Adobe Systems IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 16, 20212020005748 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/097,998 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation