Rodrigo Pierzchalski. Carvalho

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2019

13841136 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2019)

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.
13/841,136 03/15/2013 Rodrigo Pierzchalski Carvalho 072031.91US2 2258
34018 7590 10/04/2019
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
GILLS, KURTIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2019 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RODRIGO PIERZCHALSKI CARVALHO
____________

Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CARL L. SILVERMAN,
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to pricing of products in the retail
industry by gaining knowledge of a competitor’s pricing for a product and
setting an alert that is triggered by the competitor’s pricing. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 11.

1 Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Home Depot Product
Authority, LLC, and The Home Depot, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

2

Exemplary Claims
1. A method for providing competitive price alerts, the method
comprising:
identifying a product from product information received
from a user;
crawling a plurality of internet domains to generate a
competitor set, the competitor set comprising a plurality of
competitors offering the product through at least one domain of
the Internet domains;
generating a rule set from rule information received from
a user, the rule set comprising at least one rule to be applied to
the product and each competitor in the competitor set, the at
least one rule comprising a desired relationship between a price
offered by the user for the product and respective prices offered
by one or more competitors from the competitor set for the
product;
searching the product against each competitor to
determine if the at least one rule has been broken, wherein
determining if the at least one rule has been broken comprises
determining if the desired relationship is no longer true; and
automatically transmitting an alert to the user in response to
determining that the at least one rule has been broken, the alert
informing the user that the at least one rule has been broken.

12. A system for providing competitive price alerts, the
system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor, the processor configured to:
identify a product from product information
received from a user;
crawl a plurality of Internet domains to generate a
competitor set comprising a plurality of competitors,
wherein each competitor in the competitor set is an
organization that offers the product through at least one
domain of the Internet domains;
generate a rule set from rule information received
from a user, the rule set comprising at least one rule to be
applied to the product and each competitor in the
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

3

competitor set, the at least one rule comprising a desired
relationship between a price offered by the user for the
product and respective prices offered by one or more
competitors from the competitor set for the product;
search the product against each competitor in the
competitor set to determine if the at least one rule has
been broken, wherein determining if the at least one rule
has been broken comprises determining if the desired
relationship is no longer true; and
transmit an alert to the user in response to
determining the at least one rule has been broken, the
alert informing the user that the at least one rule has been
broken.
App. Br. 16, 18 (Claims Appendix).

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boyd et al. (US 2005/0256778 A1, published Nov. 17,
2005) in view of Odom (US 789,9701 B1, issued Mar. 1, 2001).

THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner determines the claims recite “an abstract idea of
‘fundamental economic practice’ (e.g. Alice) and/or of ‘an idea of itself'
(e.g. SmartGene and/or Ultramercial) and/or of ‘certain methods of
organizing human activity’ (e.g. Ultramercial) involving competitive

2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed
Apr. 28, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Aug. 8, 2017 (“App.
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 27, 2017 (“Ans.”); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed Dec. 12, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

4

pricing alerts with competitive pricing rules.” Final Act. 4–5. The
Examiner further determines that the additional elements including (1) a
processor and (2) a memory do not add significantly more than the abstract
idea, but merely recite generic computing components. Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case that
the claims recite an abstract idea. App. Br. 6–8. The Appellant additionally
argues the claimed inventions do not pose a risk of tying up the field of
competitive pricing alerts with competitive pricing rules. App. Br. 7–8.
Appellant adds that, similar to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed invention
as a whole amounts to significantly more than the purported abstract idea by
reciting an unconventional solution to a technical problem, necessarily
rooted in computer technology, and involving alerting a user (e.g. retailer)
when a competitor’s price has changed to give the user specific information
to guide future price adjustments. App. Br. 9–10.

ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claimed
invention as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on
whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether
additional elements recited—considered individually and as an ordered
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

5

combination—transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible
application of that abstract idea.

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. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citation omitted).
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, 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
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

6

(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1853))); 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 176; 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.”). That
said, 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. (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 (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).
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

7

“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under that
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
(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. Rev. 08. 2017, Jan.
2018)).
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, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

8

THE INELIGIBILITY ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite analogous limitations. Appellant
presents a unitary argument directed towards independent claims 1 and 12
together. App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we select claim 12 for discussion as
representative of the rejected claims. We refer to the rejected independent
claims collectively herein as “claim 12.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In
re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We must determine whether the claimed invention is directed to a
judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. To
this end, we determine (1) whether claimed invention recites a judicial
exception (Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1) and, if so, (2) whether the
identified judicial exception is integrated into a practical application
(Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52–55.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
In Revised Step 2A –– Prong 1, we (1) identify the claim’s specific
limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the
identified limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a)
mathematical concepts;3 (b) certain methods of organizing human activity4;

3 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
4 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

9

or (c) mental processes.5 We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4–5) that
claim 12 recites a judicial exception. Here, apart from (1) a processor and
(2) a memory recited in independent claim 12, the claimed invention’s
recited limitations, which collectively are directed to gathering and
comparing product price data and transmitting an alert based on the
comparison, fit squarely within at least one of the above categories of the
agency’s guidelines.
First, the claimed invention recites steps directed to certain methods
of organizing human activity, including a fundamental economic
practice of offer based price optimization. See Spec. ¶ 7 (“Given the high
volume and frequency of online price changes for products and the growing
number of retailers, these [current] methods are ineffective and inefficient.
To this end, there is a need for improved systems and methods for
competitive intelligence relating to pricing in the retail industry”); ¶ 11
(“system operable to . . . gain knowledge on . . . each competitor's pricing of
the products . . . generate an alert when a competitors pricing on the product
violates a rule set up by a customer”); ¶ 13 (alert condition may be met when
the price of a competitor’s product drops below the price of the same
product . . . for a customer”); Claim 13 (“compare a price offered by the user
. . . to a price offered by the at least one competitor”); ¶ 23 (“Customers may
also be alerted of a recommended pricing of a product”).

or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

10

For example, claim 12 recites (1) “identify a product from product
information received from a user; (2) “crawl a plurality of Internet
domains to generate a competitor set comprising a plurality of competitors,
wherein each competitor in the competitor set is an organization that offers
the product through at least one domain of the Internet domains; (3)
generate a rule set from rule information received from a user, the rule set
comprising at least one rule to be applied to the product and each
competitor in the competitor set, the at least one rule comprising a desired
relationship between a price offered by the user for the product and
respective prices offered by one or more competitors from the competitor
set for the product; (4) search the product against each competitor in the
competitor set to determine if the at least one rule has been broken, wherein
determining if the at least one rule has been broken comprises determining if
the desired relationship is no longer true; and (5) transmit an alert to the
user in response to determining the at least one rule has been broken, the
alert informing the user that the at least one rule has been broken (App. Br.
18 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added)), which recite a certain method of
organizing human activity, namely, a fundamental economic practice of
offer based price optimization. The relevant case law establishes limitations
(1)–(5) are directed to an abstract idea, like: (1) the risk hedging in Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); (2) the intermediated settlement in Alice,
573 U.S. at 220; (3) verifying credit card transactions in CyberSource, 654
F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); (4) guaranteeing transactions in buySAFE,
Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (5) distributing
products over the Internet in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709
(Fed. Cir. 2014); (6) determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

11

organization in Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306
(Fed. Cir. 2015); and (7) pricing a product for sale in OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.
3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the claims at issue recited “(1) testing a
plurality of prices; (2) gathering statistics generated about how customers
reacted to the offers testing the prices; (3) using that data to estimate
outcomes; and (4) automatically selecting and offering a new price based on
the estimated outcome” Id. at 1361 (parentheticals omitted). Our reviewing
court found that such limitations recited certain methods of organizing
human activities, which is a type of abstract idea, namely, the concept of
“offer-based price optimization”. Id. at 1362. Similar to OIP Technologies,
claim 12 includes steps reciting (1)–(2) gathering data related to product
pricing offers, (3) generating a user (e.g., customer, retailer) based rule
related to a pricing comparison, (4) using competitor pricing data to
determine a pricing related communication to send to a user, and (5)
transmitting the pricing related communication to the user. See also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 at 1313 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“receiving e-mail (and other data file) identifiers, characterizing
email based on the identifiers, and communicating the characterization – in
other words, filtering files/e-mail –is an abstract idea”); see also M.P.E.P.
2106.04(a)(2), II (“Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”,
Section D, example v, citing Symantec); Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d
1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“receiving data from one source, selectively
forwarding the data, and forwarding reply data to the first source”
constituted certain methods of organizing human activities, which is a type
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

12

of abstract idea); M.P.E.P. 2106.04(a)(2), II (“Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity”, Section A, citing Dealertrack).
Similar to the data gathering (1)–(2) and selective transmission of
content based on user characteristics, such a user submitted pricing rule (3),
shown above, our reviewing court in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) found that retrieving data
from a user and tailoring transmitted content based on the retrieved data
constituted certain methods of organizing human activities, which is a type
of abstract idea. 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–1370; see also M.P.E.P.
2106.04(a)(2), II (“Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”,
Section C, citing Capital One Bank (USA)).
Specifically, limitations (1)–(3) recite gathering data such as product
information received from a user, rule information received from a user, and
prices offered by one or more competitors in furtherance of organizing
human activity, namely, a fundamental economic practice. In Symantec, our
reviewing court found claim limitations reciting
identifying characteristics of data files comprising: receiving,
on a processing system, file content identifiers for data files
from a plurality of file content identifier generator agents
(emphasis added) constitute certain methods of organizing human activities,
which is a type of an abstract idea related to retrieving data using data file
identifiers. See Syamntec, 838 F.3d 1307 at 1313; see also Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1345–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding ineligible claims reciting (1)
receiving output representing diverse types of hard copy documents from an
automated digitizing unit, and (2) storing information from those documents
into memory); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

13

1372 (noting that limitations reciting obtaining information about
transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card
transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of
Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database).
Furthermore, limitations (4)–(5) recite using the data gathered in
limitations (1)–(3) to determine that wanted and unwanted content may be
defined according to prices offered by one or more competitors and user
input data and transmitting content to a user based on the determination.
Our reviewing court has found that email filtering with user–set criteria
constitutes certain methods of organizing human activities, which is a type
of abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
F.3d 1307 at 1313, 1317–1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also M.P.E.P.
2106.04(a)(2), II (“Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”,
Section D, example v, citing Symantec). Additionally, user customizable
content filtering of information retrieved from the Internet was similarly
found to constitute certain methods of organizing human activities, which is
a type of abstract idea. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345–1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also
M.P.E.P. 2106.04(a)(2), II (“Certain Methods of Organizing Human
Activity”, Section C, example i, citing BASCOM). These cases are relevant
because user–customization means that wanted and unwanted content may
be defined according to user related data. Retrieval of information defining
the wanted and unwanted content in a multi-user environment requires use
of the user related data. See, e.g., BASCOM, supra. Although the claimed
invention involves selectively transmitting competitor pricing content rather
than blocking or allowing access to requested content like these cases, the
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

14

use of recipient information to selectively transmit pricing content
transmitted to a user, i.e., steps (4)–(5), similarly recites a certain method of
organizing human activity that is an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Specification indicates limitation (4) “search the
product against each competitor in the competitor set to determine if the at
least one rule has been broken, wherein determining if the at least one rule
has been broken comprises determining if the desired relationship is no
longer true,” under an aspect of the invention, can be carried out by a simple
price data comparison. Spec. ¶ 13 (“an alert condition maybe met when the
price of a competitor's product drops below the price of the same
product/product type for a customer”). Our reviewing court in Capital One
Bank (USA) reviewed analogous claim limitations and determined tailoring
of content transmitted to a recipient based on “matching personal
characteristics in a user profile” with “information identifiers” is an abstract
idea constituting a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system, i.e., a
certain method of organizing human activity that is an abstract idea. 792
F.3d 1363, 1369–1370 (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also
M.P.E.P. 2106.04(a)(2), II (“Certain Methods of Organizing Human
Activity”, Section C, citing Capital One Bank (USA)).
We add that the above-noted recited functions of (3) “generate a rule
set from rule information received from a user”; and (4) “search the product
against each competitor in the competitor set to determine if the at least one
rule has been broken, wherein determining if the at least one rule has been
broken comprises determining if the desired relationship is no longer true”
can also be typically performed as a mental process by merely thinking
about these identifications and determinations, or writing them down—both
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

15

involving mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf. CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card
numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be
performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a
likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions
using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to
reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen
and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Therefore, the steps (3)–(4) also fall squarely within the mental
processes category of the agency’s guidelines and, therefore, claim 12
recites an abstract idea for that additional reason. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and
evaluation).
Accordingly, limitations (1)–(5) reciting gathering, analyzing,
organizing and displaying the analyzed and organized data falls squarely
certain methods of organizing human activity category of the agency’s
guidelines and, therefore, claim 12 recites an abstract idea. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary certain methods of
organizing human activity, including a fundamental economic practice).

Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Although claim 12 recites both an abstract idea categorized as a
certain method of organizing human activity and also an abstract idea
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

16

categorized as a mental process, we nevertheless must still determine
whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely
whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner
that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. To this end, we (1) identify
whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea,
and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine
whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id.
Here, we agree with the Examiner (e.g., Final Act. 4–6) that claim 1
recites a judicial exception apart from (1) a processor and (2) a memory
recited in independent claim 12, but these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the
claimed invention as a whole.
To the extent that Appellant contends that the recited limitations,
including the recited transmission of an alert to a user that a rule has been
broken, noted previously adds significantly more than the abstract idea to
provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two (see App. Br. 10),
this limitation is not an additional element beyond the abstract idea, but
rather are directed to the abstract idea as noted previously. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited elements should be
evaluated in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the
field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d))).
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

17

Appellant’s reliance on BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 34; App. Br.
9–10) is likewise unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed
to a technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame
existing problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known
filtering solution—namely a “one-size-fits-all” filter at an Internet Service
Provider (ISP)—more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at
the ISP. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering
solution improved the computer system’s performance and, therefore, was
patent-eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in
BASCOM that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the
claimed invention here uses generic computing components to implement an
abstract idea. See Spec. ¶ 59–60 (“any type of storage medium”); ¶ 64
(“processor . . . by any means known in the art”); ¶ 66 (“a ‘processor’
includes any . . . mechanism or component that processes data”).
To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention is rooted
in technology because it is ostensibly directed to solving an “internet–centric
problem” (see App. Br. 10), we disagree. Even assuming, without deciding,
that the claimed invention can solicit and evaluate product development
contributions received from participants, and compensate participants
according to that evaluation faster than doing so manually, any speed
increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components—
not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v.
Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact
that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

18

computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.”)); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity
Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“Though the
claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce
error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the
ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer do not materially alter
the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Like the claims in
FairWarning, the focus of claim 221 is not on an improvement in computer
processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Nor is this a case involving eligible subject matter as in DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) despite
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 10). There, instead of a
computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending a
website visitor to a third-party website apparently connected with a clicked
advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR generated and directed the
visitor to a hybrid page that presented (1) product information from the third
party, and (2) visual “look and feel” elements from the host website. DDR,
773 F.3d at 1258–59. Given this particular Internet-based solution, the court
held that the claimed invention did not merely use the Internet to perform a
business practice known from the pre-Internet world, but rather was
necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem
specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellant’s claimed
invention, in essence, is directed to optimizing price based on alerting a
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

19

retailer when a competitors’ price changes —albeit using computer-based
components to achieve that end. The claimed invention here is not
necessarily rooted in computer technology in the sense contemplated by
DDR where the claimed invention solved a challenge particular to the
Internet. Although Appellant’s invention uses various computer-based
components noted previously, the claimed invention does not solve a
challenge particular to the computing components used to implement this
functionality.
We find Appellant’s argument that the claimed invention does not
pose a risk of tying up the field of competitive pricing alerts with
competitive pricing rules unavailing. App. Br. 8. Our reviewing court
provides applicable guidance: “While preemption may signal patent
ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not
demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at 1346.
But “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphasis omitted); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“A narrow claim directed to an
abstract idea, however, is not necessarily patent-eligible.”). To the extent
Appellant also urges that the purportedly meaningful limitations are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional, we address this issue under Step
2B (Inventive Concept), infra. For the reasons discussed further below, and
on this record, it is our view that Appellant’s claims do not add meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment.
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

20

Additionally, dependent claims 2–11 and 13–22 are not argued
separately with sufficient particularity. See generally App. Br.; see also 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the above-stated reasons, we determine the
additional elements recited in the claimed invention, beyond the judicial
exceptions, whether considered alone or in combination, do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application.

Revised Guidance, Step 2B
Under the Revised Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial
exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation
beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
On the record before us, we disagree with Appellant that the claims
add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-
understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see M.P.E.P.
2106.05(d)). We find no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that additional elements, such (1) a processor and (2) a memory recited in
independent claim 12, are nothing more than generic elements using
conventional concepts. See Final Act. 5–6. In fact, the Specification
supports the Examiner’s finding that additionally recited elements are at best
generic computer elements performing generic computer functions, by
providing non-limiting and exemplary descriptions of generic computer
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

21

components that are used to carry out offer based price optimization. See
Spec. ¶ 59–60 (“any type of storage medium”); ¶ 64 (“processor . . . by any
means known in the art”); ¶ 66 (“a ‘processor’ includes any . . . mechanism
or component that processes data”).
Additionally, we find Appellant’s argument regarding the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) constitutes evidence the
claims are not conventional (App. Br. 10) to be unavailing. “‘. . . ‘Novelty’
of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no
relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within
the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.’” Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89). See also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151
(“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a
§ 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”)
(emphasis omitted); M.P.E.P. 2106.05 (“Because they are separate and
distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention
under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required
for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”).
Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2–11 and 13–22 separately
with particularity. See generally App. Br. In light of the foregoing, we
conclude that each of claims 1–22, considered as a whole, is directed to a
patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical
application, and does not include an inventive concept.
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

22

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1–22.6

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION

We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the findings,
legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in response to
Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 5–6). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.

Rejection of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 7
Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
generating a rule set from rule information received from a user, the
rule set comprising at least one rule to be applied to the product and
each competitor in the competitor set, the at least one rule comprising
a desired relationship between a price offered by the user for the

6 To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
7 Appellant did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
patentability of claims 2–22.
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

23

product and respective prices offered by one or more competitors from
the competitor set for the product;
…
automatically transmitting an alert to the user in response to
determining that the at least one rule has been broken, the alert
informing the user that the at least one rule has been broken.
(emphasis ours).
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the principal and
dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting exemplary claim
1 turns on whether Boyd discloses “at least one rule comprising a desired
relationship between a price offered by the user for the product and
respective prices offered by one or more competitors from the competitor set
for the product.” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”). App. Br. 10–15;
Reply Br. 4–6. Independent claim 12 recites similar subject matter.

Appellant contends “[n]either Boyd nor Odom discloses such an
alert…[because] those alerts are not related to a desired relationship between
the user’s price of a product and one or more competitors' prices.” App. Br.
11.
The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Boyd and has
provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts
of the reference for disclosing the “desired relationship” disputed limitation.
In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree
Boyd teaches generating a rule/constraint set from rule information
received from a user, e.g. group level incentive constraints selected by
the user, which is applied to product/channel combination, i.e. product
and competitive channel combination. The rule comprises a desired
relationship of, for example, 7% fixed amount for all choices in the
group….Boyd discloses teachings beyond the above stated limitations
by providing business pricing systems including business objective
Appeal 2018-001700
Application 13/841,136

24

rules comprising desired relationships providing for conditional based
alerts.
Ans. 6 (citing Boyd ¶ ¶ [0124], [0135], [0165], and [0158]).
The Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, has properly found that the “desired
relationship” disputed limitation reads upon Boyd’s disclosure, as explained
above.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the proper combinability
of the prior art references as suggested by the Examiner. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–22.
Consequently, we conclude there is no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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