Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 6, 2020

14446176 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
14/446,176 07/29/2014 Giridhar Rajaram 26295-26865 5959
87851 7590 11/06/2020
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
SCHMUCKER, MICHAEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2020 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GIRIDHAR RAJARAM, WEIWEI DING,
XINGYAO YE, and LEON CHO
____________

Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to online associations in the context of
social media. Spec. ¶¶ 1–4. Claim 12, reproduced below with paragraph
indentation added, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Facebook, Inc. as the Applicant and
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
2
12. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded
thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
maintain a plurality of interests at an online system
associated with one or more users of an online system, each
interest associated with a type, and information describing
associations between interests based at least in part on the types
associated with interests;
receive a request from a user to generate targeting criteria
associated with a content item, the targeting criteria identifying
one or more characteristics of users eligible to be presented with
the content item;
communicate instructions from the online system for
generating an interface to a client device associated with the
user, the interface including multiple fields that are each
associated with one or more targeting criteria;
receive an input identifying an interest for inclusion in the
targeting criteria via the interface generated by the client device
from the instructions from the online system;
identify one or more candidate interests from the maintained
plurality of interests, at least a portion of each candidate interest
matching at least a portion of the received input;
select a set of interests from the one or more candidate
interests by applying one or more rules to the candidate interests,
the one or more rules specifying criteria for excluding one or
more candidate interests from the set of interests based on one or
more types associated with the one or more candidate interest;
present one or more interests of the selected set of interests to
the user for specifying the targeting criteria via the interface, the
one or more interests of the selected set of interests presented in
the interface proximate to the input received from the interface;
receiving, at the online system, a selection of an interest of
the one or more interests of the selected set of interests via the
interface; and
storing the selected interest of the one or more interests of
the selected set of interests in the targeting criteria associated
with the content item by the online system.
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
King US 2010/0228582 A1 Sept. 9, 2010
Kang US 2011/0238495 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Soroca US 2013/0055097 A1 Feb. 28, 2013
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter.
2. Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kang, King, and Soroca.
OPINION
Eligible Subject Matter
Appellant argues all pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 4–8. We
select claim 12 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
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 courts recognize certain judicial exceptions to Section 101,
namely: (1) laws of nature, (2) natural phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas.
See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70–71
(2012).
The Supreme Court has set forth “a framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S.
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
4
at 72–73). According to the Supreme Court’s framework, we must first
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts.
Id. If so, we must secondly “consider the elements of each claim both
individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id.
In situations where an abstract idea is implemented on a computer, the
first step in the Alice/Mayo analysis asks whether the focus of the claims is
on a specific improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process
that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
The Supreme Court characterizes the second step of the analysis as “a
search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of
elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 72). Where the claim is directed to an abstract idea that is implemented
on a computer, merely stating the abstract idea while adding the words
“apply it” is not enough to establish such an inventive concept. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
[I]f that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could
claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting
a computer system configured to implement the relevant
concept.
Id. at 224.
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
5
Under the PTO’s guidelines, in conducting step one of the Alice
framework, 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 interactions such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “Guidelines”).
In other words, under prong 1 of an abstract idea analysis, we look to
whether the claim recites an abstract idea. Then, if it does, under prong 2,
we look at the claim, as a whole, and determine whether the claim is
“directed to” the abstract idea or, instead, is “directed to” a “practical
application” of the abstract idea.
Step 1, Prong 1
The Guidelines identify three key concepts identified as abstract
ideas: (a) mathematical concepts including “mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations”;  (b) certain
methods of organizing human activity, such as “fundamental economic
principles or practices,” “commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between”; and (c) mental
processes including “observation, evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion.”
Guidelines, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
With respect to the first step, the Examiner determines that the claims
are directed to an abstract idea. Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner,
the steps are directed to an abstract idea in the form of a method of
organizing human activity. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that claim 1 does
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
6
not recite an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 5. In the ensuing discussion,
Appellant merely paraphrases the claim language and describes the various
functions that are performed by the claimed computer program. Id. at 4–6.
In response, the Examiner reiterates that the claim is directed to the abstract
idea of organizing human activity. Ans. 6. In reply, Appellant argues that
the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea because they are integrated
into a practical application. Reply Br. 1–3.
There is little question here that claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Appellant’s Specification explains that the invention collects and processes
information related to a social media user’s interests. Spec. ¶¶ 5–6. This
concept is captured in the recitations of claim 12. Claims App. This subject
matter is properly considered as a method of “managing personal behavior”
under our Guidelines.
A method of organizing human activity is recognized by the courts as
an abstract idea. See In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images is an
abstract idea as a method of organizing human activity); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a
pre-set spending limit is an abstract idea as a method of organizing human
activity); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307,
1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (screening messages is an abstract idea as a method of
organizing human activity); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering internet
content is an abstract idea as a method of organizing human behavior).
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
7
The claims here relate to managing user behavior by collecting data
about and for the user, processing the data, and notifying the user of the
results of such data processing. Claims App. As such, the method recites an
abstract idea.
Step 1, Prong 2
Under Prong 2 of Step 1 of the Guidelines, we do not assume that
such claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter because “all
inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of
nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice). Instead,
“the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends.
Guidelines. If the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea, then the inquiry
proceeds to the second step of the Alice framework. Id.
Consequently, we consider whether the claimed user interest system
includes additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. 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. Guidelines.
Here, Appellant argues that claim 12 is not directed to an abstract idea
because it recites a practical application. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant describes
the computer software application as “practical” because it involves:
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
8
[A] method for generating targeting criteria through a
customized interface, where the generated targeting criteria are
stored for subsequent use in targeting users of an online system
for the purpose of serving content to the users of the online
system. Thus, when an advertiser wants to present ad content
to users of the online system, the method presents a customized
interface to the advertiser using which the advertiser may select
specific interests for use as targeting criteria with the ad
content.
Id. Appellant recites computer software that is executed by a processor to
perform a series of data collection, processing, storage, and display
functions, namely:
(1) maintain . . . interests . . . associated with . . . users;
(2) receive a request from a user to generate . . . criteria;
(3) communicate instructions . . . for generating an interface;
(4) receive an input;
(5) identify . . . interests;
(6) select . . . interests . . . by applying . . . rules;
(7) present . . . interests . . . to the user;
(8) receive . . . selection of an interest;
(9) store the selected interest . . . in the targeting criteria.
Claims App. All of these functions are abstract in nature. See Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining
that information as such is an intangible).
Appellant demonstrates a fundamentally incorrect understanding of
what it means for an idea to be integrated into a “practical” application. The
notion that implementation of Appellant’s method may result in more
efficient presentation of advertising content to a user does not render the
claim any less abstract. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
9
Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that
performance by computer of operations that previously were performed
manually, albeit less efficiently, does not convert an abstract idea into
eligible subject matter).
Furthermore, the prospect that Appellant’s method uses a
computerized “tool” does not render the claims less abstract. An abstract
idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular
technological environment. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1367; see
also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a
particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any
less abstract); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (the fact a computer exists in
the physical realm is beside the point). Unlike Enfish, the focus of the
instant claims is not on improving a computer, but rather on a process for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1335–36.
Computer implemented software does not become a “practical”
application just because it allows a computer to accomplish something that it
would not otherwise be able to do without the software. Programming a
computer to add two plus two may, in some sense, be considered “practical”
in that it obviates the need to perform the calculation using pencil and paper.
However, a “practical application,” under our Guidelines and prevailing case
law, requires more. Merely creating a computer software application and
then telling a computer to “apply it” is not enough to avoid a judicial
exception to patentable subject matter. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24.
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
10
To illustrate what is required for an invention to be “integrated” into a
“practical application,” we reversed an Examiner’s Section 101 rejection in
the case of Ex Parte Hladio, 2019 WL 2285538 (PTAB April 29, 2019). In
that case, the inventor used sensor and computer technology to improve a
surgical procedure that entailed navigation and alignment of a surgical tool
and a patient’s bone. Id. We noted that both the bone and the surgical tool
were physical real world tangible items. Id. We further noted that the
invention was directed to improving the performance and outcome of the
surgical procedure as a result of improved bone-tool alignment. Id. We
reversed the Examiner in that case because, although the claims recited an
abstract idea, the idea was integrated into an application that was “practical.”
Id. In contrast, Appellant collecting information about a user’s interests and
then generating and displaying advertisements to the user that correlate with
those interests falls short of the standard of “practical application” required
by the Guidelines.
The Examiner is correct that Appellant’s claimed software application
merely uses generic computer equipment to implement the abstract idea on a
computer. Ans. 6. The claims, thus, fail to integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application and, therefore, are “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2
Turning to step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, we look more precisely
at what the claim elements add in terms of whether they identify an
“inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible matter to which the
claim is directed to. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167
(Fed. Cir. 2018). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include
‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
11
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–78). Those “additional features” must be
more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79.
Under step two of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner
determines, that the recited claim limitations are “all functions that the
courts have recognized to be well-understood, routine, conventional, and
normal computer operation.” Final Act. 6.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the only other element in the claims besides the
abstract ideas identified above is a generic computer structure,
“an online system”, “computer program product comprising a
computer-readable storage medium having instructions encoded
thereon that, when executed by a processor” that is merely
performing or applying the abstract ideas.
Id.
Appellant’s Specification describes the information processing system
used in the invention in the following terms.
The client devices 110 are one or more computing devices
capable of receiving user input as well as transmitting and/or
receiving data via the network 120. . . . client device 110 is a
conventional computer system, such as a desktop or a laptop
computer. Alternatively, a client device 110 may be a device
having computer functionality, such as a personal digital
assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone, a smartphone or another
suitable device. A client device 110 is configured to
communicate via the network 120 . . . client device 110
executes an application allowing a user of the client device 110
to interact with the online system 140. For example, a client
device 110 executes a browser application to enable interaction
between the client device 110 and the online system 140 via the
network 120. . . . client device 110 interacts with the online
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
12
system 140 through an application programming interface
(API) running on a native operating system of the client device
110, such as IOS® or ANDROID™.
Spec. ¶ 13.
The client devices 110 are configured to communicate via
the network 120, which may comprise any combination of local
area and/or wide area networks, using both wired and/or
wireless communication systems. . . . network 120 uses
standard communications technologies and/or protocols.
Id. ¶ 14.
Appellant’s briefs do not mention, much less argue, step two of the
Alice/Mayo analysis. See generally Appeal Br., Reply Br. Thus, Appellant
does not identify a single element in the claim that purportedly amounts to
more than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Id. To be
clear, it is not that we disagree with Appellant as to whether certain elements
are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Here, Appellant does not
identify any elements in the claim, individually or as an ordered
combination, as providing an inventive concept.
There is no indication in the Specification that Appellant has achieved
an advancement or improvement in computer processing technology. See
generally Spec. There is similarly no indication in the Specification that
Appellant has achieved an advancement or improvement in user interface or
display technology. Id.
All of the data processing, sensing, and input-output devices, as well
as their interconnections, are described at a high level of generality that
presumes familiarity on the part of the reader. Id. A patent applicant is
required to submit a specification that contains a written description of the
invention in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). For
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
13
purposes of the Alice/Mayo analysis, a specification demonstrates the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of step 2 “additional elements”
when it describes them in a manner that indicates they are sufficiently well-
known that they need not be described with particularity to satisfy 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a). That is the case here.
Appellant’s invention is quintessentially “collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. Appellant’s method recites an “abstract
idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1335–36. In short, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea that is
implemented on a computer in a manner that merely states the abstract idea
while adding the words “apply it.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. This is not
sufficient for patent eligibility. Id.
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the recited
elements of claim 12, considered individually and as an ordered
combination, do not constitute an “inventive concept” that transforms
independent claim 12 into patent-eligible subject matter. On this record, we
affirm the Examiner’s Section 101 rejection of claims 1–18.
Unpatentability of Claims 1–18
over Kang, King, and Soroca
Appellant argues claims 1–18 as a group. Appeal Br. 8–12. Claim 12
is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Kang discloses the invention substantially as
claimed except for a user interface, for which the Examiner relies on Soroca.
Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
14
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate a user interface into Kang as taught by Soroca to achieve the
claimed invention. Id. at 12. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to more advantageously select
advertising content to present to a user. Id.
Appellant argues that the prior art does not receive a request from a
user as claimed. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that Kang uses meta
information associated with a content item to generate a keyword based
advertisement. Id. In response, the Examiner explains that Kang’s meta
information associated with its content generates a keyword and that the
keywords are the user interests in the user’s search. Ans. 9. In reply,
Appellant attempts to distinguish over Kang by arguing that the “request” at
issue is “for generating” targeting criteria identifying one or more
characteristics of users eligible to be presented with a content item. Reply
Br. 5.
Kang is directed to a keyword advertisement method. Kang, Abstract.
In Kang, a user is able to use on-line multimedia content free of charge. Id.
An advertiser enables targeted advertisements to users of the multimedia
content. Id. The advertiser does this to induce traffic to a target website or
other target advertisement contents. Id. In Kang, as correctly found by the
Examiner, a user searches for online media content using keywords. Ans. 9.
In response to the search request, the user receives the requested media
content along with selected advertisements that are targeted at the user’s
interests. Id.
Appellant’s Specification explains that a user who has characteristics
that match an interest specified in targeting criteria is “eligible” to be
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
15
presented an advertising content item. Spec. ¶ 49. Appellant does not
adequately explain why Kang’s users are not “eligible” to be presented with
content. Similarly, Appellant fails to adequately explain how Kang’s use of
meta information associated with a content item to generate a keyword based
advertisement does not “generate” — “targeting criteria” within the meaning
of claim 12. Reply Br. 5. A person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that advertisements that are targeted at a user are selected
because they satisfy targeting criteria. The mere fact that Kang uses slightly
different terminology in its description is inconsequential to our analysis.
See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (a reference need not
satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test).
Appellant next argues that the prior art does not “identify interests”
from “maintained interests” as claimed. Appeal Br. 9. In response, the
Examiner directs our attention to paragraphs 244 and 294 of Kang, which
disclosure is buttressed by paragraphs 373, 384, 385, and 389, as disclosing
previous searches that satisfy Appellant’s claim language directed to
“maintained” interests. Ans. 10. In reply, Appellant directs our attention to
paragraph 41 of the Specification as defining what it means to “maintain
interests.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner overlooks the
“maintain a plurality of interests . . .” limitation in claim 12. Id. at 7.
Kang explicitly discloses that keyword advertisement target text is
“generated and stored.” Kang ¶ 384. This is sufficient evidence to support
the Examiner’s finding that interests are “maintained” in Kang.
Finally, Appellant argues that the prior art fails to disclose a user
interface as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–11. According to Appellant, Soroca
merely provides a user interface for specifying targeting criteria, but does
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
16
not generate a user interface “based on maintained user interests.” Id. at 11.
In response, the Examiner states that Soroca’s user interface is used to input
and store targeting information. Ans. 10 (citing Soroca ¶¶ 862, 1174, 1247,
Figs. 19, 32).
In addition to the passages cited by the Examiner, Soroca teaches the
following concerning the storage and maintenance of user interests.
[A] parameter may be used to determine . . . the relevancy of a
mobile content. A parameter may be information relating to a
mobile communication facility 102. This information may
relate to a user characteristic. User characteristics may include
a user’s age, sex, race, religion, area code, zip code, home
address, work address, billing address, credit information,
family information, income information, birth date, birthplace,
employer, job title, length of employment, and other
information associated with user characteristics. For example,
the user characteristic, employer, may be used to determine, in
part, the relevancy of news headlines within a search result
derived from an automatically generated search query of news
headlines. If the user’s employer was an automotive
manufacturer, news headlines relating to autoworker layoffs
may be determined to be more relevant than headlines relating
to currency fluctuations.
Soroca ¶ 139.
[A] parameter may also relate to a user history, a user
transaction, a geographic location, geographic proximity, a user
device, a time, and or other user characteristics. For example,
parameters relating to a user may include age (27), sex (male),
previous user transactions (purchase of a jazz recording), and
geographic location (New York City). The automatically
generated search may return search results that are ranked,
ordering, indexed, and or prioritized by their relevance to a user
characteristic or plurality of user characteristics.
Id. ¶ 140. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, from
Soroca’s reference to “user history” that Soroca’s system stores or maintains
Appeal 2019-005774
Application 14/446,176
17
data related to user interests and that such stored data is relationally
connected to Soroca’s user interface. Appellant’s argument that information
regarding user interests in Soroca’s user interface is not “maintained” cannot
be supported by the record before us.
The Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. In view thereof, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 1–18.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
§ Reference(s)/Bases Affirmed Reversed
1-18 101 Eligibility 1-18
1-18 103 Kang, Soroca, King 1–18
Overall
Outcome
1–18
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).
AFFIRMED