Ex Parte Bowman et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 20, 201912211732 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/211,732 09/16/2008 26379 7590 06/24/2019 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) 2000 UNIVERSITY A VENUE EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brian Bowman 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 353952-991120 9029 EXAMINER BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/24/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PatentDocketing US-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN BOWMAN and BRIAN KANAGA Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 1 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is One Planet Ops (Appeal Br. 1 ). Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Brian Bowman and Brian Kanaga (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-39, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The Appellants invented a click marketplace system and method that may be used for various different types of Internet user traffic originating from various sources. Specification 1:2-3. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 22, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 22. A computer implemented click marketplace method that stores a plurality of Enhanced Click Traffic wherein each Enhanced Click consists of electronic transactional information that represents an Internet user, the method comprising: [ 1] storing, in a storage system, one or more selling campaigns for one or more Click Sellers, each selling campaign associating one or more Click Traffic to be sold in the click marketplace system; 2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 21, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed November 21, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September 21, 2017), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 19, 2016). 2 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 [2] storing, in the storage system, one or more buying campaigns for one or more Click Buyers, each buying campaign including one or more parameters specifying the characteristics of Click Traffic to be bought by the Click Buyer associated with the buying campaign; [3] performing, on a computer, an auction for each click for sale by a Click Seller to a plurality of Click Buyers; [4] using, and by the auction manager, a click type field to set an amount of sharing that is permitted for a particular click; [5] indicating, by the auction manager, a group of Click Buyers who bid the highest price win the auction for the particular click that is shared by the group of Click Buyers. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Kostic US 2002/0128959 Al Flake US 2008/0255921 Al Sept. 12, 2002 Oct. 16, 2008 Claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kostic and Flake. 3 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of what a computer is to provide without implementation details. The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the references describe the limitations recited, or otherwise show them to be predictable. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Kostic 01. Kostic is directed to commercializing the click-through traffic of visitors to Internet web sites, and more particularly, to facilitating the buying and selling of click-through traffic between the web sites of interested buyers and sellers. Kostic para. 2. 02. Kostic describes conducting a bidding process after the trial period is concluded, in which buyers can bid a price each is willing to pay for the click-through traffic from the seller's web site. Kostic para. 10. 03. Kostic describes providing buyers and sellers with an online, interactive exchange or auction facility even without using the trial process. It enables buyers and sellers to engage in bidding for click-through traffic, and then to activate and monitor the performance of the click-through traffic sold in a sale transaction. Kostic para. 118. 4 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 Flake 04. Flake is directed to sale of market share or percentage for an online advertising system. Flake para. 7. 05. Flake describes an exemplary division of impressions or occurrences of an advertisement. Here, advertiser A has elected a twenty percent market share, advertiser B has elected ten percent of the market and the remaining 70% of the total market is available for any remaining advertisers. This simple division of occurrences can be effected by a determination at each advertising opportunity based upon relative requested market shares. Advertisements can be selected for display based upon a generated number. For example, for the division illustrated in FIG. 2, when an advertising opportunity arises, a random number can be generated and compared to thresholds selected such that there is a twenty percent chance that Advertiser A's ad will be shown, a ten percent chance that advertiser B's ad will be shown and a seventy percent chance that an advertisement from the remainder of the market will be shown. Flake paras. 38-39. 06. Flake describes a user interface that can provide advertisers and/or advertising system managers with the ability to add, monitor, edit and delete market share requests. In particular, a graphic user interface (GUI) can be used to manage requests from multiple advertisers. Advertisers can utilize a web-based interface to monitor and adjust their market share requests to achieve their marketing goals. Flake para. 41. 5 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1 OJ as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 12 Claim 22, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ... determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, "[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, ... 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. [The Court] described step two of this analysis 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." Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) ( citations omitted) ( citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions ( a law of nature, a 3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). 6 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." 2019 Guidance at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept, because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 Method claim 22 recites storing data representing selling and buying campaigns, performing an online auction, setting a field value and indicating data representing a win by a group of buyers. Performing an online auction is a process of receiving and analyzing bid data. Setting a field value is modifying data, and indicating data is displaying data. Thus, claim 22 recites receiving, analyzing, modifying, and displaying data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 22 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas 7 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity5, and (3) mental processes 6. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are fundamental economic principles or practices. Like those concepts, claim 22 recites the concept of an auction. Specifically, claim 22 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to perform an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display. The advice to perform an auction based on campaign data and allow sharing and results display involves an auction, which is a fundamental economic act which is an act ordinarily performed in commerce. For example, claim 22 recites "performing ... an auction," which is an activity that would take place whenever one is performing an auction. Similarly, claim 1 recites "indicating ... who bid the highest price," which are also characteristics of an auction. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to "providing an auction marketplace in which buyers and sellers can be matched for click traffic allocation, which is considered an abstract idea using a fundamental 4 See, e.g., Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 8 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 economic practice and certain methods of organizing human activity." Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 22 recites that it is a computer implemented click marketplace method that stores a plurality of Enhanced Click Traffic. The steps in claim 22 result in indicating a group of Click Buyers who bid the highest price as being those who win the auction absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 2 recite basic data gathering. Limitation 3 recites a generic online auction, which is itself a conventional combination of data gathering and analysis absent any technological details. Limitations 4 and 5 recite modifying and displaying of bid data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display. To advocate performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at 1 :2-3 describes the invention as relating to a click marketplace system and method that may be used for various different types of Internet user traffic originating from various sources. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 22 is directed to modifying and displaying the results of an online auction, i.e. an auction. This is consistent with the Examiner's determination. This in tum is an example of fundamental economic principles or practices as a certain method of organizing human activity, because auctions are fundamental business practices for setting price. The concept of an 9 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 auction as advised to be done by performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display is simply setting input and output parameters for the auction. The steps recited in claim 22 are part of setting those parameters. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290 (Fed Cir. 1994) (novel auction process). Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 22, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, modification, and display and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation"). As such, claim 22 is directed to receiving, analyzing, modifying, and displaying data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 22 is directed to an auction by performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display. 10 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 22 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application. 7 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. "[A]pplication[s]" of such concepts "'to a new and useful end,'" we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the "'buildin[g] block[ s] "' of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."' Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implement[t]" an abstract idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). 11 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 ubiquity of computers, wholly genenc computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted). "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 2 are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 4 and 5 are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step 3 recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellants' claim 22 simply recites the concept of an auction by performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. Claim 22 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology 12 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 or technical field. The 27 pages of specification spell out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of an auction by performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 22 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply an auction by performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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. We conclude that claim 22 is directed to achieving the result of an auction by advising one to performing an auction based on campaign data 8 The Specification describes server computers that execute computer code. Spec. para. 8: 18-30. 13 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 and allowing sharing and results display as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to fundamental economic principles or practices, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical app li cation. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 22 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, analyzing, modifying, and displaying data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' .. . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Auctions are among the oldest and most fundamental 14 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 practices for setting prices for transactions. 9 As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellants' claim 22 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis- modification-display is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 22 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. 9 See, e.g., Remarks Upon The Auction System As Practiced In New York, 1828, https://books.google.com/books?id=uh4PAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=auc tion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=OahUKEwi7h9yx853gAhUMPN8KHQOOAhEQ6 AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=auction&f=false 15 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 22 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art. ' Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by an auction by performing an auction based on campaign data and allowing sharing and results display, without significantly more. 16 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action 3---6 and Answer 2-11 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief. Appellants argue that the asserted claims are akin to the claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reply Br. 2-3. In DDR Holdings, the Court evaluated the eligibility of claims "address[ing] the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host's website after 'clicking' on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink." Id. at 1257. There, the Court found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem that had no "pre-Internet analog." Id. at 1258. The Court cautioned, however, "that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent." Id. For example, in DDR Holdings the Court distinguished the patent- eligible claims at issue from claims found patent-ineligible in Ultramercial. See id. at 1258-59 (citing Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As noted there, the Ultramercial claims were "directed to a specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the Internet before." Id. at 1258 (quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16). Nevertheless, those claims were patent ineligible because they "merely recite[d] the abstract idea of 'offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,' along with 'routine additional steps such as 17 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the Internet.'" Id. Appellants' asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings. The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited "providing [a] media product for sale at an Internet website;" "restricting general public access to said media product;" "receiving from the consumer a request to view [a] sponsor message;" and "if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query." 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellants' asserted claims recite receiving, analyzing, modifying, and displaying data. This is precisely the type of Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that [ t ]he elements of Claim 1 clearly relate to computer operations, which include the various processes and elements, including the auction manager set forth above. These are absolutely dependent on computer systems and a technology that did not exist before the time of computers. As a result, the features of Claim 1 are not directed to an abstract idea and do not recite generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional as asserted by the Office. Reply Br. 3. Claim 1, as a structural claim, recites the structural elements of a computer having a processor and a database server beyond the steps recited in method claim 22. These are conventional generic computers. The steps depend on a computer only because the steps are drafted in that manner. The only technology recited that did not exist before computers was the existence of computers. "The Supreme Court and this court have 18 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "a human mind would not be able to act as the auction manager and perform the claimed operations." Reply Br. 3. Limitation 3 reciting the step of an auction recites only performing an auction. Auctions have been performed for centuries ( see footnote 9 supra) and so predate computers. To the extent Appellants rely on the content that is auctioned, that does not affect the basic step of performing an auction, absent any recital of technological implementation details. Appellants' arguments as to the ordered combination of the steps (Reply Br. 4) repeats the prior arguments and does not explain why the particular order as recited is inventive. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-39rejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kostic and Flake We adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action 6-25 and Answer 12-16 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Kostic fails to show plural buyers and sharing. Reply Br. 5-7. The Examiner applies Flake for this. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Flake fails to describe a field with an amount of sharing so that plural buyers can win the auction. Reply Br. 7. Flake describes sharing click results by such 19 Appeal2018-001466 Application 12/211,732 plural buyers and a data field for entering the desired share amount. Thus, Flake shows that one of ordinary skill would have considered applying Flake's allowance of plural buyers to Kostic's auction system, because of Flake's showing of the desirability of sharing such results. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kostic and Flake is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-39 is affirmed. 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)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 20 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation