Adobe Systems Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 16, 2021

2020005748 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2021)

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.
14/097,998 12/05/2013 Kourosh Modarresi AD01.3145US01 4083
111003 7590 04/16/2021
Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC
50 Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, FOLASHADE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/16/2021 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@finchmaloney.com
nmaloney@finchmaloney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KOUROSH MODARRESI
____________

Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,9981
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–19, and 21–
23.3 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is “Adobe Systems
Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 We reference, herein, the Non-Final Action mailed October 15, 2019
(“Non-Final Act.”), Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), and
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 31, 2020 (“Ans.”).
3 Claims 7, 14, and 20 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to “techniques for predicting outcomes of a
modeled system by dynamically adjusting one or more input or output
variables.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and is
reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an analytics engine comprising a computer
processor implemented at least in part in hardware, and from a
database in electronic communication with the processor,
analytical data representing a plurality of website metric
variables;
computing, by the processor, at least one missing value in the
analytical data based on non-missing values in the analytical
data using a regularized singular value decomposition;
designating one of the website metric variables as an output
variable and each of the remaining website metric variables as
input variables;
computing, by the processor, first result data representing a
quantifiable effect of one of the input variables on the output
variable relative to at least one of the other input variables
based on the analytical data by perturbing each of the input
variables using a plurality of different values, and computing a
magnitude of increase in an error of the output variable
resulting from the plurality of perturbations of each of the input
variables; and
causing a display device configured to display a graphical user
interface of a browser executing on the processor to display the
first result data in human readable form, the first result data
including a chart, table, or graph of a value representing the
quantifiable effect of at least one of the input variables on the
output variable and a value representing the magnitude of
increase in the error of the output variable.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–19, and 21–23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter in the form of
an abstract idea. Non-Final 3–6.
ANALYSIS
A. Section 101
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 U.S. 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 Court’s two-part 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
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

4
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (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
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 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. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
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
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

5
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.
B. USPTO § 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101.4 The Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised
guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June
2020).5
Under MPEP § 2106, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).
MPEP § 2106.04(a), (d).

4 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). In response to received public
comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019,
clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
5 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

6
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application,6 do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field; 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.7
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
C. Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15
1. Step 2A, Prong 1: “recites a judicial exception”
Turning to the first issue set forth by the Guidance (see supra 5, bullet
“(1)”), the Examiner determines that claim 1 recites
computing . . . at least one missing value in the analytical data
based on non-missing values in the analytical data using a
regularized singular value decomposition;
. . .
computing . . . first result data representing a quantifiable effect
of one of the input variables on the output variable relative to at
least one of the other input variables based on the analytical
data by perturbing each of the input variables using a plurality

6 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim
is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is “not
directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice framework, we do not
need to proceed to step two.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
7 This corresponds to Alice part two where it is determined whether the
claim “contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

7
of different values, and computing a magnitude of increase in
an error of the output variable resulting from the plurality of
perturbations of each of the input variables[.]
Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that these limitations describe steps
that can be performed in the human mind. Id. The Examiner further states
that the claims describe a mathematical formula by reciting
[A] computer (“an analytics engine comprising a computer
processor implemented at least in part in hardware”) connected
to a database (“database in electronic communication with the
processor”) and configured for: receiving data ("analytical
data”); using a regularized singular value decomposition to
compute a missing value based on non-missing values;
designating a variable of the data as an output and the remaining
variables as inputs; computing an effect of each input variable on
the output variable, relative to the other input variables, by
perturbing each input variable and computing a change of the
output variable; and causing the display of the effect on a
graphical user interface.
Id. at 4. The Examiner determined that the limitations identified above are
“a computer configured to implement ‘mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.’” Id. (citing
Guidance, 54 Fed. Reg. at 52). We agree with the Examiner’s
determinations that the claims recite subject matter that falls within the
Guidance’s following categories of judicial exceptions: “(a) Mathematical
concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations” (Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52); and “(c) Mental
processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” (id.). Appellant does not argue
that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Prong 1, but instead
focuses upon Prong 2. Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

8
2. Step 2A, Prong 2: “does not integrate that exception into a
practical application”
Because independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we turn to Prong
Two of Revised Step 2A of the guidance on the application of § 101, where
we identify “additional elements” beyond the abstract idea, and evaluate
whether “those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.”
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II).
Appellant asserts that independent claim 1 recites additional elements
that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer by solving the
technical problem of “how to convey the predicted outcomes of the
inherently technological system to the user.” Appeal Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the claims provide a technical solution by
“transforming the first result data, which is a function of the website metric
variables - an inherently technological source of information, into a human
readable and usable form.” Id. at 9. Accordingly to Appellant, the “human
readable form may include, for example, charts, tables, graphs or other
suitable formats.” Id. at 10 (citing Spec. ¶ 35).
The Examiner argues that these additional elements do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application. Ans. 5–6. In particular, the
Examiner asserts
In the invention the input is “analytical data” and the
output is “first result data” in other words the claimed modeling
starts with data and ends with data. The display of the result of
the claimed calculations as a number or series of numbers, or as
a chart, table, or graph, is simply the presentation of the result of
the calculations, not a physical or data transformation. The
Office finds there is no conversion, which would require one of
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

9
ordinary skill in the art to recognize either a transformation or an
improvement in the functioning of the system.
Ans. 6–7.
We agree with the Examiner because analyzing information through
mathematical algorithms, and outputting the results of such an analysis or
calculation to a user, i.e., by a display, does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. Rather, the Federal Circuit has stated that
“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”
SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see
also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54. To be sure, the claims recite
technical elements including “a display device,” and “a graphical user
interface of a browser.” However, no particular tool for presenting a result
is claimed or described and any reliance on a computer to perform these
steps is generic, indicating that independent claim 1 also does not define or
rely on a “particular machine.” MPEP § 2106.05(b); see also Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 56. As such, the method has no other meaningful limitations,
whether considered individually or in combination and, thus, merely recites
instructions to execute the aforementioned abstract idea on a computer. See
MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Appellant analogizes the claims to those involved in SRI
International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
where the court concluded that a claim reciting using a plurality of network
monitors to analyze specific network traffic data and to identify suspicious
activity on the network constituted an improvement in computer network
technology. The Federal Circuit stated that “the claims here are not directed
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

10
to using a computer as a tool—that is, automating a conventional idea on a
computer. Rather, the representative claim improves the technical
functioning of the computer and computer networks by reciting a specific
technique for improving computer network security.” Id. at 1304. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because in contrast to SRI
International, the claims of the instant application merely use the computer
as a tool “for predicting outcomes of a system modeled on analytical data by
dynamically adjusting one or more input or output variables.” Spec. ¶ 9.
Thus, we determine that claim 1 does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
3. Step 2B: “well-understood, routine, conventional”
We must now determine whether independent claim 1 recites any
elements additional to the abstract idea that are not well-understood, routine,
or conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Appellant argues that the claims recite additional elements that
“amount to significantly more than a judicial exception at least because the
graphical user interface of the displaying step is specifically ascribed to a
display device, which is an improvement to the functioning of the computer
itself.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant analogizes the claims to those in DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and
asserts that
[T]he present claims recite a solution that, as discussed above, is
a particular implementation “rooted in computer technology” for
predicting various outcomes "arising in the realm of’ computer
technology that result when one or more of the website metric
variables are changed, for determining which changes to the
website “arising in the realm of” computer technology result in
certain desired outcomes, and for causing that result to be
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

11
displayed in a human readable form via a display device so that
the user can affect the change to the website to achieve that result.
Id. at 17. Appellant argues that the claims “recite an improvement to the
functioning of the computer which is not ‘a commonplace business method
aimed at processing business information, applying a known business
process to the particular technological environment of the Internet, or
creating or altering contractual relations using generic computer functions
and conventional network operations.’” Id. (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d
at 1259). Appellant further asserts that the claims are similar to those in
Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2016) because “the claims are expressly tied to a physical structure
(including the display device), which at least transforms the ordered
combination of claim limitations into a particular, practical application of
predicting outcomes of a modeled system that does not preempt all use of
the idea.” Id.
The Examiner asserts that the claims do not contain any additional
elements, individual or in combination, which amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea. Non-Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds
that the additional elements including the display device and user interfaces
identified by the Appellant are well-understood, routine, and conventional in
the art. Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner because we are not persuaded that a
graphical user interface for a display device is an improvement to the
functioning of the computer itself. Appeal Br. 16. The Specification
describes the graphical user interface and display in purely generic terms,
stating “[a] user may interact with the computing device 200 through an
output device 240, such as a screen or monitor, which may display one or
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

12
more user interfaces provided in accordance with some embodiments.”
Spec. ¶ 19; see also id. at ¶ 35 (“results can be displayed to a user via, for
example, a graphical user interface (e.g., the front end interface via the GUI
of Fig. 1) or other suitable output device, in a human readable form.”), ¶¶
37, 39, 41, 44. The generically described graphical user interface and
display is insufficient to demonstrate an improvement to the computer. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“And we have recognized that merely
presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis.”); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that merely presenting the results of abstract
processes is an ancillary part of the collection and analysis).
We also see no parallel between the present claims and the claims
recited in DDR Holdings and Bascom. Unlike the claims in DDR Holdings,
the solution provided by claim 1 is not rooted in computer technology, as
evidenced by the failure of claim 1 to recite anything other than a generic
computer system operating in its normal capacity to perform mathematical
operations and display results using a graphical user interface. Rather than a
solution rooted in computer technology, Appellant’s invention seeks to use a
computer for data modeling to “predict[] outcomes of a modeled system by
dynamically adjusting one or more input or output variables.” Spec. ¶ 1.
More specifically, the invention considers variables including
sales revenue per user derived via the website, number of visits
to the website per user, length in time of each visit per user,
number of unique visits per user, number of items ordered per
user, and number of unique orders per user, among other
information . . . The performance of the website with respect to
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

13
any of the variables can be modeled using the completed data set.
This model can be used to determine which variables, when
changed, have the greatest effect on one or more other variables.
Spec. ¶ 9. Hence, in contrast to DDR Holdings’ claims that address a
technical problem, here, the Specification describes addressing a business
problem in “maintaining the website to extract maximum returns.” Id. at
¶ 2.
Similarly, in Bascom, the Federal Circuit held that “[t]he inventive
concept described and claimed in the '606 patent is the installation of a
filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with
customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Bascom, 827 F.3d
at 1350. The court explained that the claimed invention had “an inventive
concept . . . found in [a] non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces.” Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. In contrast to
Bascom, here Appellant has not demonstrated any particular arrangement in
the claim as providing an inventive concept similar to Bascom's technology-
based solution. See generally Appeal Br. 17–18.
Further, Appellant similarly contends that, as in Amdocs (Israel)
Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed
invention recites techniques for solving an unconventional technological
problem. Namely, Appellant asserts that the claims recite predicting
outcomes from website metrics in an unconventional manner
by perturbing each of the input variables using a plurality of
different values, computing a magnitude of increase in an error
of the output variable resulting from the plurality of perturbations
of each of the input variables, and causing the display device
configured to display the graphical user interface of a browser
executing on the processor to display the first result data in
human readable form.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

14
Appeal Br. 18–19. We are unpersuaded because as explained above, the
claimed invention recites the use of conventional computer elements
operating in their normal capacity to perform mathematical operations and
display results using a graphical user interface.
Finally, to the extent Appellant argues the claims necessarily contain
an “inventive concept” based on their alleged novelty or non-obviousness
over the cited references, Appellant misapprehends the controlling
precedent. Id. at 19. Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework
is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an
evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for “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.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–218 (alteration in
original) (citation omitted). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a
purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at
90.
For all the reasons set for above, we are unpersuaded the Examiner
erred in asserting that the additional elements, individually and in
combination, fail to provide an inventive concept because they are all well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
For the reasons above, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
as directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, without significantly
more. For the same reasons, we similarly affirm the rejections of claims 8
and 15.
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

15
D. Claims 5, 12, 16
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a
way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter. Appeal
Br. 22.
Claim 5 recites, “computing the magnitude of increase in the error of
the output variable resulting from the perturbation of each of the input
variables includes using decision tree learning.” Claims 12 and 16 recite
substantially similar subject matter. First, Appellant argues that claims 5,
12, and 16 satisfy Step 2A of the eligibility analysis because they provide a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception by integrating the exception into a
practical application that is directed to a particular technological solution to
a problem. Id. at 21–22. Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner has
failed to provide sufficient factual support for the conclusion that the claims
are insignificant extra-solution activity. Id. at 24–25 (citing Berkheimer v.
HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner that claim 5 further defines the claimed mathematical
computations, specifically, computing the magnitudes of increases of
errors—the abstract idea itself. Hence, the improvement recited is part of
the abstract idea itself, not on any claimed improvement to technology.
Such an improvement does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more
quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
Similarly, because the recited computing step is part of the abstract idea
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

16
itself, it is not relevant to step 2B analysis. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d
1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) ("It is clear from Mayo
that the 'inventive concept' cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Berkheimer
. . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court which have held
claims ineligible because the only alleged 'inventive concept' is the abstract
idea."); see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use
of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive
concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible
concept.”).
Claims 12 and 16 recite substantially similar subject matter. Hence,
for the same reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. For this reason, we sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
D. Claims 21–23
Claim 21 recites “modifying a website to cause one or more of the
input variables to increase or decrease based on the first result data, thereby
affecting a desired change in the output variable.” Appellant similarly
argues that claim 21 provides a meaningful limit on the judicial exception by
integrating the exception into a practical application that is directed to a
particular technological solution to a problem. Appeal Br. 21–22. We are
not persuaded by this argument for the same reasons as explained above.
Specifically, Appellant has not demonstrated that claim 21 integrates the
abstract idea into a practical application by reflecting an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field. Rather than addressing a technical problem, Appellant
Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

17
directs us to portions of the Specification that address a business problem.
Id. at 23. Namely, “the impact analysis may reveal that increasing the
number of items ordered by a user during a particular visit to the website and
increasing the average number of unique visits to the website each have
greater impacts on sales revenue than increasing or otherwise changing any
other variables.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 11); see also Spec. ¶ 2 (“maintaining the
website to extract maximum returns.”).
Claims 22 and 23 recite substantially similar subject matter. Hence,
for the same reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. For this reason, we sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
E. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–19, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–19, and 21–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2020‐005748
Application 14/097,998

18
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
15–19,
21–23
101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–13,
15–19, 21–23

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