Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

14470653 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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.
14/470,653 08/27/2014 Congxing Cai 098981-1708 4260
10575 7590 08/11/2020
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
REINHARDT, RICHARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CONGXING CAI,
IMAN SADEGHI,
FARNAZ AZMOODEH,
AARON SHON,
JONAS YNGVESSON,
and RETO STROBL
____________

Appeal 2019–002947
Application 14/470,6531
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Oral arguments were presented June 23, 2020.
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Congxing Cai, Iman Sadeghi, Farnaz Azmoodeh, Aaron Shon, Jonas
Yngvesson, and Reto Strobl (Appellant3) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–20, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of identifying interaction events
relating to one or more content campaigns. Specification para. 3.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
[1] receiving,
by one or more processors,
a request to generate
a first report relating to a content campaign based
on first criteria
and
a second report relating to the content campaign
based on second criteria,

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 4, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February
28, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 3, 2019),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 29, 2017).
3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google
LLC (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

3

the content campaign comprising a plurality of content
items to be provided to a plurality of user devices via an
electronic network,
[and]
the first criteria comprising one or more grouping
timezones4;
[2] retrieving,
by the one or more processors,
a plurality of event data items relating to impression or
interaction events associated with the content campaign,
the event data items each comprising a campaign
identifier, a timestamp, and a timezone key indicating a
timezone in which the impression or interaction occurred;
[3.1] extracting,
by the one or more processors,
the timestamp and the timezone key
and
[3.2] determining a local time
from the extracted timestamp and the timezone from the
timezone key for each of the plurality of events;
[4] based on the first criteria comprising the one or more
grouping timezones, generating,
by the one or more processors,
a first event grouping including a first set of the plurality
of events having timezones matching at least one of the
one or more grouping timezones;

4 Timezone as a single word does not appear to be a conventional word and
the Specification does not define it. The Specification usage, however,
suggests “timezone” is equivalent to the term “time zone,” a geographic
region within which the same standard time is used.
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

4

[5] based on the second criteria, generating,
by the one or more processors,
a second event grouping including a second set of the
plurality of events based on both the local times and the
timezones of the plurality of events,
generating the second event grouping comprising
selecting the second set of events from among the
plurality of events based on the local times of the events
in view of the timezones of the events;
[6] for each of the first event grouping and the second event
grouping, determining,
by the one or more processors,
a number of interaction events associated with each of a
plurality of frequency groups based on a number of
impression events associated with the interaction events;
and
[7] generating,
by the one or more processors,
the first report based on the frequency groups determined
for the first event grouping and the second report based
on the frequency groups for the second event grouping.

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

5

ANALYSIS
STEP 15
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
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. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . 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. [The Court] described step two of this
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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining

5 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

6

whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites receiving request data, retrieving event data, extracting
timestamp and time zone data, determining local time data, generating event
grouping data, determining interaction event data, and generating a report.
Retrieving data is receiving data. Extracting and determining data are
rudimentary forms of analyzing data. Generating a report is displaying data.
Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, generating, and displaying data.
None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any
of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible
means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

7

include (1) mathematical concepts6, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity7, and (3) mental processes8. Among those certain methods of
organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are concepts
performed in the human mind as mental processes. Like those concepts,
claim 1 recites the concept of reporting data analysis. Specifically, claim 1
recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to report
an analysis of events based on event time data. The advice to report an
analysis of events based on event time data involves generating a report,
which is a paper and pencil act, and grouping data, which is an act ordinarily
performed in the stream of data collection. For example, claim 1 recites
“generating . . . the first report,” which is an activity that would take place
whenever one is collecting data for a report. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“generating . . . a first event grouping,” which is also characteristic of
collecting and organizing data.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to generating
reports based on the time zones of content campaign events. Final Act. 2.

6 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
8 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

8

The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in reporting data analysis by reporting an analysis of
events based on event time data absent any technological mechanism other
than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 2 recite receiving data.
Limitations 3–7 recite generic and conventional analyzing, generating, and
displaying of event data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get
to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for reporting an analysis
of events based on event time data. To advocate reporting an analysis of
events based on event time data is conceptual advice for results desired and
not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 3 describes the invention as relating to
identifying interaction events relating to one or more content campaigns.
Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites reporting data
analysis. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of concepts performed in the human mind
as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, generating,
and displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the
data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, generation,
and display and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

9

F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).
As such, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, generating, and displaying
data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Digitech Image Techs, LLC v.
Elecs for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (combining
data sets); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting, recognizing,
and storing data); In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823
F.3d 607, 613 (2016) (classifying and storing digital data in an organized
manner).
From this, we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
reporting data analysis by reporting an analysis of events based on event
time data, which is collecting and reporting data, one of concepts performed
in the human mind as mental processes identified in the Revised Guidance,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.9
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or

9 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

10

apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 2 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps
4 and 5 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating,
updating, and storing data. Step 7 is insignificant post solution activity, such
as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 3 and 6 recite
generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any
and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
reporting data analysis by reporting an analysis of events based on event
time data as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

11

Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different
generic equipment10 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of reporting data analysis by reporting an analysis of events
based on event time data under different scenarios. It does not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim
1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply
reporting data analysis by reporting an analysis of events based on event
time data using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents,
that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.

10 The Specification describes any type of computing device. Spec. para.
102.
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

12

We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
reporting data analysis by advising one to report an analysis of events based
on event time data, as distinguished from a technological improvement for
achieving or applying that result. This amounts to collecting and reporting
data, which fall within concepts performed in the human mind as mental
processes that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the pre-emption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

13

“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, generating, and displaying data amounts
to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
generation-display is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial,
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

14

Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of
receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and
receiving payment recited an abstraction), 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),
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and
monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

15

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations, we further determine that the claims do
not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this, we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of concepts
performed in the human mind as mental processes as exemplified by the
collecting and reporting data of reporting data analysis by advising one to
report an analysis of events based on event time data, without significantly
more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–8 and Answer 4–8 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
claims are directed to a specific combination of features
providing a technical solution that allows a content
management and analysis system to provide more complete and
accurate information in response to queries by utilizing
timezone key information included within the stored event data
items. In absence of storing timezone key information on a per-
event basis, a system could not generate the first and second
event groupings and corresponding frequency groups and
reports.
Reply Br. 2–3. This is a conclusory argument. No technological
implementation details are recited. The claims recite generic and
conventional receiving, analyzing, generating, and displaying data.
Here, the purported improvement is the abstract idea of classification
and filtering of data, not an improvement in the functioning of computer
Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

16

capabilities. On their face, the claims are directed to collecting (retrieving
event data), classifying (extracting the timezone key and grouping on it), and
filtering data into groups based on identifying characteristics (generating a
report based on frequency groups). Claims that “merely collect, classify, or
otherwise filter data” are ineligible for patent under § 101. Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The argument comes down to the advantage of storing a particular
field of data that is used for reports. This is a conceptual idea, not a
technological implementation. The claims recite generic operations to be
performed by any and all possible means.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than
describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any
limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution
to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the
claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a
concrete embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–20 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

Appeal 2019-002947
Application 14/470,653

17

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED