Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2020

14564903 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2020)

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.
14/564,903 12/09/2014 Brandon Ashley Silverman 079894.4533 8551
91230 7590 08/26/2020
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P./FACEBOOK INC.
2001 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 900
DALLAS, TX 75201
EXAMINER
SPIELER, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2020 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
judy.wan@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 BRANDON ASHLEY SILVERMAN and MATTHEW NOCE
MURPHY GARMUR
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16–20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[i]dentifying trending content on a social
networking platform.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, at a server, a first post from a source on a
social networking platform through one or more application
programming interfaces;
determining, at the server, a first engagement metric for
the first post during each of a predetermined sequence of time
periods, wherein each succeeding time period in the
predetermined sequence of time periods is greater in length than
that succeeding time period’s preceding time period as
described by a geometric sequence, and wherein each
succeeding time period starts from an end of that succeeding
time period’s preceding time period;
determining, at the server, a second engagement metric
for each of a plurality of second posts during each of the
predetermined sequence of time periods;
determining, at the server and for each of the
predetermined sequence of time periods, a representative
engagement metric based on the second engagement metric
associated with the predetermined time period for each of the
second posts;
comparing, at the server, the first engagement metric
associated with at least one of the predetermined sequence of
time periods to the representative engagement metric associated
with that predetermined time period;
determining, at the server, a relative performance of the
first post based on the step of comparing; and
identifying, at the server, a trend of the first post based on
the relative performance of the first post over the predetermined
sequence of time periods.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16–20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Final Act. 3–6.
OPINION
The Judicial Exception Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16–
20
Claims 1, 13, and 19 are the independent claims. The Examiner
determines the independent claims are “directed to the abstract idea of
scoring engagement of posts.” Final Act. 3; see also Final Act. 4 (citing to
several court cases and explaining “[a]ll of these concepts relate to means of
organizing information”); Ans. 3 (“The problem to be solved in the instant
invention is measuring the relative performance of a post on social media.
This has pre-computer analogues, such as measuring relative viewership of
television shows, relative readership of newspaper articles, and the like.”).
The Examiner further determines the claims “do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception.” Final Act. 3; see also Final Act. 4–5 (“Applicant’s specification
[0022], [0024] specifically states that a generic computing device is
suitable.”); Ans. 4–5 (“The sole difference between the claimed invention
and the prior art solely rests in the geometric sequence of time periods in
measuring engagement. This is not an ‘inventive concept’.”).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
4
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we 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; 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” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); 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
Court held that “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; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
5
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the 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
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 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.”).
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 (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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
6
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or

USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
7
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Are the claims patent-eligible?
Step 1
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of
35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable
medium, which falls within the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 19 recites a system, which falls within the “machine” category of 35
U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we must determine whether the claim recites a judicial
exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. See
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps:
[i] obtaining, at a server, a first post from a source on a
social networking platform through one or more application
programming interfaces;
[ii] determining, at the server, a first engagement metric
for the first post during each of a predetermined sequence of
time periods, wherein each succeeding time period in the
predetermined sequence of time periods is greater in length than
that succeeding time period’s preceding time period as
described by a geometric sequence, and wherein each
succeeding time period starts from an end of that succeeding
time period’s preceding time period;
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
8
[iii] determining, at the server, a second engagement
metric for each of a plurality of second posts during each of the
predetermined sequence of time periods;
[iv] determining, at the server and for each of the
predetermined sequence of time periods, a representative
engagement metric based on the second engagement metric
associated with the predetermined time period for each of the
second posts;
[v] comparing, at the server, the first engagement metric
associated with at least one of the predetermined sequence of
time periods to the representative engagement metric associated
with that predetermined time period;
[vi] determining, at the server, a relative performance of
the first post based on the step of comparing; and
[vii] identifying, at the server, a trend of the first post
based on the relative performance of the first post over the
predetermined sequence of time periods.
Step [i] recites collecting data (“obtaining . . . a first post”), which is
an “observation.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, step [i]
recites the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id.
Steps [ii]–[vii] recite analyzing data (“determining . . . a first
engagement metric,” “determining . . . a second engagement metric,”
“determining . . . a representative engagement metric,” “comparing . . . the
first engagement metric . . . to the representative engagement metric,”
“determining . . . a relative performance,” and “identifying . . . a trend of the
first post”), which is a combination of “observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, steps [ii]–[vii]
also recite the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id.
Claim 1, therefore, recites collecting and analyzing data. Such mental
processes, which could alternatively be performed by a human using pen and
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
9
paper, have been held by the courts to be abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit
has held that if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a
human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-
eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human
thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under
§ 101.”). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has found claims directed to
“collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis” as directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the steps [i]–[vii] recited in independent claim 1 all describe an
abstract idea. The abstract idea, even when automated to reduce the burden
on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper, remains
an abstract idea. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these
same reasons, we also determine claims 13 and 19 recite a judicial
exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because claims 1, 13, and 19 recite a judicial exception, we next
determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1, discussed above, that recite
abstract concepts, steps [i]–[vii] of claim 1 further recite a “server” and a
“social networking platform.” Claim 13 further recites a “non-transitory
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
10
computer-readable medium” and “one or more computers.” Claim 19 further
recites “one or more computers” and “one or more storage devices.”
The Specification does not provide additional details that would
distinguish these additional limitations from a generic implementation of the
abstract idea. Regarding the “server,” “non-transitory computer-readable
medium,” “one or more storage devices,” and “one or more computers,” the
Specification describes the following:
Computing system 108 may be implemented using one or
more computing devices (e.g., servers). The one or more
computing devices on which computing system 108 is
implemented may have internal or external storage components
storing data and programs such as an operating system and one
or more application programs. The one or more application
programs may be implemented as instructions that are stored in
the storage components and that, when executed, cause the one
or more computing devices to provide the features ascribed
herein to the computing system 108. Furthermore, the one or
more computing devices on which computing system 108 is
implemented each may include one or more processors for
executing instructions stored in storage and/or received from one
or more other electronic devices, for example, over network 106.
In addition, these computing devices also typically may include
network interfaces and communication devices for sending and
receiving data.
Spec. ¶ 28; see also Spec. ¶ 29 (“A social post analysis application on
computer system 108 may analyze the extracted or received information to
identify trending user content within the electronic social networking
platform.”).
Regarding the “social networking platform,” the Specification
describes “[e]lectronic social networking platform 102 may be implemented
using one or more computing devices (e.g., servers) configured to provide a
service to one or more client devices (e.g., computing devices 104(a)–
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
11
104(n)) connected to electronic social networking platform 102 over
network 106.” Spec. ¶ 23.
We do not find the recited computer-related limitations are sufficient
to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically,
there is no improvement to the functioning of the computer, but, instead, the
computer merely implements the abstract idea. In this case, we do not see
any particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; nor do
we see any transformation. That is, we do not see any of the additionally
recited elements applying or using the judicial exception in any meaningful
way beyond generally linking the judicial exception to the recited elements.
Put another way, the claim recites collecting and analyzing data—
mental processes. The additional recited claim elements merely implement
these mental processes, and the Specification does not provide additional
details that would distinguish the implementation from a generic
implementation. See Spec. ¶¶ 23, 28, 29.
Further, regarding the “social networking platform” and claim 1’s first
step [i] of “obtaining, at a server, a first post from a source on a social
networking platform through one or more application programming
interfaces,” this also does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract
idea because it merely is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity
of data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be
manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, we determine claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception because
claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial
exception into a practical application. For these same reasons, we also
determine claims 13 and 19 are directed to a judicial exception.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
12
Is there something else in the claims that ensures that they are
directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept?
Step 2B
Because claims 1, 13, and 19 are directed to a judicial exception, we
must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element,
or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed
to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Regarding the “server,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium,”
“one or more storage devices,” “one or more computers,” and “social
networking platform,” the conventional or generalized functional terms by
which the computer components are described reasonably indicate that
Appellant’s Specification discloses conventional components. See Spec.
¶¶ 23, 28, 29. Further, the Specification does not provide additional details
about the computer that would distinguish the recited components from
generic implementation individually and generic implementation in the
combination. See Spec. ¶¶ 23, 28, 29. Thus, the claims do no more than
require generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions,
rather than improve computer capabilities.
Regarding the “obtaining” step recited in claims 1, 13, and 19,
our reviewing court has recognized that receiving, processing, and storing
data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic
computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,”
fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350.
There is no indication that the recited elements override the conventional use
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
13
of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination
of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology
results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data
gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a
generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-
available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an
advance . . . amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and
conventional.’” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))); buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over
a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Accordingly, we determine claims 1, 13, and 19 are not directed to
significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. We also determine that
claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 14, 16–18, and 20 are not directed to significantly more
than a patent ineligible concept.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the
claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology. See Appeal Br. 7–10.
For example, the claims “are directed to a computer-implemented solution to
address the problems with existing social networks not allowing users or
third parties to measure the post performances within the social network
platform or across multiple social network platforms, similar to DDR
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
14
Holdings4, which provides a composite web page to address the host’s
problem of customers leaving its web page.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply
Br. 4–5.
ii. The claims are necessarily tied to a machine. See Appeal
Br. 11–12. For example, the “obtaining” step “is necessarily performed by a
machine, such as a server.” Appeal Br. 11.
iii. The claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea
because the claims include in inventive concept distinct from the prior art.
See Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
iv. The claims, similar to BASCOM5, recite elements that in
combination provide an inventive concept “by allowing a server or a third-
party server to effectively determine engagement performances of posts
from one or multiple social network platforms via a sequence of time
periods as described by a geometric sequence.” Appeal Br. 15; see also
Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 5–7.
v. The Examiner does not set forth a prima facie case that the
dependent claims are unpatentable. See Appeal Br. 15–17.
vi. “Applicant has been provided with no factual support for the
conclusion that any of the specific features of the independent claims were
well-known, routine, and conventional at the time of Appellant’s invention.”
Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments do not show Examiner error. We apply the
2019 Revised Guidance and agree with the Examiner’s determination that

4 Citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
5 Citing Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d
1343–45 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
15
the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specifically, we determine the overall process provided by the claims
describes a combination of “observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.”
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the overall process
provided by the claims recites mental processes that are recognized as
abstract ideas. Id. Further, for the reasons discussed above, we determine the
claims are directed to these mental processes without significantly more.
Regarding Appellant’s arguments (i), (ii), and (iii), Appellant’s
identified improvements are improvements to the abstract idea because, for
example, data is collected (“obtaining . . . a first post”), and data is analyzed
(“determining . . . a first engagement metric,” “determining . . . a second
engagement metric,” “determining . . . a representative engagement metric,”
“comparing . . . the first engagement metric . . . to the representative
engagement metric,” “determining . . . a relative performance,” and
“identifying . . . a trend of the first post”), which are a combination of
“observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.” Id. Thus, the identified
improvements recite the abstract concept of “[m]ental processes.” Id. In
reaching our conclusion, we determine, on the record before us, the claim
limitations do not improve the functionality of the various hardware
components, nor do they achieve an improved technological result in
conventional industry practice. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.,
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), we determine the step of
“obtaining” is directed to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data
gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be
manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Thus, we determine the claims are not
necessarily tied to a machine.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
16
Further regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), regarding any novelty of
the claimed approach to identifying trending content on a social networking
platform, these arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s conclusions
because the argued elements are part of the abstract idea. The claims do no
more than require generic computer elements to perform generic computer
functions, rather than improve computer capabilities. Put another way, “[t]he
‘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 [section] 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981)).
Similarly, Appellant’s argument (iv) also does not show any error for
the same reasons discussed above when addressing arguments (i)–(iii).
Regarding Appellant’s argument (v), this argument does not show any
error because Appellant has not raised any particularized arguments with
respect to any of the dependent claims.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (vi), this argument does not show
any error because, as we explain above, the Specification does not provide
additional details about the computer that would distinguish the recited
components from conventional components, and from generic
implementation individually and generic implementation in the combination.
See Spec. ¶¶ 23, 28, 29.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16–20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-001210
Application 14/564,903
17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7, 9,
11, 13, 14,
16–20
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–7, 9,
11, 13, 14,
16–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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