellant states Empire Technology Development LLC is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 22, 2018, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (none filed), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed February 16, 2018,
“Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed August 24, 2017, “Final Act.”), and the
Specification (filed July 6, 2017, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of generating social network recruiting
alerts. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 21, and 71 are independent. App. Br. 5. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of claim 1, which is set forth
in Table I, infra.

Rejection3
Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 21, 24, 26–28, 30, and 67–74 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea)
without significantly more. Final Act. 2–12.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 21, 24, 26–
28, 30, and 67–74 in light of Appellant’s arguments. We consider
Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6–32
and the Reply Br., pages 1–16. For the reasons that follow, we are not
persuaded the Examiner has erred.

3 The present Application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to
invent provisions. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

3
Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 21, 24, 26–28, 30, and 67–74:
Ineligible Subject Matter.
Appellant argues all claims in view of the limitations of claim 1. App.
Br. 19. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 101 rejections with
reference to claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as
“the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. 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. § 101.4
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981)).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we

4 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four
statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the patent-eligibility
inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

4
first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; see also Bilski, 561 U.S. at
611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at
191); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber,
smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–
68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing
Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory
does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical
formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme
Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula
in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

5
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 191 (citing
Benson and Flook), 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.”).
Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and
mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under
this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what
the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one
inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77
(alteration in original)). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Id.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

6
B. United States Patent and Trademark Office Revised Guidance5
The USPTO recently published revised guidance in the Federal
Register concerning the application of § 101.
Under the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings
of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes);6 and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).7
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional”
in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.8

5 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance,” or “Rev. Guid.”)
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).
6 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”).
7 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”).
8 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

7
See Revised Guidance.
Step 2A(i) — Abstract Idea
Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and
synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain
that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject
matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity —
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-
eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis,
except in rare situations identified in the Revised Guidance.9

9 In the rare circumstance in which an Examiner believes a claim limitation
that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in
of the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Guidance,
Section III.C.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

8
However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea
enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim
requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception
in Step 2A(ii).
Step 2A(ii) — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A(i), we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
The seven identified “practical application” sections of the MPEP,10
cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of
a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical
Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An
Exception
(6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity

10 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer
to revision [R-08.2017].
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

9
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological
Environment
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited
above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-
eligibility inquiry ends. If not, then analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
Under our precedent, it is possible that a claim that does not
“integrate” a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is nonetheless
patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that
render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in
a separate claim element.11 The Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at
the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B) because the
additional elements recited in the claims provided “significantly more” than
the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were
unconventional in combination).12 Therefore, if a claim has been
determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step 2A, we
must evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under
Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e.,
whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the

11 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187.
12 See, e.g., Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288,
1300, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

10
exception itself).13
Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an
additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance,
III.B.14
In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of

13 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325.
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
14 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner’s finding that
an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood,
routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four
specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer
Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning
evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum
(USPTO Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018,
“Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility,
Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)”
(hereinafter “Berkheimer Memo”);
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

11
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in
writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the
specification or to a statement made by an applicant during
prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . .
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions
discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s). . . .
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official
notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo.
The analysis in Step 2B further determines whether an additional
element or combination of elements:
(a) Adds a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional
activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive
concept may be present; or
(b) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be
present.
Revised Guidance; see Berkheimer Memo.
If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

12
element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the
exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility
analysis.
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination
of elements does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself,
the claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for
lack of subject matter eligibility.
ANALYSIS
Step 1
Claim 1 is a method (process) claim by reciting one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue
before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. Based upon our de novo review15 of the record in light
of recent Revised Guidance with respect to patent-eligible subject matter
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6–8,
10, 21, 24, 26–28, 30, and 67–74.
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
“using changes in information of a target’s close contacts to predict
behaviors of the target.” Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that the
present abstract ideas are similar to those identified in CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and Intellectual

15 “Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of
law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601
F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

13
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id. at 5.
Appellant contends, analogously to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims provide “a specific
implementation of a solution for problems related to identification of
recruiting targets, so that the recruiters may not waste unnecessary recruiting
resources on a disinterested recruiting target.” App. Br. 14 (emphasis
omitted).
The preamble of claim 1 recites: “A method to provide a recruiting
alert by an electronic recruiting alert system, the method comprising.” Table
I compares the remaining limitations of claim 1 to the categories of abstract
ideas set forth in the Revised Guidance.
Claim 1 Revised Guidance
[a]16 providing, by the electronic
recruiting alert system, a target
registration user interface (UI), the
target registration UI comprising:
An extra-solution activity data-
gathering step. See Rev. Guid. 55, n.
31.
[b] at least one field to receive an
identification of a recruiting target;
An extra-solution activity data-
gathering step. See Rev. Guid. 55, n.
30.
[c] a plurality of fields to specify a
set of contacts of the recruiting
target to include in a custom set of
monitored contacts, wherein the
plurality of fields to specify the set
of contacts includes fields
comprising:
An extra-solution activity data-
gathering step. See Rev. Guid. 55, n.
30.
[d] a field to specify monitoring of An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.

16 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

14
contacts that have social network
profile data indicating employment
by a same employer as the
recruiting target, and that are also
directly linked to the recruiting
target in a social network graph;
[e] a field to specify monitoring of
contacts that have social network
profile data indicating employment
by the same employer as the
recruiting target, and that are also
indirectly linked to the recruiting
target in the social network graph;
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[f] a field to specify monitoring of
contacts of the recruiting target that
have a same job description as the
recruiting target;
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[g] a field to specify monitoring of
contacts of the recruiting target that
have recommended the recruiting
target;

An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[h] a field to specify monitoring of
contacts of the recruiting target that
have one or more same group
affiliations as the recruiting target;
and
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[i] a field to specify monitoring of
contacts of the recruiting target that
have exchanged one or more private
messages with the recruiting target,
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

15
[j] wherein the target registration UI
supports multiple different
combinations of fields to specify the
set of contacts of the recruiting
target to include in the custom set of
monitored contacts;
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[k] a plurality of fields to receive
custom monitoring data, wherein
the plurality of fields to receive the
custom monitoring data includes:
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[l] at least one field to specify
monitoring of social network profile
addresses associated with contacts
in the custom set of monitored
contacts;
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[m] at least one field to specify
monitoring of a change of family
status in social network profile data
associated with the recruiting target;
and
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[n] at least one field to specify
monitoring of a change of address
in the social network profile data
associated with the recruiting target,
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[o] wherein the target registration
UI supports multiple different
combinations of the plurality of
fields to receive the custom
monitoring data;
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[p] at least one field to receive a
target classification component
application program interface (API);
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

16
and
[q] a monitoring initiation control;

[r] registering, by a target
registration component at the
electronic recruiting alert system
and in response to activation of the
monitoring initiation control, the
recruiting target, wherein the
recruiting target is identified via the
target registration UI for monitoring
according to the custom set of
monitored contacts and the custom
monitoring data received via the
target registration UI;
Mental processes: concepts
performed in the human mind.17

[s] electronically monitoring, by a
target monitoring component at the
electronic recruiting alert system
and in response to activation of the
monitoring initiation control, social
network profile data for occurrences
of the custom monitoring data
received via the target registration
UI, including monitoring social
network profile data associated with
contacts in the custom set of
Mental processes: concepts
performed in the human mind.

17 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 unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures, 838
F.3d at 1318 (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps,
there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being
performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Rev. Guid. 52
n.31.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

17
monitored contacts, wherein
electronically monitoring the social
network profile data comprises
performing serial monitoring
accesses to the social network
profile data to detect whether the
social network profile data specified
in the custom monitoring data is
present or changed;
[t] automatically generating, by the
electronic recruiting alert system,
the recruiting alert in response to an
event comprising presence or
change of the social network profile
data detected by the electronically
monitoring the social network
profile data for occurrences of the
custom monitoring data, wherein
the event includes at least a change
in the social network profile data
associated with one or more of the
contacts in the custom set of
monitored contacts, and wherein the
recruiting alert identifies the
recruiting target and data that
triggered the recruiting alert;
Mental processes: concepts
performed in the human mind.

[u] sending the recruiting alert to
the target classification component
API;
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
[v] receiving, by the electronic
recruiting alert system from the
recruiting target, a request for
information for a recruiter
corresponding to the detected event;
and
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

18
[w] in response to one of the
automatic generation of the
recruiting alert and the request
received from the recruiting target,
reclassifying, by the electronic
recruiting alert system, the
recruiting target as an active
recruiting target;
Mental processes: concepts
performed in the human mind.

[x] transmitting, to a device of a
third party recruiter via an API call
or an electronic communication,
information that corresponds to the
reclassification of the recruiting
target as the active recruiting target,
wherein the active recruiting target
indicates a level of recruiting
activity that is higher than another
level of recruiting activity and
wherein the active recruiting target
is contacted, by the third party
recruiter, more than another
recruiting target.
An extra-solution activity step. See
Rev. Guid. 55, n. 30.

Thus, under Step 2A(i), we find limitations [r], [s], [t], and [w] recite
steps which may fit within the Revised Guidance category of “mental
processes.” Limitations [b]–[n] relate to the genus of information about a
candidate that is typically gathered by a recruiter and thus may also be
analyzed in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity
such as business, marketing activities. See Rev. Guid. 52.
Step 2A(ii) – Practical Application
Where, as here, we determine at Step 2A(i) the claims recite a judicial
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

19
exception, we look to determine the presence of additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Revised
Guidance is “designed to more accurately and consistently identify claims
that recite a practical application of a judicial exception []and thus are not
‘directed to’ a judicial exception.” Rev. Guid. 53. The claims recite a
practical application where an additional element reflects an improvement in
the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field.18 Id. at 55.
For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellant’s claims do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We address these “practical application” MPEP
sections seriatim:
MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer
or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field.”
“In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether
the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’ or
‘any other technology or technical field.’” MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant contends: “[I]ndependent claim 1 provides a specific
implementation of a solution for problems related to identification of
recruiting targets, so that the recruiters may not waste unnecessary recruiting
resources on a disinterested recruiting target.” App. Br. 14 (emphasis
omitted) (citing Spec., ¶¶ 20–23). Appellant argues the Specification

18 The Revised Guidance also finds integration into a practical application
where the judicial exception is used in medical treatment or to transform an
article to a different state. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Such
considerations are not before us.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

20
describes a technical effect of the solution(s) provided by the recitations of
the independent claim 1. Id. at 15 (quoting Spec., 21) (“[t]his disclosure
appreciates that it may be difficult for the recruiter to know when recruiting
targets should be classified as ‘passive’ or ‘active.’ Any number of criteria
might be used to classify recruiting targets. In some cases, individuals may
indicate in their social network profiles that they are open to contact about
new opportunities and/or actively seeking a new position and this
information may be used to classify recruiting targets.” (emphasis omitted)).
Our reading of the cited portion suggests Appellant discloses
problems related to recruiting job candidates, i.e., activities the Revised
Guidance classifies as “methods of organizing human activity,” specifically,
“advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations[];
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
people.” Rev. Guid., 52. Nor are we persuaded the cited passages disclose a
technological solution to the posited problems.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
At the outset, we note that the Bilski machine-or-transformation test is
only applicable to the method (process) claims on appeal. This section of
the MPEP guides: “When determining whether a claim recites significantly
more than a judicial exception, examiners should consider whether the
judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.” See
Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604 (“[T]he machine-or-transformation test is a useful
and important clue, an investigative tool” for determining whether a claim is
patent eligible under § 101). MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

21
MPEP § 2106.05(b) provides further guidance regarding what
constitutes a particular machine:
[A]s described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that
invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to
perform an existing process will generally not amount to
significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata
Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 . . .
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add
significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting
the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely
as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be
achieved more quickly”).
We find the claims on appeal are silent regarding specific limitations
directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network,
database, or Internet, nor does Appellant direct our attention to such specific
limitations. Appellant merely discloses generic systems: “[e]xample
computing devices may include a processor, a memory, and an electronic
recruiting alert system, recruiter system, and/or other systems, applications
and tools configured to carry out the methods described herein.” Spec.,
¶ 14. “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573
U.S. at 223; see also Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348 (“An abstract idea on ‘an
Internet computer network’ or on a generic computer is still an abstract
idea.”). Applying this reasoning here, we conclude Appellant’s claims are
not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract
idea using generic computer components. Thus, we conclude Appellant’s
method claims fail to satisfy the “tied to a particular machine” prong of the
Bilski machine-or-transformation test. Bilski, 561 U.S. 593.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

22
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
This section of the MPEP guides: “Another consideration when
determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim
effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing.” “[T]ransformation and reduction of an article to a different state
or thing is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not
include particular machines.” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 658 (quoting Benson, 409
U.S. at 70).
The claims operate to select and analyze certain electronic data, i.e.,
“social network profile data.” See Spec., ¶ 23. The selection of electronic
data is not a “transformation or reduction of an article into a different state
or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]” See In re Bilski, 545
F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); see also CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1375 (“The mere manipulation or reorganization of data . . . does not
satisfy the transformation prong.”). Applying this guidance here, we
conclude Appellant’s method claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong
of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides:
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
450 U.S. 175 . . . (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to
the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of
nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding
press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 . . . . The Court evaluated additional
elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press,
closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

23
mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time,
and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently
limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical
application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184,
187 . . . . In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of
mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. . . . . In particular, the
Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data
processing system and communications controllers recited in
the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea
because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation via
computers”) or were well-understood, routine, conventional
activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(e).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Similarly, as for Alice, we find
that “[t]aking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’” Id. “In
short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions.” Id.
We find that Appellant’s claims do not add meaningful limitations
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Appellant does not persuasively argue that its claims do any more
than to merely invoke generic computer components merely as a tool in
which the computer instructions apply the judicial exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

24
The claims operate to provide an indication of a “level of recruiting
activity that is higher than another level of recruiting activity and wherein
the active recruiting target is contacted, by the third party recruiter, more
than another recruiting target.” We find generating and displaying
information to be a classic example of insignificant extra-solution activity.
See, e.g., Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (en banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski, 561 U.S.
593.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not
wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited
meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or
post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience,
a category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “electronically monitoring, by a target monitoring
component at the electronic recruiting alert system and in response to
activation of the monitoring initiation control, social network profile data,” a
limitation we find is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment.
We do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive because “[t]he
courts have also identified examples in which a judicial exception has not
been integrated into a practical application.” Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The claims fail to recite a practical application where the additional element
does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use. Id. The mere
application of an abstract idea in a particular field is not sufficient to
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See id. at n.32.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

25
In view of the foregoing, we conclude the claims are “directed to” a judicial
exception.
1. Well-understood, routine, conventional.
Because the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we must then reach the issue of
whether the claims adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Rev. Guid.,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant describes the claimed computer system consistent with its
being “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional”:
[R]ecruiter 100 may comprise a human operator of a computing
device, such as a general purpose laptop, desktop, mobile
device and/or tablet device equipped with a browser to connect
to a website supported by social network device 120.
Spec., ¶ 25.
[R]ecruiter 100, social network device 120, and participants
141-144 may be connected by via a network such as the
Internet.
Spec., ¶ 26.
[A] social network device 120, arranged in accordance with at
least some embodiments of the present disclosure. In a very
basic configuration 201, computing device 200 may include one
or more processors 210 and system memory 220. A memory
bus 230 may be used for communicating between the processor
210 and the system memory 220.
Spec., ¶ 50.
[P]rocessor 210 may be of any type including but not limited to
a microprocessor (μP), a microcontroller (μC), a digital signal
processor (DSP), or any combination thereof.
Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

26
Spec., ¶ 51. We find such “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional”
limitations fail to indicate the presence of an inventive concept.
2. Specified at a high level of generality.
It is indicative of the absence of an inventive concept where the
claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The claims fail to recite any specific steps of an algorithm, nor does
Appellant cite Specification disclosure for the required specificity.
We find the limitations are specified at such a high level of generality
consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. Therefore, we conclude
that none of the claim limitations, viewed “both individually and as an
ordered combination,” amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into
patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (internal
quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6–8,
10, 21, 24, 26–28, 30, and 67–74 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 21, 24, 26–28, 30, and 67–74
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2018-005093
Application 13/643,041

27
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6–8, 10, 21,
24, 26–28, 30, and
67–74
35 U.S.C. § 101 1, 4, 6–8, 10,
21, 24, 26–28,
30, and 67–74

AFFIRMED