Navar, Murgesh et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 20202019005295 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/550,563 07/16/2012 Murgesh Navar TE2-016 1015 138557 7590 05/04/2020 Polsinelli LLP - TE2 3 Embarcadero Center Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111 EXAMINER WINTER, JOHN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 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): sfpatent@polsinelli.com uspt@polsinelli.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MURGESH NAVAR and GEORGE MCMULLEN Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 Technology Center 3600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Blazer and Flip Flops, Inc. dba The Experience Engine.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 2 APPELLANT’S INVENTION According to Appellant: “The present invention generally concerns social marketing . . . [and] particularly relates to a customer loyalty and gifting application.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below with added emphases, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for tailored messaging, the method comprising: receiving, from a first mobile computing device, a location of the first mobile computing device as identified via a positioning receiver of the first mobile computing device; storing a business location associated with a business; receiving a preference indicator associated with a first user of the first mobile computing device, the preference indicator indicative of a preference of the first user; executing instructions stored in memory, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to: identify that the location of the first mobile computing device is within a specified distance of the business location associated with the business, and generate an offer associated with the business that is tailored to the first user by selecting a particular product of a plurality of products associated with the business based on the preference indicator and by selecting a discount for the particular product; transmitting the offer to the first mobile computing device automatically in response to identifying that the location of the first mobile computing device is within the specified distance from the business location; receiving an acceptance of the offer via a network interface, wherein the acceptance of the offer indicates completion of a purchase of the particular product from the business in accordance with the offer; and Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 3 transmitting a reward to the first mobile computing device in response to receipt of the acceptance of the offer via the network interface. Appeal Br., Claims Appendix. REJECTIONS Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception. Ans. 3–5; Final Act. 2–4. Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allos (US 7,912,751 B1; Mar. 22, 2011), Flake (US 2008/0005104 A1; Jan. 3, 2008), and Scofield (US 9,516,470 B1; Dec. 6, 2016). Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 5–11. 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–22 For the § 101 rejection, Appellant argues claims 1–22 as a group. Appeal Br. 9. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in this rejection of claim 1 and accordingly sustain this rejection of claims 1– 22. Principles of Law 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 Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 4 and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217−18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75−77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219−20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594−95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent-eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267−68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 5 protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. PTO Guidance The PTO provides guidance for 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).2 Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: 2 The Answer was mailed after the Guidance’s publication. Because the Guidance revises examination for patent-eligibility (84 Fed. Reg. at 50), we take the Answer as incorporating only the Final Action’s statements that are material under the Guidance. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1) (“An Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 6 (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, and mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)−(c), (e)−(h) (9th ed. 2018)). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52−55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then conclude the claim is directed to a judicial exception (id. at 54) and look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (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. Step 1: Does Claim 1 Fall within a Statutory Category? There is no dispute that the claimed subject matter falls within a 35 U.S.C. § 101 category of patentable subject matter. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53−54 (“Step 1”). examiner’s answer is deemed to incorporate all of the grounds of rejection set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken.”). Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 7 Step 2A(1):3 Does Claim 1 Recite Any Judicial Exceptions? We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites judicial exceptions. See October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update at 1 (meaning of “describe”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the Guidance Update). Specifically, we agree the unemphasized limitations of reproduced claim 1 (supra 2–3) recite a process of “providing a referral for a good or service” (Final Act. 4) that includes “generating an offer based on a preference and a location . . . [and constitutes] a certain method of organizing human activity” (Ans. 3). See also Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” including “commercial . . . interactions” such as “advertising, marketing or sales activities”). We also agree the unemphasized limitations 3 The Guidance separates the enumerated issues (1) to (4) (see supra 6–7) into the following Steps 2A(1), 2A(2), and 2B: The [revised] procedure . . . focuses on two aspects [of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2A)]: (1) [w]hether the claim recites a judicial exception; and (2) whether a recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. [W]hen a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, . . . further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B) . . . is needed . . . in accordance with existing USPTO guidance as modified in April 2018. 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (referencing, via the omitted footnote, “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 [ . . . ‛USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum’]”). Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 8 require “nothing [that] precludes the step[s] from practically being performed in the mind.” Ans. 3; see also Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (“[m]ental processes” including “observation [and] evaluation”). We add that the unemphasized limitations also encompass the long-standing activity of a broker. See Final Act. 4 (“providing a referral”). For example, claim 1 reads on activities such as (claim language in parentheses): a prospective customer (“first user”) contacts a professional services broker having a record (“storing”), e.g., a Rolodex® or mental recollection, of pertinent professionals and their respective specialties; the customer states their location (“receiving . . . a location”) and needs (“receiving a preference indicator”); the broker determines a professional of suited location (“identify that the location . . . is within a specified distance of the business location”), price (“selecting a discount for the particular product”), and qualities (“selecting a particular product of . . . the business based on the preference indicator”); the broker offers a contract for services by the determined professional and in accordance with the customer’s needs (“generate an offer associated with the business that is tailored to the first user . . . [and] in response to identifying that the location . . . is within the specified distance from the business location”); the customer accepts the offer by making or promising payment (“receiving an acceptance of the offer . . . indicat[ing] . . . purchase of the particular product . . . in accordance with the offer”); and the broker thanks the customer (“transmitting a reward . . . in response to receipt of the acceptance”). For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions. Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 9 Step 2A(2): Are the Recited Judicial Exceptions Integrated Into a Practical Application? We agree with the Examiner that claim 1’s additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53 (describing a “practical application” as a “meaningful limit on the [recited judicial exceptions], such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [exceptions]”). Specifically, we agree the emphasized limitations of reproduced claim 1 (supra 2–3) constitute additional elements of a mobile computing device, processor, memory, and network interface. Ans. 3; Final Act. 4. We also agree claim 1 recites both the mobile computing device’s providing of the device’s location and first user’s preference indicator at a high-level of generality. Ans. 3. We further agree claim 1 recites the processor, memory, and network interface as performing functions routinely used in computer applications. Final Act. 4. We add the additional elements provide an ordered combination of activities. All the claimed activities are performed by the mobile computing device, processor, memory, network interface, and an unspecified entity (e.g., performs the claimed storing). To simplify our analysis, we review claim 1 as though the processor, memory, and unspecified entity are part of a same server. See Spec. ¶16, Fig. 1. By this simplification (which is encompassed by the claim scope), the mobile computing device identifies its position via its positioning receiver and provides the server both the location and preference indicator. The server stores a location of a business (e.g., of many businesses), receives both the device’s location and preference indicator, determines the device’s location is within a specified distance of the business location, and generates an offer (for the first user) by selecting Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 10 both a product of the business based on the preference indicator and a discount for the product. The server then automatically transmits the offer to the mobile computing device in response to determining the device is within the specified distance of the business location, receives an acceptance of the offer indicating a completed purchase of the product in accordance with the offer, and transmits a reward to the mobile computing device in response to the acceptance. The network interface passes the acceptance to the server and passes the reward from the server to the mobile computing device. We further add that claim 1’s labeling of the mobile computing device as a “computing” device and the server as “executing instructions stored in memory” is inconsequential because a mere instruction to implement a process on a computer cannot impart patent-eligibility. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]n abstract idea does not move into § 101 eligibility territory by merely requiring generic computer implementation.”). Similarly, claim 1’s labeling of the offer’s transmission as “automatic” is inconsequential because a mere instruction to automate cannot impart patent-eligibility. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim cannot become eligible by reciting that physical automation is accomplished by a machine or that logical automation is accomplished by a computer.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The claimed use of the network interface is also inconsequential because it merely connects the mobile computing device and server. See Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324– 25 (“[T]he claims add only generic computer components such as an interface, network, and database[, which] . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The remaining Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 11 additional elements constitute an allocation of computer activities to a client-server architecture, which is also inconsequential. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating the combination of a generic telephone and connected server does not alone add an inventive concept). Of course, the particular allocations must be considered. We consider them in view of MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). See Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, nn.25, 27–32 (citing each of these MPEP sections “for more information concerning” the Guidance’s “exemplary considerations . . . indicative [of] a practical application” (id. at 55)).4 For the below reasons, parts (a)–(c) and (e)–(h) show the ordered combination of activities does not integrate the identified judicial exceptions (supra 8–9) into a practical application. We start with parts (f) and (g)—and (g) first—because of their greater pertinence to claim 1. MPEP § 2106.05(g) concerns “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.” MPEP at 2100-67–69. Specifically, it concerns whether “the additional elements add more than . . . activities incidental to the primary process or product.” Id. at 2100-67. Having reviewed Appellant’s claim 1, Specification, and arguments, we find no indication that claim 1’s additional elements are more than incidental to the invention’s primary aim of providing a “customer loyalty and gifting application that allows . . . users to discover, purchase, and share offers from vendors and earn and redeem rewards” (Spec. ¶ 2 (“field of the invention”)). And rather, we find the 4 Appellant should bear in mind that the parts (a)–(c) and (e)–(h) are not intended to be separately dispositive. MPEP § 2106.05.I.A at 2100 46. They are collectively considered. Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 12 claimed allocation of activities to a client device and server is merely a natural consequence of utilizing a client-server architecture—e.g., naturally using the client device to enter a customer’s location and preferences and using a server and database to access voluminous information (a database describing businesses). See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328–29 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“particular data source” example MPEP § 2106.05(g) at 2100-68)) (holding database is “token post solution components” if a “natural consequence of carrying out the abstract idea in a computing environment”). We also find the claimed client-server architecture is analogous to MPEP § 2106.05(g)’s examples of insignificant extra-solution activity inasmuch that the client device is used only as a data gathering element (inputting the customer location and preferences) and output element (implicitly displaying the offer and reward). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) at 2100-68–69 (analogous examples include “obtain input for an equation” (id. at 2100-68) and “printing or downloading generated menus”). MPEP § 2106.05(f) concerns “Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.” MPEP at 2100-63. Specifically, it concerns the “particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.” Id. at 2100-66–67. We address this consideration with reference to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which is twice cited by MPEP § 2106.05(f) andthat addresses a patent-eligible software implementation of an abstract idea (McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307, 1316). Equating an abstract idea to a “result,” McRO held the claim patent-eligible because it recites a “means” sufficiently specific to prevent preemption. Id. at 1314. McRO explains: Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 13 The preemption concern arises when the claims are not directed to a specific invention and instead . . . abstractly cover results where it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished. . . . We therefore look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology. Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In holding the claim overcame this concern, McRO identified a claimed means (“first set of rules”) that applied unconventional data (“a keyframe at a point that no phoneme is being pronounced,” i.e., at a “phoneme sub-sequence”) to the abstract idea (use of “morph weights” to lip-synchronize animation) and thereby prevented preemption of the abstract idea. Id. at 1306–07, 1309 (comparison of morph-weighting and invention’s specific morph-weighting), 1311 (claim interpretation emphasizing phoneme sub-sequences), 1314–15 (analysis emphasizing appointment of keyframes to phoneme sub-sequences). Whereas the above “means” of McRO’s claim prevents preemption of the recited abstract idea, we find no indication that claim 1’s additional elements prevent preemption of the recited judicial exceptions. And rather, there is a plain risk that claim 1 would preempt use of ubiquitous client-server architectures to perform the judicially-excepted combination of activities (i.e., to determine a prospective customer’s location and preferences, find a proximate business, generate a discounted product offer based on the preferences, provide the offer if/while the customer is proximate to the business location, and then receive and reward purchase of the product). MPEP § 2106.05(a) concerns “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field.” MPEP at 2100-50. Specifically, it concerns “whether the claim purports to improve Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 14 computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool.” Id. at 2100-51–52. We find no indication that the invention improves computer capabilities. And rather, we find the invention’s computer technology merely allocates the recited judicial exceptions to a client device and server. MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c) respectively concern use of a “Particular Machine” and “Particular Transformation.” MPEP at 2100-54, 56 (transformation must be “of an article”). We find no indication that the invention uses a particular machine or performs a particular transformation. MPEP § 2106.05(e) concerns “Other Meaningful Limitations.” MPEP at 2100-62. Specifically, it concerns whether the claim “limitations [go] beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Id. It also describes, as an example of limitations falling short of this threshold, a “data processing system and communications controllers . . . [that] merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment[,] i.e., ‛implementation via computers’.” Id. (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 226). We find the claimed additional elements likewise merely link the recited judicial exceptions to data processing and communication, because the additional elements merely allocate the judicially-excepted activities to a client device and server. MPEP § 2106.05(h) concerns “Field of Use and Technological Environment.” MPEP at 2100-69. Specifically, it concerns whether an industry-specific claim limitation is “integrated into the claim” or rather does “not alter or affect how the process steps . . . were performed.” Id. at 2100-70; see also Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1311 (“The Pythagorean Theorem cannot be made eligible by confining its use to existing surveying techniques Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 15 [because] . . . such field-of-use limitations . . . describe only the context[,] rather than the manner[,] of achieving a result.”). We find no indication that claim 1’s industry-specific limitations alter how the invention performs the claimed steps. For example, we find no difference between the claimed storing of a business location, determining of a product accordant to preferences, communicating of an acceptance and reward, etc., and how a server would generally store, correlate, and communicate information. For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to judicial exceptions— not to a practical application. Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Recite Anything That Is Beyond the Recited Judicial Exceptions and Not a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (“WURC”) Activity? We agree Appellant’s Specification indicates the claimed uses of the processor and network were well known in the art. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 19); see also Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19–20). We further agree with the Examiner’s consideration of the other additional elements in view of SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Ans. 4. We add SiRF distinguished the at-issue claim’s specific GPS determination—using a “pseudorange” (Ans. 4)—from conventional GPS technology by describing conventional and unconventional aspects of GPS. SiRF, 601 F.3d at 1322–23. By those descriptions, SiRF plainly shows Appellant’s claim 1 recites a conventional use of the “position . . . receiver” to report a position. We further add, for the reasons expressed at Step 2A(2), the ordered combination of judicial exceptions and additional elements adds inconsequential features such as the client-server architecture and natural Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 16 allocation of the claimed activities to the client device used by a customer and server used by the business serving the customer. See supra 9–12; see also In re TLI, 823 F.3d at 613 (mere combination of a telephone unit and server was WURC); Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere combination of client device, server, and Internet network is WURC). We find no indication, for example, the claimed invention adds more than the ubiquitous client-server functions of: entering and displaying customer-specific data at a client device; and performing needed processing of voluminous information at a server and its database. For the foregoing reasons, the claimed combination of judicial exceptions and additional elements consists of judicial exceptions and merely appended WURC features. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive and do not show the Examiner erred. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[T]he burden of . . . [r]ebuttal is . . . a showing of facts supporting the opposite conclusion.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). For example, the arguments do not present evidence or reasoning that indicates: a claim feature was wrongly identified as a judicial exception or WURC activity; or a combination of claim features prevents preemption of the recited judicial exceptions. Our above determinations address each of the arguments. We address the principal arguments, below, for emphasis. Appellant contends: [Claim 1] employ[s] a new type of file—the generated offer— that enables a messaging system to do things that it could not do before, such as providing an offer tailored to a specific user Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 17 through selection of a product based on preferences associated with the user. In providing such tailored offers for different users, messaging is tailored for different users much like the claims in Finjan[, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)]. Finally, the Appellant’s claims recite specific steps that accomplish this desired result like the claims in Finjan. Appeal Br. 9 (original emphases omitted); see also id. at 10 (“[Claim 1] generate[s] new content—an offer tailored to a user.” (emphasis omitted)). We are unpersuaded for each of two reasons. First, tailoring information to a person’s preferences is an abstract idea. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Tailoring an advertisement based on demographics is a “fundamental … practice long prevalent in our system.” (alteration in original)). Second, unlike Finjan’s patent-eligible claim, Appellant’s argued claim features do not focus on “computer functionality itself.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304–05; see, e.g., id. at 1304 (“[A] ‘behavior-based’ virus scan . . . is distinguished from traditional, ‘code-matching’ virus scans . . . . The question, then, is whether this behavior-based virus scan . . . constitutes an improvement in computer functionality.”); see also supra 11–15 (discussion of MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)– (c) and (e)–(h)). Appellant contends: “SiRF concluded . . . a positioning receiver imposes a ‘meaningful feature’ on the claims’ mathematical operations . . . [and ‘]improve[s] an existing technology (global positioning) . . . to extend the usefulness of the technology.’” Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing SiRF, 601 F.3d at 1332). Appellant further contends: “[T]he Examiner is excluding the claimed mobile computing device from consideration in Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 18 contravention of the 2019 Revised Guidance.” Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded because, contrary to Appellant’s argument, SiRF held the claimed invention included an unconventional GPS device and thereby tied the abstract idea to a machine sufficiently specific to impose a meaningful restriction. SiRF, 601 F.3d at 1332. Appellant’s claim 1 rather recites a generic “positioning receiver” performing its WURC function of merely identifying a location. Thus, in addressing SiRF, the Examiner shows the claimed mobile computing device adds only WURC activity. Appellant contends: With regard to the second step of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis, the Office Action states that “Official Notice is taken that a processor, a network interface are well known in transaction processes” and thus purportedly amount to “[g]eneric computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities.” . . . Appellant now again respectfully challenges the citation to Official Notice[.] Appeal Br. 11 (citing Final Act. 4); 12 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded because the Examiner has twice provided support for the above official notice. Final Act. 3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19–20); Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶ 20). Appellant contends: “Although the Examiner’s Answer characterizes the claims as purportedly ‘cover[ing] an advertising process,’ no evidence whatsoever is provided to support such contention. Reply Br. 7 (emphasis omitted, alteration in original) (citing Ans. 3). We are unpersuaded because, as discussed, claim 1 encompasses commercial interactions falling under the Guidance’s judicial-exception categories—namely under “certain method[s] of organizing human activity.” Supra 7–8. Further, there are plainly Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 19 advertising aspects of the claimed invention and, more particularly, targeted marketing aspects such as offering a product discount to the mobile computing device’s user based on their location and rewarding a consequent purchase. Appellant contends: “Although the Examiner’s Answer . . . [states ‘]nothing in the claim element precludes the [mobile computing device’s] step[s] from practically being performed in the mind,’ the human mind is physically incapable of communicating with mobile devices.” Reply Br. 7 (quoting Ans. 3). We are unpersuaded because Appellant mischaracterizes the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner’s contested statement is referencing the Guidance’s instruction that, “[i]f a claim . . . covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner’s point is plainly that, but for claim 1 reciting some steps as being performed by a mobile computing device and its position receiver, the mobile device’s steps are mentally performable. We agree because, as an example, people routinely determine and communicate their location and preferences. Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown the claimed additional elements add only generic functions and WURC activity to the invention. Reply Br. 8–12. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner has provided SiRF and the Specification’s paragraphs 19 and 20 as evidence that the claimed invention can be achieved by generic devices performing their Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 20 generic functions and WURC activity. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4–5. Appellant does not provide sufficient rebuttal evidence. Appellant contends: “[The] mobile computing device, the positioning receiver, the memory, the processor, and the network interface . . . are part of an ordered arrangement used to perform the specifically claimed method for geolocation-based tailoring of automated messages.” Reply Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded because the “ordered arrangement” of these elements is simply the generic structure of client-server architecture, whereby a client device connects through a network interface to a server having a processor and memory (just as any computer has). We find there is no indication that this ubiquitous arrangement performs non-WURC computer activity in performing “geolocation-based tailoring of automated messages.” Id. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–22 For the § 103(a) rejection, Appellant argues claims 1–22 as a group. Appeal Br. 12–14. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the following reasons, we are unpersuaded of error in this rejection of claim 1 and accordingly sustain this rejection of claims 1– 22. Claim 1 stands rejected as obvious over Allos, Flake, and Scofield. Claim 1 recites in disputed part: generate an offer associated with the business that is tailored to the first user by selecting a particular product of a plurality of products associated with the business based on the preference indicator and by selecting a discount for the particular product; Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 21 Appellant contends the Examiner erred by finding Scofield teaches or suggests the above feature. Id.; Reply Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant acknowledges that Scofield tailors advertisements according to demographic information, but contends the advertisements do not present a particular product that is selected based on a preference indicator nor present a discount for a particular product. Id. We are unpersuaded of error. As the Examiner finds, Scofield’s Fig. 4 embodiment teaches an advertisement that is displayed on a cellphone and tailored to the cellphone’s user. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 5. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Scofield teaches the advertisement’s presented products and discount can be directed to a particular product of a store. Scofield, col. 13, ll. 58–66. Scofield also teaches an advertised product and discount can be selected based on the user’s demographic information and past purchases, which show what products the user is likely to purchase, e.g., high-end clothing. Id. at col. 13, l. 60–col. 14, l. 10. We accordingly agree with the Examiner that Scofield teaches or suggests, as claimed, generating an offer associated with a business (advertised coupon) that is tailored to a user by selecting a particular product associated with the business (particular clothing of a store) based on the preference indicator (demographic information and/or past purchases) and by selecting a discount for the particular product (discount amount, e.g., 10%). Appeal 2019-005295 Application 13/550,563 22 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–22 101 Eligibility 1–22 1–22 103(a) Allos, Flake, Scofield 1–22 Overall Outcome 1–22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation