Yodle Web.com, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 10, 2020

14191802 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/191,802 02/27/2014 John F. Merryman 050906-1411 8523
24504 7590 02/10/2020
THOMAS | HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL ROAD, SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, IVAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2020 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
ozzie.liggins@tkhr.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN F. MERRYMAN, DENNIS LIPOVSKY, and
NATHANIEL STEVENS
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802
Technology Center 3600

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BENNETT, 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 31–57. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “[A]pplicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Yodle
Web.com, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to generating an online marketing campaign.
Spec., Title. Claim 31, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
31. A method for generating keywords to be used in an online
marketing campaign, the method comprising:
reviewing, via at least one computing device, a taxonomy
that specifies a marketing campaign template for at least one
business service category, the marketing campaign template
including a list of keywords that represent a best practices list of
keywords for the at least one business service category for use in
a search engine and/or online directory, a first portion of the list
of keywords corresponding to a search engine keyword to be
purchased, a second portion of the list of keywords
corresponding to a respective online directory category in which
to purchase a listing, the taxonomy being stored in a data store
that is accessible to the at least one computing device;
monitoring, via the at least one computing device,
interactions by a plurality of first client devices with one or more
network sites associated with a plurality of businesses to
determine a network activity campaign performance of a
plurality of online marketing campaigns of the plurality of
businesses, the plurality of online marketing campaigns created
to generate network traffic to the one or more network sites
associated with the plurality of businesses, individual online
marketing campaigns of the plurality of online marketing
campaigns being defined according to the marketing campaign
template including list of keywords associated with the at least
one business service category, and the list of keywords being
purchased by the plurality of businesses;
modifying, via the at least one computing device, the list
of keywords of the marketing campaign template based at least
in part on an evaluation of the network activity campaign
performance associated with at least one hundred of the plurality
of businesses, wherein modifying the list of keywords includes
at least one of adding or removing individual keywords based at
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

3
least in part on at least one of an underperformance or an
expected performance of the individual keywords;
generating, via the at least one computing device, a new
online marketing campaign in response to a request from a new
business, the request identifying the at least one business service
category and at least one new keyword that is not included in the
list of keywords, the new online marketing campaign being based
at least in part on the marketing campaign template including the
list of keywords for the at least one business service category and
the at least one new keyword, the at least one new keyword being
provided by the new business via a particular client device, and
the at least one new keyword being purchased for use in the new
online marketing campaign;
in response to generating the new online marketing
campaign for the new business, monitoring, via the at least one
computing device, one or more new interactions by a plurality of
second client devices with a network site associated with the new
business;
evaluating, via the at least one computing device, a
keyword performance of the at least one new keyword based at
least in part on the one or more new interactions with the network
site, the keyword performance being based at least in part on an
amount of website traffic and an amount of conversions
generated by the at least one new keyword;
determining, via the at least one computing device, that the
at least one new keyword satisfies at least one performance
criterion based at least in part on the keyword performance; and
in response to determining that the at least one new
keyword satisfies the at least one performance criterion,
modifying, via the at least one computing device, the marketing
campaign template by adding at least one new keyword to the list
of keywords for the at least one business service category.
Appeal Br. 43–45 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Carver US 8,180,760 B1 May 15, 2012
Horowitz US 2005/0097204 A1 May 5, 2005
Collins US 2007/0027759 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
White US 2009/0138445 A1 May 28, 2009
REJECTIONS
Claims 31–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–16.
Claims 31, 33, 34, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carver, Collins, and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”) as evidenced by Horowitz. Final Act. 17–38.
Claims 32, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carver, Collins, AAPA as evidenced by Horowitz,
and White. Final Act. 38–42.
Claims 38–41, 45, 46, and 51–54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carver and Collins. Final Act. 42–80.
Claims 42–44 and 55–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carver, Collins, AAPA as evidenced by Horowitz,
and White. Final Act. 81–84.
Claims 47–50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carver, Collins, and AAPA as evidenced by Horowitz.
Final Act. 84–90.

Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

5
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Standard for Patent Eligibility
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, our inquiry focuses on
whether the claims satisfy the two-step test set forth by the Supreme Court in
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The Court
instructs us to “first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept,” id. at 218 , and, in this case, the inquiry centers
on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If the initial threshold
is met, we then move to the second step, in which we “consider the elements
of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to
determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the
claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 78 (2012)).
The Court describes the second step as a search for “an ‘“inventive
concept”’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–
73).
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101 consistent with Alice and subsequent Federal Circuit decisions.
USPTO, 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
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

6
practice, or mental processes) (referred to Step 2A, prong 1 in
the Guidance); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h))
(referred to Step 2A, prong 2 in the Guidance).
See Guidance, 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 move to Step 2B of the Guidance. There, we 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, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion
The Examiner rejects claim 31 as being directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more under Alice. Final Act. 3–16. In the
first step of the Alice inquiry, the Examiner determines claim 31 is directed
to “a combination of abstract ideas, specifically mental acts of reviewing a
set of words in a best practices list that are advantageous to use for
marketing, adopting a marketing campaign that uses a ‘new’ keyword,
evaluating the performance of the ‘new’ keyword, if it performs well, adding
the ‘new’ keyword to the best practices list.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner
further determines claim 31 is abstract because:
The concept(s) described in claim [3]1 are not
meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts
to be abstract ideas. The claim, individually, as explained above,
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

7
is similar to court-identified abstract ideas. The claim, when
viewed as a whole or as a combination, is directed to a
combination of abstract ideas – namely creation of a searchable
structure of information (i.e. taxonomy, searchable based on
metric of viewership/clicks which is the “network activity” - See
Applicant’s Specification page 3, [lines] 29-32) (Intell. Ventures
v. Erie) and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
it, (Electric Power Group - collecting information on metric
related to popularity of keywords, analyzing the metrics (i.e.
ranking keywords based on number of clicks), and putting the
recommended ranked keywords in the taxonomy, for purposes of
a future user to utilize) and accordingly, the claim as a whole is
viewed as an abstract idea.
Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted).
Under Alice step 2, the Examiner determines that the claim does “not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to ‘significantly’
more than the judicial exception” because:
The claim, individually or as a whole, does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly
more” than the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea) because
the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the
claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more
than: an instruction to 1) apply the idea of collecting the data and
implementing the abstract idea on a computer . . . - or 2) generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry;
3) insignificant extra-solution (mere data gathering);
4) generally linking to a particular technological environment or
field of use[]. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional
claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to
transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of
the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. The claim fails to recite any
improvements to another technology or technical field,
improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a
particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

8
particular article to a different state or thing, adding
unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful
application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally
linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment.
Claim 31 is directed to steps involving a user “reviewing” via a
computer, and ending with a computer displaying the results of
the analysis by adding, via the computer, the keywords that has
more clicks to the list of keywords, but the limitations adds
nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. The steps of
“monitoring” a “network activity” involve receiving information
transmitted over a network (conventional computer function)
related to the number of clicks for various keywords.
Final Act. 9–10 (internal citations omitted).
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
because “the Office Action has taken the abstraction of the claims too far, in
a manner that the Supreme Court has cautioned against in Alice Corp.”
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant asserts the claims are dissimilar to those found
ineligible in prior cases because they “are directed towards improved
systems for generating and adaptively updating keywords and categories that
are optimized to generate traffic to a business’ web site and/or increase
revenue for the business.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further argues the
claims are dissimilar from prior cases in that “the present claims are directed
to adaptively updating a taxonomy specifying marketing campaign templates
to included keywords optimized to generate traffic to a business website
and/or increase revenue for the website based in part on the keywords.”
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further asserts the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea because the claims are similar to those found eligible in Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

9
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal
Br. 15–17.
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s determination under the
second step of the Alice inquiry. Appeal Br. 18–22. Appellant argues the
Examiner has failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support under
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) because “the Office
Action merely alleges that the claim recites conventional computer
components and conventional functions.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant further
asserts the claims include an inventive concept as an ordered combination,
similar to the invention in BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 21. Finally,
Appellant argues that the claims are eligible because they are similar to
those found eligible in Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d
1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) in that “the combination of these elements renders
these claims not merely a routine or conventional use of technology because
they achieve specific, technical solutions to problems in search engines and
online marketing campaigns for increasing network traffic, visibility, and
ultimately revenue for businesses.” Appeal Br. 22.
Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One 2
The Judicial Exception
Applying the Guidance, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred
in rejecting claim 31 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
The Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception

2 Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

10
to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Guidance identifies three
judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic
practices and commercial interactions (including . . . advertising, marketing
or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and (3) mental processes.
We focus our analysis on the second and third groupings—certain methods
of organizing human activity and mental processes.3
We conclude the limitations of claim 31 recite an abstract idea under
the Guidance. For example, the Claim 31 recites the limitation:
reviewing . . . a taxonomy that specifies a marketing
campaign template for at least one business service category, the
marketing campaign template including a list of keywords that
represent a best practices list of keywords for the at least one
business service category for use in a search engine and/or online
directory, a first portion of the list of keywords corresponding to
a search engine keyword to be purchased, a second portion of the
list of keywords corresponding to a respective online directory
category in which to purchase a listing, the taxonomy being
stored.
Appeal Br. 43 (Claims Appendix). This limitation recites both marketing (a
certain method of organizing human activity) and a mental process under the
Guidance. Reviewing a taxonomy for a marketing campaign is a marketing
activity. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2009) (holding

3 Appellant’s arguments against the § 101 rejection are made to the claims
generally. We treat claim 31 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(2018) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are
argued as a group or subgroup by Appellant, the Board may select a single
claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the
ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the
selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

11
methods “directed to organizing business or legal relationships in the
structuring of a sales force (or marketing company)” to be ineligible).
Moreover, such a review could be performed by a person mentally merely
by reading materials which describe the taxonomy.
Claim 31 also recites:
monitoring . . . interactions . . . associated with a plurality
of businesses to determine a . . . campaign performance of a
plurality of . . . marketing campaigns of the plurality of
businesses, the plurality of . . . marketing campaigns created to
generate . . . traffic to the one or more . . . sites associated with
the plurality of businesses, individual . . . marketing campaigns
of the plurality of . . . marketing campaigns being defined
according to the marketing campaign template including list of
keywords associated with the at least one business.
Appeal Br. 43 (Claims Appendix). This limitation also recites marketing
and advertising-related activity, and also is a mental process which can be
performed through observation. Claim 31 further recites:
modifying . . . the list of keywords of the marketing
campaign template based at least in part on an evaluation of the
. . . campaign performance associated with at least one hundred
of the plurality of businesses, wherein modifying the list of
keywords includes at least one of adding or removing individual
keywords based at least in part on at least one of an
underperformance or an expected performance of the individual
keywords.
Appeal Br. 43–44 (Claims Appendix). This limitation, like those before it,
recites another advertising-related activity. Here, it describes the familiar
practice of evaluating the success of a marketing campaign and changing the
campaign based on the results of those evaluation. Claim 31 additionally
recites:
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

12
generating, . . . a new . . . marketing campaign in response
to a request from a new business, the request identifying the at
least one business service category and at least one new keyword
that is not included in the list of keywords, the new online
marketing campaign being based at least in part on the marketing
campaign template including the list of keywords for the at least
one business service category and the at least one new keyword,
the at least one new keyword being provided by the new business
. . . , and the at least one new keyword being purchased for use
in the new . . . marketing campaign.
Appeal Br. 44 (Claims Appendix). Generating a new marketing campaign in
response to a request made by a business is also a marketing activity that is
an abstract concept under the Guidance. Although the limitation includes
specific details about the contents of the request, including the use of
specific keywords to include in the marketing campaign template, those
details do not alter the fundamental character of the recited process as an
advertising practice. Additionally, this step also could be performed by a
human with the aid of pen and paper merely by writing down a specification
for a new marketing campaign, including keywords to be purchased in
connection with that campaign. Claim 31 further recites:
in response to generating the new online marketing
campaign for the new business, monitoring . . . one or more new
interactions . . . with a . . . site associated with the new business;
evaluating . . . a keyword performance of the at least one
new keyword based at least in part on the one or more new
interactions with the . . . site, the keyword performance being
based at least in part on an amount of . . . traffic and an amount
of conversions generated by the at least one new keyword;
determining . . . that the at least one new keyword satisfies
at least one performance criterion based at least in part on the
keyword performance.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

13
Appeal Br. 44–45 (Claims Appendix). These limitations also recite abstract
ideas under the Guidance. These limitations reflect the customary practice
of monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of a new marketing
campaign. Moreover, each of these limitations recites a mental process
because they each can be performed by a person using observation
(“monitoring”), and exercising evaluation (“evaluating”), and judgment
(“determining”). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (describing mental
processes as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”). Claim 31 concludes with the
limitation:
in response to determining that the at least one new
keyword satisfies the at least one performance criterion,
modifying . . . the marketing campaign template by adding at
least one new keyword to the list of keywords for the at least one
business service category.
Appeal Br. 45 (Claims Appendix). This limitation, which recites modifying
a marketing campaign template based on performance evaluations, is a
commercial practice involving marketing, which is an abstract idea under the
Guidance. Additionally, this step could be performed by a person in their
mind with the aid of pen and paper merely by writing the new keyword
down on an existing list of keywords.
Accordingly, we conclude the claimed process for generating
keywords to be used in an online marketing campaign set forth in claim 31
recites judicial exceptions of both a mental process and of advertising and
marketing, which is a certain method of organizing human activity under the
Guidance.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

14
Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Having determined that the claim 31 recites a judicial exception, our
analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (citing MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Under the Guidance, limitations that are indicative of “integration into
a practical application” include:
1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other
technology or technical field — see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular
machine — see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to
a different state or thing — see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of “integration into a
practical application” include:
1. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial
exception, or merely include instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool
to perform an abstract idea — see MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

15
2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use — see
MPEP § 2106.05(h).
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (“Prong Two”).
As shown above, most of the claim limitations in claim 31 recite
abstract ideas. Additional to those abstract limitations, claim 31 recites that
(a) various process steps are performed by “at least one computing device,”
(b) the monitoring of interactions with a plurality of businesses involves
“interactions by a plurality of first client devices with one or more network
sites,” and (c) the marketing campaign is an “online” marketing campaign
and the performance tracked is “network activity campaign performance.”
We conclude that these limitations are insufficient to integrate the
recited judicial exception into a practical application. Each of these
limitations merely recite the use of conventional computer technology to
implement the otherwise abstract process on a computer network. It is well-
established, however, that the use of generic technology to implement an
abstract idea is insufficient to integrate it into a practical application. See
MPEP 2106.05(f) (explaining that it is not indicative of integration into a
practical application where the claims “merely include instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a
tool to perform an abstract idea”). Accordingly, we conclude claim 31 is
directed to a judicial exception.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

16
The Inventive Concept – Step 2B
Having determined the claim is directed to a judicial exception, we
proceed to evaluating 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 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56.
Our review of the Examiner’s rejection under Step 2B is guided by the
revised examination procedure published online by the USPTO on April 19,
2018, entitled “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP, Inc.)” (“Berkheimer Memorandum”), which imposed a new fact finding
requirement for Examiners applicable to rejections under § 101. Consistent
with the Berkheimer Memorandum, we agree with the Examiner that the
claim does not add specific limitations beyond what is well-understood,
routine, and conventional.
Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to satisfy the Berkheimer
requirements by failing to provide evidence that several limitations are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional under § 101. Appeal Br. 19. We
are not persuaded of Examiner error. Most of the claim limitations
Appellant asserts are not well-understood, routine, and conventional,
however, are themselves abstract. Appeal Br. 19–20 (asserting elements of
claim 31 are not well-understood, routine, and conventional). In Step 2B,
however, our analysis focuses on the additional elements—those beyond
what is abstract. SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

17
Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract
application realm.”). Moreover, the Examiner provides the requisite
evidence in the Examiner’s Answer, by citing cases discussed in MPEP
§ 2106.05(d) which show the well-understood, routine, and conventional
nature of the computer functions recited in the claim. Ans. 7–8.
Appellant argues claim 31 provides an inventive concept as an
ordered combination under the reasoning of BASCOM and Amdocs because
it is “related to generating and adaptively updating keywords and categories
that are optimized to generate traffic to a business’ web site and/or increase
revenue for the business.” Appeal Br. 21–23. We are not persuaded by this
argument. This alleged improvement is not an improvement to technology.
Rather, the alleged improvement is an improvement in marketing—an
improvement in the abstract idea itself. SAP Am. Inc., 898 F.3d at 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract
application realm.”).
Because the Examiner correctly concluded claim 31 is directed to a
judicial exception, and because Appellant does not identify any error in the
Examiner’s determination under step 2B of the Guidance, we sustain the
rejection of representative claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as well as of the
remaining claims.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
We reverse the rejections under § 103. Claim 31 recites the
limitation:
generating, via the at least one computing device, a new
online marketing campaign in response to a request from a new
business, the request identifying the at least one business service
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

18
category and at least one new keyword that is not included in the
list of keywords, the new online marketing campaign being based
at least in part on the marketing campaign template including the
list of keywords for the at least one business service category and
the at least one new keyword, the at least one new keyword being
provided by the new business via a particular client device.
Appeal Br. 44 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds Carver teaches this
limitation. Final Act. 24 (citing Carver col. 14, l. 65–col. 15, l. 29; col. 4,
ll. 32–47; Fig. 1).
Appellant argues Carver is deficient because Carver merely “discusses
an operator’s ability to add and/or remove keywords from an ad cluster.”
Appeal Br. 27. Appellant argues that nothing in Carver teaches any online
marketing campaign generated “in response to a request from a new
business” in which the request identifies “at least one business service
category and at least one new keyword that is not included in the list of
keywords.” Appeal Br. 27. We agree.
The cited portions of Carver make no mention of any request made by
a new business to generate a new online marketing campaign. The cited
portions generally describe that the system may analyze keyword groups to
create smaller clusters having greater semantic similarity. See, e.g., Carver
col. 4, ll. 32–47; col. 15, ll. 1–29. However, these portions provide no
indication that any new keyword is added to a list of keywords in response
to a request made by a new business, as required by the claim.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred, and we reverse
the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons,
we also reverse the rejections of independent claims 38, 45, and 51, each of
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

19
which recites similar limitations, as well as of the remaining claims which
depend therefrom.4

CONCLUSION
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection for each
claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
More specifically,
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–57 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–57 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31–57 101 Eligibility 31–57
31, 33, 34,
37
103 Carver, Collins,
AAPA, Horowitz
31, 33, 34,
37
32, 35, 36 103 Carver, Collins,
AAPA, Horowitz,
White
32, 35, 36
38–41, 45,
46, 51–54
103 Carver, Collins 38–41, 45,
46, 51–54
42–44, 55–
57
103 Carver, Collins,
AAPA, Horowitz,
White
42–44, 55–
57

4 Because we find this argument persuasive and dispositive of the rejections
made under § 103, we do not address Appellant’s other § 103 arguments
herein.
Appeal 2019-001859
Application 14/191,802

20
47–50 103 Carver, Collins,
AAPA, Horowitz
47–50
Overall
Outcome
31–57

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