PayPal, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 13, 20202019006199 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 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. 14/579,606 12/22/2014 Kane Sweeney 7879-47501 6738 156785 7590 07/13/2020 KHMRG (PayPal, Inc.) 1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy Building 2, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 EXAMINER CIRNU, ALEXANDRU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2020 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): patent_docketing@intprop.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KANE SWEENEY ____________ Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Pay Pal Inc. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellants’ claimed invention relates to the management of allocation of online resources (Spec. 2). Claim 8, reproduced below with the italics added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 8. A computer-implemented method comprising: for each particular advertisement of a first set of advertisements, receiving a corresponding original bid for an online resource space on an online retail platform of an online entity, each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements corresponding to a different advertiser; obtaining sales information related to historical sales of items offered for sale on a website; obtaining advertising information related to a second set of advertisements that are displayed with the items offered for sale on the website; applying machine learning to the sales information and the advertising information to determine an effect of the second set of advertisements on the sales of the items offered for sale on the website; for each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements, determining, based on the machine learning applied to the sales information and the advertising information, one or more cannibalization factors selected from a group of cannibalization factors consisting of: a likelihood of users selecting the particular advertisement as listed in the online resource space on the online retail platform over selecting organic sales listings of the items on the online retail platform and a likelihood of the users leaving the online retail platform due to the particular advertisement; for each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements, determining a corresponding handicap value independent of the corresponding original bid and that is based on the one or more cannibalization factors; for each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements, determining, by a machine having a memory and at least one processor, a corresponding effective bid for the online Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 3 resource space based on the corresponding original bid and the corresponding handicap value; selecting a specific advertisement of the first set of advertisements based on the effective bids of the first set of advertisements; assigning, in a database, the specific advertisement to the online resource space such that the specific advertisement is allocated to the online resource space; and causing the specific advertisement to be displayed on a computing device in response to a user-generated interrupt received from the computing device. THE REJECTION The following rejections is before us for review: Claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 8 is improper because the claim is not directed to an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 9–14). The Appellants argue further that the claim is integrated into a practical application (Appeal Br. 14–16). The Appellant argues further that the claim 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 4 recites significantly more than an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 2–7). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Final Action 2–8; Ans. 3–11). We agree with the Examiner. 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 and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk . . . .”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 5 such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (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 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. (internal 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.”). In January 2019, the published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 6 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” (see Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then 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. See Guidance. 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 (citation 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. The Specification at paragraph 2 states that the invention generally relates to the management of allocation of online resources. Here, the Examiner has determined that the claim sets forth the effects of ads on item sales, adjusting advertisement bids and the selection of advertisements based Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 7 on adjusted bid values, which is an abstract concept of commercial interaction in advertising activities and a method of organizing human activities and abstract concept. (Final Act. 3, Ans. 3). We substantially agree with the Examiner. We determine that the claim sets forth the subject matter in italics above that: [1] “for each particular advertisement of a first set of advertisements, receiving a corresponding original bid for an online resource space”; [2] “obtaining sales information related to historical sales of items”; [3] “obtaining advertising information related to a second set of advertisements that are displayed with the items offered for sale . . . determin[ing] an effect of the second set of advertisements on the sales of the items offered for sale on the website”; [4] “for each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements, determining . . . one or more cannibalization factors selected from a group of cannibalization factors consisting of: [5] a likelihood of users selecting the particular . . .” [6] “for each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements, determining a corresponding handicap value independent of the corresponding original bid and that is based on the one or more cannibalization factors”; [7] “for each particular advertisement of the first set of advertisements, determining, . . . a corresponding effective bid for the online resource space based on the corresponding original bid and the corresponding handicap value”; [8] “selecting a specific advertisement of the first set of advertisements based on the effective bids of the first set of advertisements”; [9] “assigning . . . the specific advertisement . . .such that the specific advertisement is allocated to the online resource space”; and [9] “causing the specific advertisement to be displayed on a computing device in response to a user-generated interrupt” which describes the concept the selection and assigning of advertisements Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 8 based on historical data of items for sale and other displayed information, which is a certain method of organizing human activity and a fundamental economic practice, i.e. a judicial exception. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea. In Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., (CAFC), 793 F. 3d 1306, 1333 it was held that determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies was held to be an abstract idea. A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs, LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, (Fed. Cir. 2015) at 1363 it was held that offer-based price optimization was directed to an abstract idea. We next determine whether the claim recites additional elements in the claim to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. The Revised Guidance references the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Here, the claims do not improve computer functionality, improve another field of technology, utilize a particular machine, or effect a particular physical transformation. Rather, we determine that nothing in the claims imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 9 For example, in the claim, the additional elements beyond the abstract idea are the recited online retail platform, website, and computing device. The claimed limitations of these elements “do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself,” do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic computer components. Further, the claim as a whole fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” the functions performed by the computer system at each step of the process are purely conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Turning to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, we determine that the claim does not contain an inventive concept sufficient to “transform” the abstract nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Considering the claim both individually and as an ordered combination fails to add subject matter beyond the judicial exception that is not well- understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Rather the claim uses well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the art and they are recited at a high level of generality. The Specification at Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 10 paragraphs 110–114 for example describes using conventional computer components such as a personal computer, memory, and communications network in a conventional manner. Here, the claimed generic computer components which are used to implement the claimed method are well understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Here, the claim has not been shown to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea. The Appellants at pages 11 and 12 of the Appeal Brief have also cited to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to show that the claim is not abstract but the claims in that case were not similar in scope to those here and were in contrast directed to a self-referential data table. The Appellants at page 3 of the Reply Brief have also cited to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) but the claims in that case are distinguished from this case in being directed to rules for lip sync and facial expression animation. For these above reasons the rejection of claim 8 is sustained. The Appellant has provided the same arguments for the remaining claims which are drawn to similar subject matter and the rejection of these claims is sustained as well for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2019-006199 Application 14/579,606 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–8, 10– 15, 17–20 101 Eligibility 1, 3–8, 10– 15, 17–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation