Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2021

2021001775 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2021)

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.
15/596,368 05/16/2017 Vandana Mohan 079894.4515 8536
91230 7590 11/18/2021
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P./FACEBOOK INC.
1001 Page Mill Road
Building One, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1007
EXAMINER
LEE, PO HAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2021 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):
Cal-PTOmail@bakerbotts.com
ptomail1@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VANDANA MOHAN, HALIL BAYRAK,
MRIDUL MALPANI, VINAY RAMESH,
ERIC GAUDET, and SHASHIKANT KHANDELWAL
__________________

Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–19, which are all of the pending claims.
See Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Facebook, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising, by one or more computing
devices of an online social network:
receiving, from a third-party content provider, a link to a
structured document on an external server that is external to the online
social network, the link being associated with a post of the online
social network by the third-party content provider;
retrieving the structured document from the external server, the
structured document comprising content and one or more input fields;
extracting, from the structured document, a set of information
of the content and of the one or more input fields of the structured
document;
evaluating the extracted set of information from the structured
document to determine one or more feature-values of the structured
document;
classifying, using a machine-learning model and based on the
determined one or more feature-values, the structured document as an
external lead-generation type page; and
sending, to the third-party content provider responsive to
determining that the machine-learning model has classified the
structured document as an external lead-generation type page, a
notification comprising instructions for creating an internal lead-
generation type post on the online social network corresponding to the
external lead-generation type page.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 10–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Barak2 and Raghunathan.3

2 US 2017/0046739 A1, published February 16, 2017.
3 US 2015/0088593 A1, published March 26, 2015.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
3
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Barak, Raghunathan, and Williams.4
Claims 10–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Barak, Raghunathan, and Chevalier.5
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1–19
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 6–11. We select
claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1,
the Examiner determines that receiving and retrieving a structured document
from a third-party content provider, extracting and evaluating information of
the structured document, classifying based on feature values, and sending a
notification with instructions to create an internal lead-generation type post
recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity by
managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between a third-
party content provider and a social network for advertising, marketing, and
sales activities. Final Act. 18–20. The Examiner determines that additional
elements of a computing device, online social network, link, external server,
and machine learning are generic components that link the abstract idea to a
technical environment and sending a notification is extra- or post-solution
activity. Id. at 20. The Examiner determines that the additional elements do
not recite significantly more and, as an ordered combination, perform well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities of receiving and transmitting
data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record
keeping, and storing and retrieving information from memory. Id. at 21–22.

4 US 2015/0254555 A1, published September 10, 2015.
5 US 2015/0127565 A1, published May 7, 2015.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
4
Principles of Law
Whoever 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.
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.6 Id. at 52–55.

6 “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.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
5
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 1
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a statutory category of a process.
See 35 U.S.C. § 101; Final Act. 18.
Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity by managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people and commercial interactions for advertising,
marketing, and sales activities or behaviors that can be performed as mental
processes. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Final Act. 18–20.
Social network systems organize interactions and relationships among
users who share content with one another over the network. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4, 5.
Business users and third-party content providers use social-networks
to identify customers. Spec. ¶ 5. Business users can post advertisements to
an online social network with links to an external webpage hosted on a third-
party server where a potential lead can input contact or personal information
to allow the business to contact the lead with offers of goods or services. Id.
The claimed method retrieves documents linked to a social network,
extracts data, and evaluates extracted data to classify a document as a lead-
generation type page for advertising, marketing and sales. Id. ¶¶ 41–50.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
6
As recited in claim 1, receiving data (a link to a structured document),
retrieving data (the structured document), extracting data (content and input
fields of the structured document), evaluating data (extracted information),
classifying the structured document using a generic machine-learning model,
and sending a notification to the third-party content provider organize these
interactions between a third party content provider and users of the social
network for commercial interactions of lead generation. These activities can
be performed as mental processes. E.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information,
by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing
significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose
implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of
abstract ideas.”); In re TLI Commc’s LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract
idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner” and
methods of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly
well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions. And
banks have, for some time, reviewed checks, recognized relevant data, such
as the amount, account number, and identity of the account holder, and
stored that information in their records.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (steps of obtaining
information about credit card transactions can be performed by a human
reading records of transactions from a preexisting database as can making a
map of credit card numbers and comparing the map to transactions at an IP
address that use different cards of different users to identify fraud).
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
7
The Specification’s description of these steps confirms that they can
be performed as mental processes to organize the business interactions of
third-party content providers with users of a social network by retrieving
structured documents and classifying them with a generic machine learning
model to facilitate marketing, advertising and sales. See Spec. ¶¶ 41–50.
Appellant argues that claim 1 does not recite a process of managing
behavior or relationships, and a human mind cannot perform all of the steps.
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that a human mind cannot receive a link to a
structured document on an external server or classify a structured document
using a machine-learning model. Id. We disagree.
The method organizes business lead generation marketing activities of
third parties that provide advertising content to users of social networks by
classifying a linked document based on feature-values as an external lead-
generation type page, i.e., a business interaction for marketing, advertising,
and sales activities. The data collection, analysis, and classification organize
the commercial interactions and relationships of the parties and also provide
instructions to a third-party content provider to create an internal lead-
generation type post on the social network to facilitate further commercial
interactions. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (claims to a parser that determines and extracts components of an item
or document and reassembles the components into composite output files
recited parsing and comparing steps that are similar to the collecting and
recognizing of Content Extraction and to the classifying in an organized
manner of TLI); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the claims recited the idea of retaining
information in the navigation of online forms displayed by activating a
hyperlink as generic data collection steps in a technological environment).
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
8
Receiving a link to a structured document and retrieving the document
replicate mental processes that users perform to obtain information over the
Internet. Spec. ¶ 45 (a link to a structured document may be associated with
a post of an online social network and clicking on the post may direct a user
from the social network to the external server to access the document linked
to the post); see CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (obtaining information about
Internet credit card transactions can be performed by reading records of the
transactions from a database even if physical steps are used to obtain the
information such as entering a query via a keyboard or clicking a mouse).
The generic machine-learning algorithm replicates mental processes
that are used to classify an item. See Spec. ¶ 50 (a machine learning model
calculates confidence scores for external structured document based on the
feature-values of the structured document and classifies the document as a
lead-generation type page if the score is greater than a predefined threshold);
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by
steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms,
without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea
category.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1096–97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (compiling and combining disparate
information sources to generate a full picture of a user’s activity, identity,
and frequency of activity in a computer network environment is not
significantly different from ordinary mental processes); Intellectual Ventures
I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(calculations to determine whether a financial transaction exceeds a pre-set
limit can be made using a pencil and paper and a simple notification device).
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified
above.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
9
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that the additional elements
of computing devices, external server, online social network, and machine-
learning are recited at a high level of generality as mere generic components.
Final Act. 20. They amount to instructions to apply the judicial exception
using generic computer components rather than a particular machine that is
integral to the claim or that transforms or reduces a particular article to a
different state or thing or that applies the abstract idea in some meaningful
way to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See id.;
Ans. 10–13; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appellant argues that the Examiner identified only hardware elements
as the additional elements and did not consider all of the recited features of
the claims beyond the identified abstract ideas. Appeal Br. 8. In particular,
Appellant argues that steps of receiving, retrieving, extracting, evaluating,
classifying, and sending must be considered as additional elements by the
Examiner with an explanation of why these limitations are not substantially
more than the abstract idea and why they do not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the features cited
by Appellant as additional elements are features of the abstract idea that was
identified under Step 2A, Prong One above. See Final Act. 18–20; Ans. 6–8.
Additional elements are features recited in a claim beyond the abstract idea.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
10
Appellant argues that claim 1 improves computer functionality and
integrates the judicial exception by creating a notification with instructions
that enable a third-party manager of an external lead-generation type page to
create an internal lead-generation post on a social network. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant asserts that the system improves user engagement, reduces friction
in information collection, and removes the technical problem of requiring
the third party to host webpages or create applications for collecting user
information by pre-populating input fields for interested users to increase the
speed and accuracy of acquiring user information. Id. Appellant argues that
the claims improve user security and privacy by giving users control over
what information is shared with the third-party content provider and allows
third parties to rely on the social network rather than investing in creating
and maintaining their own webpages and applications. Id. at 9–10.
Sending a notification comprising instructions to enable a third-party
manager of an external lead-generation type page to create an internal lead-
generation type post on a social network recites extra-solution activity of the
abstract identified above. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[M]erely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is
abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”); see Internet
Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49 (retaining information in the navigation of
online forms displayed by activating a hyperlink is generic data collection);
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31 (data gathering is insignificant
extra-solution activity to the judicial exception); Ans. 11–12.
Here, as claimed, the notification provides instructions to create an
internal lead-generation type post to collect data from social network users.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
11
As claimed, the “notification” comprises instructions for creating an
internal lead-generation type post. The claim does not recite any details of
creating a page. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful
in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . . [but] the specification must
always yield to the claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a
claim.’”); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769–70
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Even if ChargePoint’s specification had provided, for
example, a technical explanation of how to enable communication over a
network for device interaction . . . the claim language here would not require
those details. Instead, the broad claim language would cover any
mechanism for implementing network communication.”); Accenture Global
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (“[T]he 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.”).
Increased speed or accuracy from generic computers is not enough.
Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements identified in the specification are
generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a
computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of
the computer itself.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d
1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (automation of manual processes using generic
computers is not a patentable eligible improvement to computer technology);
Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348 (using internet web pages to fill in online
applications and retaining information in online forms by activating an icon
recites the abstract idea of avoiding data loss as a result without any details).
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
12
The Specification indicates that a native lead-generation type post
may improve lead-generation by reducing or eliminating the need for users
to manually supply information. Spec. ¶ 41. The social network may pre-
populate the user’s information into the input fields so the user only needs to
confirm that the pre-populated fields are correct, fill in any unpopulated
fields, and submit the information, which then may be sent to a third-party
content provider. Id. Such pre-population of user information may reduce
friction in the information-collection and improve conversion rates for third-
party content providers. Id. No details are claimed for this process beyond
providing instructions to create an internal post. Thus, no improvement is
made to computer functionality. Nor does the claim recite a machine that is
integral to the claim or that transforms an article to a different state or thing.
We recognize that “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements
to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes
the improvements can be accomplished through either route.” Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Appeal Br. 11.
However, in this regard, “to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to
computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to
the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia,
951 F.3d at 1365 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336–39).
Here, the description of the computing devices of the online social
network, the external server, the link, and the online social network confirm
that these elements are generic components that are used as tools to perform
the abstract idea recited in claim 1. See Spec. ¶¶ 20–32. Client system 130
may be an electronic device with hardware, software, or embedded logic, or
a combination, to carry out functionalities that are implemented or supported
by client system 130 that may include web browser 132. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
13
Social-networking system 160 is a network-addressable computing
system that can host an online social network and generate, store, receive,
and send social-networking data such as user-profile data, concept-profile
data, social-graph information, or other suitable data related to the online
social network. Id. ¶ 25. It may be accessed by other components of the
network environment either directly or via network 110. Id.
Third-party system 170 may be one or more servers, one or more data
stores, one or more interfaces such as APIs, web services, content sources,
networks, or other suitable components operated by a different entity than
the entity operating social-networking system 160 or operated in conjunction
with each other. Id. ¶ 29.
The machine learning model is recited as a generic component, and its
functionality is described as scoring an external document and comparing
the score to a threshold value to classify the document. See Spec. ¶ 41. As
claimed, and interpreted in light of this description, the machine learning
model’s classification can be performed as a mental process as discussed
under Prong One.7 See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1368 (budgeting
calculations with pre-set limits can be made with pencil and paper).
Thus, we determine that claim 1 does not recite additional elements
that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.

7 No steps of training a machine learning model are recited in claim 1. Nor
are any machine learning model training steps argued by Appellant for other
claims in which they are recited. See Appeal Br. 8–10. Those features are
not presented for our review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 (courts may treat a claim as representative if a
party does not present meaningful argument for the distinctive significance
of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim or if the parties
agree to treat a claim as representative); Appeal Br. 7–11 (arguing only the
eligibility of claim 1 as representative of the claimed subject matter).
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
14
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that
are known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367.
Individually, the additional elements are used as tools to implement
the abstract idea without improving computers. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d
at 1355 (the claims required off-the-shelf conventional computer, network,
and display technology to process information with no inventive concept).
As an ordered combination, these elements recite no more than when they
are considered individually. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’
is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
application of an abstract idea.”).
Appellant argues that the Examiner did not demonstrate that the
additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Appeal
Br. 10–11. Yet, the Examiner cited the Specification’s description of the
computing devices, external server, and social network to illustrate the well-
understood, conventional nature of these components. See Ans. 13–16; see
also Memorandum, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP, Inc.), Apr. 19, 2018, at 3–4 (the specification’s description of additional
elements may establish they are well-understood, routine, or conventional
enough that their particulars do not need to be described in any detail).
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
15
Nor do we find an inventive concept in the sequence of steps. See
Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 980 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (sequence of receiving and storing information, analyzing the
information, and sending a notification upon completion of the analysis only
recites a logical sequence of steps rather than an inventive concept); Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display,
and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (processing data,
routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception with conventional
technology was not inventive); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793
F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting,
eliminating, and determining are conventional, routine, and well-known
functions of a computer); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715–716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, providing
media, restricting public access, offering a consumer access, receiving a
request to view a message, allowing access to media, recording the
transaction to a log, and receiving payment was not inventive); see also
Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1330 (“Even assuming that this collection of elements
led to a more efficient way of controlling resource access . . . ‘merely adding
computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process
does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.’”) (citation
omitted); Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1366 (using a programmable receiver to
dedicate a section of storage to store specifically identified advertising data
on already-available computers was not inventive).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–19 as directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
16
Indefiniteness of Claims 10–13
The Examiner determined that claims 10 and 11 are indefinite because
it is unclear whether “an interface” as recited in each claim, both of which
depend respectively from claim 1, refers to the same or different interfaces.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines that claim 13 (and its dependent
claim 14) are indefinite because it is unclear whether the “one or more
content other content providers” refer to previously recited third-party
content providers or other third-party content providers. Id.
Appellant does not present any argument for this rejection. Appeal
Br. 6 (appealing only the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103). Thus, we summarily sustain this rejection.
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 18, and 19
Rejected over Barak and Raghunathan
Regarding claims 1, 18, and 19, the Examiner finds that Barak teaches
a method for an online social network comprising receiving, from a third-
party content provider, a link to a structured document on a server that is
external to the online social network, retrieving the structured document and
its content and fields from the external server, extracting from the structured
document a set of information of the content and one or more input fields,
and sending to the third-party content provider responsive to determining
that the structured document is an external lead-generation type page, a
notification comprising instructions for creating an internal lead-generation
type post on the online social network corresponding to the external lead-
generation type page. Final Act. 25–29. The Examiner cites Raghunathan
to teach evaluating and classifying the retrieved structured document using a
machine learning model to determine if the document is an external lead-
generation type page as claimed. Id. at 29–31.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
17
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly cites Barak’s posting
of a link to a marketing message on a social network to teach the claimed
link to a structured document on a server that is external to the online social
network and the claimed notification comprising instructions for creating an
internal lead-generation type post on the social network. Appeal Br. 14–15
(citing Final Act. 25, 28). Appellant also argues that there is no motivation
to classify such pages in Barak as lead generation pages, as Raghunathan
teaches, because, in Barak, the page type already is known. Id. at 15.
Barak provides instructions to create and post links to lead generation
type pages and structured documents (customer intake form 238) with input
fields for customer information that is extracted for lead intelligence and
lead generation. Barak ¶¶ 25–42, Figs. 2A–2L. However, because users
create links to structured documents for marketing and lead generation, there
is no reason to extract and evaluate data from documents to classify them.
Barak extracts and evaluates data for market intelligence and lead generation
rather than to classify the documents. Id. ¶¶ 2, 25–28, 38–45, Figs. 2G–2L.
As Appellant argues, “the type of page is already known, and thus there is
no motivation to classify.” Appeal Br. 15. Nor is there a reason to modify
Barak with Raghunathan’s teachings to evaluate extracted data to classify
the structured documents as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 18, and 19 or their dependent claims 3–6, 8, and 9.
Dependent Claims 2 and 7
Rejected over Barak, Raghunathan, and Williams
The Examiner’s reliance on Williams to teach a machine-learning
model configured to predict does not cure the deficiencies of Barak and
Raghunathan as to claim 1 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 7.
Appeal 2021-001775
Application 15/596,368
18
Claims 10–17
Rejected over Barak, Raghunathan, and Chevalier
The Examiner’s reliance on Chevalier to teach features of claims 10–
17 does not cure the deficiencies of Barak and Raghunathan as to claim 1
from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 10–17.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 101 Eligibility 1–19
10–13 112(b) Indefiniteness 10–13
1, 3–6, 8, 9,
18, 19
103 Barak,
Raghunathan
1, 3–6, 8, 9,
18, 19
2, 7 103 Barak,
Raghunathan,
Williams
2, 7
10–17 103 Barak,
Raghunathan,
Chevalier
10–17
Overall
Outcome
1–19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED