Lessin, Samuel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2020

13681198 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 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.
13/681,198 11/19/2012 Samuel Lessin 26295-20582 3880
87851 7590 02/25/2020
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
CARVALHO, ERROL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2020 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 SAMUEL LESSIN and
JUSTIN ALEXANDER SHAFFER
__________________

Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, 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 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51,
and 53–59. Final Act. 2. Claims 1–10, 12–17, 21–28, 31–33, 40, 43–45,
and 52 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 17–25 (Claims App.). 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. 1.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 11, 39, and 51 are independent with claim 11 is reproduced
below.
11. A method comprising:
receiving an indication that a plurality of users of an
online social networking system are currently
physically located together at a venue, the received
indication based on one or more posts via a first
user interface in the online social networking
system by one or more of the plurality of users
regarding a current location of the plurality of
users, the plurality of users physically located at
the venue forming a targeting cluster for targeting
of advertisements;
retrieving a plurality of information items about the
plurality of users physically located at the venue
forming the targeting cluster, the plurality of
information items indicating that at least some of
the plurality of users physically located at the
venue are connected to each other within the
online social networking system;
retrieving a model that prices targeting clusters, the
model comprising a plurality of criteria that
increase the value of the targeting clusters, the
plurality of criteria including criteria relating to a
physical location of users of the targeting clusters
and connections between the users of the targeting
clusters;
determining, by a processor, how closely the retrieved
plurality of information items about the plurality of
users physically located at the venue forming the
targeting cluster match the physical location and
connections criteria of the model;
determining, by the processor, a price of the targeting
cluster based on the closeness determination, the
price increasing based on the number of the
retrieved plurality of information items that about
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

3
the plurality of users physically located at the
venue forming the targeting cluster that match the
physical location and connections criteria of the
model;
storing the price of the targeting cluster in the online
social networking system; and
providing to the one or more users of the targeting cluster
physically located at the venue, an advertisement
customized for the one or more users based on the
plurality of users physically located at the venue,
the advertisement provided to the one or more
users of the targeting cluster via a second user
interface.

REJECTIONS
Claims 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51 and 53–59 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of a written
description.
Claims 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51 and 53–59 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness.
Claims 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51 and 53–59 are
rejected as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under a judicial
exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 11, 18, 19, 35–39, 47–51 and 56–59 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kramer (US 2008/0306826 A1,
pub. Dec. 11, 2008) and Lee (US 2013/0024297 A1, pub. Jan. 24, 2013).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kramer, Lee, and Kendall (US 2010/0257023 A1, pub. Oct. 7, 2010).
Claims 29, 30, 41, 42, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kramer, Lee, and Krishnareddy (US 2013/
0006777 A1, pub. Jan. 3, 2013).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

4
Claims 34, 46, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kramer, Lee, and Gyongyi (US 8,560,605 B1, iss. Oct.
15, 2013).
ANALYSIS
Claims 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51 and 53–59
Rejected for Lack of Written Description2
The Examiner determines that the following limitations, which appear
in independent claims 11, 39, and 51, are not supported by adequate written
description as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph:
determining, by a processor, how closely the retrieved plurality
of information items about the plurality of users physically
located at the venue forming the targeting cluster match the
physical location and connections criteria of the model;

providing to the one or more users of the targeting physically
located at the venue, an advertisement customized for the one
or more users based on the plurality of users physically located
at the venue, the advertisement provided to the one or more
users of the targeting cluster via a second user interface.

Final Act. 2–3; see Appeal Br. 17–18, 21, 24–25 (Claims App.).3
Regarding the “determining” limitation, the Examiner finds that the
Specification describes cluster analysis module 504 generates a score for
how closely a received targeting cluster of users matches or best fits
characteristics of one or more highly valued populations, “as defined by
advertisers and/or administrators of the social networking system 100,” but
not the physical location and connections criteria of the model. Final Act. 3.

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 30, 42, and 54 for lack of
written description. See Ans. 4; Final Act. 4.
3 Claim 51 recites these features with somewhat different terms.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

5
Regarding the “providing” limitation, the Examiner finds that the
Specification describes offer generation module 306 determines customized
offers for users at a venue, and scoring module 312 determines a user is very
interested in a particular product, but there is no description of providing a
customized advertisement “based on the plurality of users physically located
at the venue” and “via a second user interface” as claimed. Id. at 3–4.
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s findings and
determination. Appeal Br. 6–7 (arguing the rejection of claims 30, 42, and
54, but not claims 11, 39, and 51, for lack of written description); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (the appeal brief shall explain why the examiner erred as to
each ground of rejection). Thus, we sustain this rejection.
Claims 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51 and 53–59
Rejected for Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that the term “how closely” in claims 11,
39, and 51 is a relative term with no standards provided to ascertain its
scope. Final Act. 5. Appellant does not present arguments for this rejection.
See Appeal Br. 6–15. Thus, we summarily sustain this rejection.
Claims 11, 18–20, 29, 30, 34–39, 41, 42, 46–51 and 53–59
Rejected under a Judicial Exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible-subject matter as:
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 (2012). However, “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

6
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 elements of each claim, individually and
as an ordered combination, to determine if additional elements transform the
claim into a patent-eligible application, e.g., by providing an “inventive
concept” that ensures the patent amounts to significantly more than a patent
on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–218.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine whether 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
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 (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. at 56.

Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

7
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–9. We select
claim 11 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Step 1: Is Claim 11 to a Statutory Category?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 11 recites a method that falls
within the process category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 5; see Appeal Br.
1 (asserting that claim 11 recites a method).
Alice Step 1, Revised Step 2A, Prong One: Are Judicial Exceptions Recited?
The Examiner determines that, although claim 11 is directed toward a
statutory category of invention, nonetheless, it is directed toward a judicial
exception because it recites abstract ideas. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds
that the claimed steps of “receiving an indication,” “retrieving a model,”
“determining . . . how closely the retrieved plurality of information items . . .
match,” “determining . . . a price of the targeting cluster,” and “providing to
one or more users” recite abstract ideas that recent court decisions identified
as using advertising as an exchange or currency in Ultramercial, collecting
and comparing known information in Classen, performance of financial
transactions in buySAFE, and tailoring content based on a user’s personal
characteristics including a user’s location in Intellectual Ventures v. Capital
One Bank. Final Act. 6 (reciting the entire text of each limitation).
Appellant asserts the “examiner fails to clearly identify in the FOA
what he believes to be the abstract idea presented in the pending claims.”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s identification of various
limitations abstract ideas “never actually articulates what he believes to be
the alleged abstract idea.” Id. Appellant argues that receiving an indication,
retrieving a plurality of information, determining how closely the retrieved
information, and storing the price are not abstract ideas. Id. at 7–8.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

8
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis that claim 11 recites abstract
ideas. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, these abstract ideas are “certain
methods of organizing human activity [including] commercial or legal
interactions [for] advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors [and]
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
(including social activities . . .).” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The first step recites
receiving an indication that a plurality of users of an online
social networking system are currently physically located
together at a venue, the received indication based on one or
more posts via a first user interface in the online social
networking system by one or more of the plurality of users
regarding a current location of the plurality of users, the
plurality of users physically located at the venue forming a
targeting cluster for targeting of advertisements;

Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). This step receives information about social
activities, personal behaviors, relations, and interactions of people of an
online social networking system and their organization by location and
venue in order to organize commercial interactions involving advertising,
marketing, and sales activities recited in subsequent steps of the claim.
The Specification makes clear that this step pertains to advertising as
“[a]dvertisements are served to users of an online system” and “[a]n ad may
be given a greater value if a user is near more friends, more people who have
a specific interest, more people who have a high affinity for a brand, and/or
surrounded by more people in general.” Spec. ¶ 5. This step is a precursor
to later steps to organize this human activity to identify “a highly targeted
audience [that] may be available for purchase” by an advertiser. Id. ¶ 27.
Toward this end, action log 218 tracks user actions/interactions. Id. ¶ 38.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

9
The next step furthers the advertising, marketing, and sales activity by
retrieving a plurality of information items about the plurality of
users physically located at the venue forming the target cluster,
the plurality of information items indicating that at least some
of the plurality of users physically located at the venue are
connected to each other within the online social networking
system;

Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). This steps organizes the online social network
users into “targeting clusters” for advertising, marketing, and sales purposes.
Ultimately, this process allows a purveyor of a social network system
to monetize the users of the social network by auctioning targeting clusters
of the users to advertisers who deliver targeted advertising to the users based
on location, actions, preferences, and interests. Spec. ¶¶ 3–5, 17, 22, 25, 43–
45, 48–79. “[A]n ad may be worth more if a user is near more friends, more
people with a certain interest, more people with a high affinity for a brand,
or just more people in general.” Id. ¶ 72.
The next step recites this advertising, marketing, and sale activity as
retrieving a model that prices targeting clusters, the model
comprising a plurality of criteria that increase the value of the
targeting clusters, the plurality of criteria including criteria
relating to a physical location of users of the targeting clusters
and connections between the users of the targeting clusters;

Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The expected value of the plurality of users is
based on the retrieved plurality of information items and matching the users
to one or more valued populations. Id. ¶ 77. Paragraph 77 also provides:
Highly valued populations may include high-income users,
highly-educated users, users that travel frequently, users that
use the Internet heavily, users that have a car, users having a
good time with close friends, users with children, married users,
users that are homeowners, and so on.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

10
The next steps determine how closely retrieved information matches
the physical locations and connections criteria of the model and determine a
price of the targeting cluster based on a closeness determination as follows:
determining, by a processor, how closely the retrieved plurality
of information items about the plurality of users physically
located at the venue forming the targeting cluster match the
physical location and connections criteria of the model;

determining, by the processor, a price of the targeting cluster
based on the closeness determination, the price increasing based
on the number of the retrieved plurality of information items
that about the plurality of users physically located at the venue
forming the targeting cluster that match the physical location
and connections criteria of the model;

Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.). Like the previous steps, these steps also
organize the human activity involved in advertising, marketing, and sales.
For example, advertisers may highly value users that are
currently with connected users for which they have high affinity
and also currently located at the same venue. Advertisers may
wish to associate their brands with the users and their close
friends having a good time. The data retrieval module 502 may
retrieve the user connections, affinity scores, current locations,
and interests from the social networking system 100 to determine
this information for a targeting cluster of users that comprises
users that are currently located a particular venue, for example.

Spec. ¶ 70. “[D]ifferent scoring models may be used that include different
factors based on information retrieved about a viewing user, other users
connected to the viewing user on the social networking system 100, the
different venues, the different types of venues, and the advertisements.” Id.
¶¶ 66. Regression analysis and machine learning may be used to identify a
targeting cluster that is a highly valued population for pricing. Id. ¶ 74.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

11
The final steps store the price of the targeting cluster and provide to
one or more users of the targeting cluster at the venue an advertisement that
is customized for the user(s) based on the other users at the venue via a
second user interface. Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.). These steps also
involve organizing human activity for marketing, advertising, and sales by
targeting users based on their social activities and personal interactions.
Targeted advertising based on a user’s location and personal profile
have been held to be abstract ideas when they are recited at a high level of
generality without any corresponding technical innovation or improvement.
See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailored information presented to a user based on
particular information is an abstract idea); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (customizing a user
interface to provide targeted advertising based on user information is an
abstract idea); see also Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778
F. App’x 882, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (“Targeted marketing
is a form of ‘tailoring information based on [provided] data,’ which we have
previously held is an abstract idea.”). In Bridge and Post, the method used
location-centric information, historic information, usage patterns, and user
profiles to identify a group with which a user is associated to determine a
directed media component to provide to the user or the group. Bridge and
Post, 778 F. App’x at 886–87.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 11 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity involving commercial advertising, marketing, and
sales activities based on social activities and interactions of users of a social
network. Reply Br. 2 (claims arguably involve organizing human activity).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

12
We also consider Appellant’s argument that claim 11 does not recite
an abstract idea because
the claims specifically use technology to link the physical
presence of the user to the online environment, including via
the recitations of an online social networking system, receiving
posts via a first user interface in the online social networking
system, and providing information to users in the cluster via a
second user interface.

Appeal Br. 8 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880
F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
This argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, claim 11
recites broad abstract ideas rather than specific technical improvements to
computers or other technology. If technical improvements are made to the
social networking system, first user interface, or second user interface, those
improvements are not recited in claim 11. Instead, claim 11 recites generic
components that perform generic functions.
The online social networking system receives and sends information
to and from users of the system over a network that is not claimed. Users
can “post” information via a first user interface, which is claimed generically
as a device that permits a user to enter information and communicate with an
online network system. The second user interface provides an advertisement
to a user(s) of a group. Claim 11 does not recite the elements as innovations
in computers or technology. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Svcs., 859
F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that the output of data analysis can
be abstract); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d
1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,”
and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

13
The decision in Core Wireless illustrates the distinction. The claims
in Core Wireless were directed to an improved interface for a mobile device
that displayed an application summary of applications in unlaunched states
so that users could quickly navigate to desired applications to find the data
of interest in three steps from startup as compared to known devices that
required a user to scroll around and switch views many times to find the
right data/functionality. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics,
Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The user interface improved
efficiency of electronic devices with small screens by providing “a limited
list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data” accessible
directly from the main menu rather than requiring users to “drill down
through many layers to get to the desired data or functionality.” Id. at 1363.
Here, claim 11 recites generic user interfaces and a network system.
The network “may comprise any combination of local area and/or wide area
networks, both wired and wireless communication systems” and may “use
standard communications technologies and/or protocols.” Spec. ¶ 30. The
network may use linking technologies such as Ethernet, 802.11, worldwide
interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX), 3G, 4G, CDMA, digital
subscriber line (DSL), etc.” Id. (listing various networking protocols and
data transfer protocols as TCP/IP, UDP, HTTP, SMTP, FTP, HTML, XML,
SSL, TLS, and IPsec). There is no indication that Appellant invented any of
these features or improved their functionality even if we could read these
features into claim 11, which we cannot. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“[T]his court counsels the PTO to avoid the temptation to limit broad
claim terms solely on the basis of specification passages.”).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

14
Regarding the claimed first and second user interfaces:

A content presentation module 110 may provide various types
of content to viewing user devices 124 in a social networking
user interface 130 operating on each viewing user device 124,
including advertisements selected by an advertiser that
purchased a venue where the viewing user devices 124 are
currently located.

Spec. ¶ 22. Figure 1 of Appellant’s disclosure illustrates social networking
user interface 130 as a box. An ad may be received through an application
programming interface (API) request. Id. ¶ 68.
Therefore, we again determine that claim 11 recites the abstract idea
indicated above.
Alice Step 1, Revised Step 2A, Prong Two: Is There an Integration?
We next consider whether claim 11 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Revised Step 2A, Prong Two).
Appellant argues that
the claims specifically use technology to link the physical
presence of the user to the online environment, including via
the recitations of an online social networking system, receiving
posts via a first user interface in the online social networking
system, and providing information to users in the cluster via a
second user interface.

Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also argues that this arrangement is unconventional
in combining the physical location of users with the online context of both
receiving and presenting the user with information via an online interface
that leverages both physical location information and rich data of the online
social networking system about the user and the user’s connections. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

15
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for two primary reasons.
First, claim 11 recites the features at such a high level of generality that the
recited features are abstract ideas rather than technical improvements made
to networks, computers, or user interfaces sufficient to integrate the abstract
ideas into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Second, as a result, any innovation resides in the realm of the abstract
ideas recited in claim 11 rather than a technical improvement to a particular
technology that is integral to the claim. The social network system operates
as expected. It connects users to one another and to the system so users can
share information with one another via the system. RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract
idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render
the claim non-abstract.”). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839
F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an
abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea, but not a
computer’s performance, were held unpatentable).
Claim 11 recites a solution to a business issue, namely, how to market
and advertise to users more effectively. The solution markets to users based
on their connections (targeting clusters) and desired attributes (highly valued
individuals) using generic technology as a tool. We determine that such
implementation does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application. See Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“simply implementing an abstract
concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does
not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one”).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

16
Indeed, Appellant contends as much by asserting that:
The claimed method determines a price for an ad that varies
based on whether the user is near more of their friends (i.e.,
their connections within the social network). This concept is
built on the idea that one user can influence another or a group
of users and, therefore, an ad system quantifies this information
to vary the price of serving an ad to such a user based on how
many other people may be influenced by the user to take action
in accordance with content presented in the ad based on the
location and real-time social network activity of those users.

Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
Claim 11, in effect, recites abstract ideas with the words “apply it”
and uses computers as tools to implement the abstract ideas. These features
do not integrate these abstract ideas into a practical application. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (“Mayo made clear that transformation into a patent
eligible application requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea]
while adding the words “apply it.”’”) (citation omitted).
Even if we assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant,” that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013);
accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Nor is it enough that a claimed technique is novel and nonobvious over prior
art. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine claim 11 does not integrate
the abstract ideas recited therein into a practical application.

Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

17
Alice Step 2, Revised Step 2B –– Inventive Concept
We next consider whether claim 11 recites any elements, individually,
or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18. “The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the
claim limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine
[and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Berkheimer
v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and
citation omitted); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (explaining
that the second step of the Alice analysis considers whether a claim adds a
specific limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” activity in the field).
We agree with the Examiner that the limitations of claim 1 considered
individually recite abstract ideas and information collection, analysis, and
output activities with a generic social networking system, user interface, and
processor that recite the abstract ideas in a social networking environment.
Final Act. 7. Considered as a combination, the limitations merely instruct
the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with high-level, generic
technology executing generic functions. Id.
USPTO Memorandum of April 19, 2018, ‘‘Changes in Examination
Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF (Berkheimer memo) indicates that the Specification may
describe additional elements in a manner that indicates the elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification need not describe their
particulars to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Berkheimer memo at 3–4.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

18
As discussed above, the Specification describes the social networking
system, processor, and user interfaces as generic components that perform
generic functions. The brief description of these elements indicates they are
WURC features that do not add significantly more than the abstract ideas.
See Spec. ¶¶ 28–30, 45, 48–56, 68–78. We therefore determine claim 11
does not recite any elements, individually, or as an ordered combination, that
provide an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“Berkheimer . . . leave[s]
untouched the numerous cases [that] held claims ineligible because the only
alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims 18–20, 29, 30,
34–39, 41, 42, 46–51, and 53–59, which fall therewith, as directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 11, 18, 19, 35–39, 47–51 and 56–59
Rejected over Kramer and Lee
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 10–15. We select
claim 11 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For claim 11,
the Examiner finds that Kramer receives an indication that plural users of an
online social networking system are physically located together at a venue
and some users are connected to each other to form a targeting cluster, but
Kramer does not use this model to price the targeting cluster using criteria
that increase the value of the targeting clusters and determine a price of the
targeting cluster based on a closeness determination. Final Act. 8–10. The
Examiner relies on Lee to teach these features and storing the price of the
targeting cluster in the online social networking system. Id. at 9–10.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

19
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to modify Kramer with the teachings of Lee “to generate a purchase
request/price for a targeted user group based on at least one targeting
condition” as Lee teaches. Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that Kramer does not teach the step of “receiving an
indication that a plurality of users of an online social networking system are
currently physically located together at a venue . . . [and] forming a targeting
cluster for targeting of advertisements.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues
that the members located at the venue are individual members rather than a
cluster or group, and the groups that users may establish for their interaction
with the system are not groups of users at a venue and are not grouped by
the system. Id. at 11. Appellant also argues that Kramer teaches individual
users targeted to receive ads sent by advertisers. Id.
Appellant does not dispute that Kramer targets advertising to users of
a social networking system based on their posts and physical locations at a
venue. Appeal Br. 11 (individual members may be rewarded for sharing
their location at a venue). Appellant argues, however, that Kramer does not
teach similar location-based, targeted advertising to groups of members as
“users physically located at the venue are connected to each other within the
online social networking system” as recited in claim 11. See id. at 10–12.
We agree with the Examiner Kramer teaches this feature. Kramer
allows individual members of the social networking system to form Groups
with Leaders and Friends lists that are publicly available to other members
to facilitate networking. Kramer ¶¶ 85–88, 299–303. Individuals form
groups of friends who may be treated as a group for visibility, messaging,
and other purposes. Id. ¶ 303. These other purposes include advertising.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

20
Kramer also tracks the locations of members and groups of members
and friends at locations and venues. In this regard, Kramer tracks member
locations in relation to venues such as night clubs to determine targeted ads
to send to the member. Id. ¶ 19. Member profiles may include “preferred
customer” status. Id. ¶ 27. Kramer’s system not only tracks locations of
individual members at or near venues, but Kramer also consolidates and
presents real-time venue demographic data to other members including a list
of other members present at each venue. Id. ¶ 92. A system venue view
displays current members present at the venue with their demographics and
current advertising offers. Id. ¶¶ 137–42. Members use their mobile phones
to view promotions currently offered to them. Id. ¶ 195. Members within
different demographics groups typically see different promotions. Id.
Venues can send promotions directly to a mobile phone of one user or
a group of members. Id. ¶ 196. Members at a club are listed individually or
as a group using customized filters. Id. ¶ 356. Thus, the system can follow
members in the groups that they form with others, and members can select to
view My Friends and My Groups at a venue. Id. ¶¶ 379–80, 391–94, 478.
The system “brings together mobile communication device users and
venues” and “venues pay to send offers to members.” Id. ¶ 482. Venues can
market customized offers directly to members using demographics, location,
time, VIP status and to the group including the venue that the member/group
is at presently. Id. ¶¶ 168, 196, 445, 446, 487, 489, 493–495.
Therefore, Kramer allows members to form groups as My Friends and
My Groups. Kramer tracks the groups at locations and venues so members
can connect with others friends in their group who are at that venue, and
businesses can market/advertise promotions to members and their groups.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

21
Individual members rank clubs according to whether most of the
members there belong to My Friends or one of My Groups. Id. ¶¶ 317, 318.
Individual members also receive Alerts according to the Groups to which
they belong. Id. ¶ 329. Club details at a venue include a list of members
and their groups. Id. ¶ 354–56. Members may organize as My Friends and
as Groups based on demographic data. Id. ¶¶ 73–90. Therefore, Kramer
sends ads and promotions to groups with desired demographic criteria at a
venue and also selectively targets ads to a group (a targeting cluster) that
matches a promoter’s demographic and group connection criteria as claimed.
Members of the social network can view customized ads offered to
them as individuals or member of a demographic group. Id. ¶ 195. Venues
send promotions to mobile phones of members and groups of members. Id.
¶ 196. The system stores information for traits, locations, and behaviors of
member and venues, and promoters forward promotional materials to system
members including members of a desired demographic group, which would
include groups of friends or groups of individual members formed as social
networks in the system. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13. Clubs send targeted advertisements to
members based on their location at or relative to a club. ¶ 19. Kramer uses
special pricing models for members classified as a “nightclub candidate” or
a “preferred customer” who receives special targeted incentives to encourage
their attendance at a particular club. Id. ¶¶ 19–27. Venues offer different
incentives to one group than another. Id. ¶ 445 (“NoCoverCharge” for one
group; “2 for 1” offer for another group”). The system thus brings together
users and venues that pay to send offers to members and groups based on the
demographics, venue, and current location of the members and connections
of their groups as claimed. Id. ¶¶ 196, 446, 465, 482, 487, 488.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

22
Kramer therefore uses a pricing model that prices member groups or
“targeting clusters” based on the physical location and demographics of the
members of the group to include connections between members of the group
and prices promotions or offers according to the demographics of the group
and its members and their location. Kramer sends ads to the members of a
group based on matching criteria such as location, VIP or preferred status,
demographics, behaviors, location, and time. Id. ¶¶ 168, 195, 196, 445, 446,
487.
Lee uses pricing models for groups or targeting clusters based on a
location where a user is positioned and “targeting conditions.” Lee ¶¶ 130,
188, 189. Businesses determine targeting conditions based on location and
profile information to generate a user group that is a marketing target and
bid for that user group based on the targeting conditions. Id. ¶¶ 108, 188.
Like Kramer, the groups are formed by interactions on a social network in
Lee. Id. ¶ 49.
Lee’s pricing model attributes cost increases for a marketing message
sent to a user group as a “weight assignment” based on the assignment of
additional targeting conditions (conditions used to generate a marketing
targeting group) to a target group. Id. ¶ 112. Lee’s pricing model compares
a targeting condition(s) of a user or a group to a targeting condition(s) set by
an owner (i.e., a criteria of the model as claimed) to determine if a marketing
message can be issued to a user. Id. ¶ 129 (targeting may be set by bidding).
The targeting information/conditions that make up a pricing model are
used to classify a user group and affect pricing thereby. See id. ¶¶ 112, 129.
Lee thus uses targeting conditions and customized marketing based on users’
locations, demographics, and purchase power. See id. ¶¶ 129–33, 188–89.
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

23
Lee teaches the benefits of customized advertising and offers to send
to groups (clusters) of users connected on a social network. The teachings
complement Kramer’s targeted advertising to groups (clusters) of user who
are connected on a social networking system and located at the same venue.
Lee’s teachings would improve Kramer’s system similarly. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims 18, 19, 35–39,
47–51 and 56–59, which fall with claim 11.
Rejections of Dependent Claims 20, 29, 30, 34, 41, 42, 46, and 53–55
Appellant argues that the references relied on to reject claims 20, 29,
30, 34, 41, 42, 46, and 53–55 do not remedy the deficiencies of Kramer and
Lee and thus all pending claims are patentably distinguishable over the cited
references. Appeal Br. 15. To the extent this argument asserts patentability
of these claims based on their dependency from an independent claim4, this
argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for the rejection
of the independent claims. This argument also does not allege error by the
Examiner in rejecting these dependent claims (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(each ground of rejection contested by an appellant must be argued under a
separate heading identifying the ground of rejection, claim number, statutory
basis, and applied reference(s) explaining why the examiner erred as to each
ground of rejection so contested)). Thus, we sustain the rejections of these
dependent claims as well.

4 Claims 20, 29, 30, and 34 depend directly from claim 11. Claims 41, 42,
and 46 depend directly from independent claim 39. Claims 53–55 depend
directly from independent claim 51. See Appeal Br. 18–25 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

24
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51 53–59
112, first
paragraph
Lack of written
description
11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51 53–
59

11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51 53–59
112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51 53–
59

11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51 53–59
101 Patent eligibility 11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51 53–
59

11, 18, 19,
35–39, 47–
51, 56–59
103(a) Kramer, Lee 11, 18, 19,
35–39, 47–
51, 56–59

20 103(a) Kramer, Lee,
Kendall
20
29, 30, 41,
42, 53, 54
103(a) Kramer, Lee,
Krishnareddy
29, 30, 41,
42, 53, 54

34, 46, 55 103(a0 Kramer, Lee,
Gyongyi
34, 46, 55
1–3, 6–8,
10–12, 15–
21
101 Patent eligibility 1–3, 6–8,
10–12, 15–
21

Overall
Outcome
11, 18–20,
29, 30, 34–
39, 41, 42,
46–51, 53–
59

Appeal 2019-004405
Application 13/681,198

25
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