Ex Parte Chapin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13115983 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/115,983 05/25/2011
4743 7590 08/02/2018
MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
6300 WILLIS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6357
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
J. T. Chapin
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.
31622/44853 4554
EXAMINER
MERCHANT, SHAHID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
mgbdocket@marshallip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte J. T. CHAPIN, PRA VINRA Y GANDHI,
CHRISTOPHER E. HASBROOK, and
STEPHEN I. KERBER
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983 1
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-12, 18, and 19, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is UL LLC. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
September 28, 2016; the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed February 14, 2017;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 5, 2017; Final Office Action
("Final Act.") mailed March 30, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec."),
filed May 25, 2011.
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a method and system "for analyzing
insurance risk data" and "predicting a real-time probability of loss events for
insurance policies and determining risk reduction actions to prevent or
mitigate such events." Spec. ,r 2. Appellants' method and system
"determine an expected loss to [a] building in the event of a fire, and
calculat[ e] a fire risk score for the building to assist an insurance company
assess a risk of insuring the building." Abstract. According to Appellants,
the expected loss is determined by "obtaining or determining a driving time
from ... one or more fire stations [identified near the building] to the
building" and "performing a statistical regression analysis to: at least the
driving time ... , the age of the building and the size of the building," the
expected loss being modified based on "the presence or absence of a
sprinkler system, a fire alarm system, or other hazard mitigation, prevention,
or warning system." Spec. ,r,r 37, 51; Abstract.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates Appellants'
invention, as reproduced below:
1. A historical based fire risk determination system
compnsmg:
a pro gram memory;
a computer processor electrically coupled to the program
memory;
a first data source including a plurality of loss event
records wherein each loss event record includes one or more
material, demographic, geographic, or behavioral attributes
contributing to a loss event;
a second data source including building data
corresponding to a plurality of insurance applications, wherein
each insurance application includes:
an address of a building,
2
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
an age of the building, and
a size of the building;
a third data source including fire station addresses;
a fourth data source including real estate values;
wherein the first data source, the second data source, the
third data source, and the fourth data source are connected via a
communication network;
wherein the program memory includes a risk analysis
engine including instructions stored in the program memory that
are executable by the computer processor to:
extract, via the communication network, data
associated with an identified building from the first, second, and
fourth data sources, the extracted data including a real estate
value of the identified building,
generate weighted data by assigning weights to the
extracted data associated with the identified building, wherein
the weights include (i) a first weight for an age of the identified
building, (ii) a second weight for a size of the identified building,
and (iii) a third weight indicating whether the identified building
has a basement,
identify, from the third data source, one or more fire
stations near an address of the identified building,
obtain or determine, by the computer processor, a
driving time from the one or more fire stations to the address of
the identified building,
perform, by the computer processor, a statistical
regression analysis on the driving time and the weighted data to
determine, based on the real estate value of the identified
building, an expected loss amount to the identified building in
the event of a fire, and
modify, by the computer processor, the expected loss
amount based on a presence of at least one component installed
within the identified building and capable of influencing
detection, growth, and suppression of the fire within the
identified building.
App. Br. A-1 to A--4 (Claims App'x). 3
3 The pages of Appellants' Claim Appendix are numbered A-1 to A--4.
3
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
Examiner's Rejection4
Claims 1-12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4--9.
ANALYSIS
In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the
Supreme Court reiterates an analytical two-step framework previously set
forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 79 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
4 Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Eggenberger et al. (US 2006/0111799 Al; published May
25, 2006; "Eggenberger"), Savage et al. (US 2008/0300924 Al; published
Dec. 4, 2008; "Savage"), Jones et al. (US 2006/0287892 Al; published Dec.
21, 2006; "Jones"), Helitzer et al. (US 2005/0055249 Al; published Mar. 10,
2005; "Helitzer"), Dimberger et al. (US 2007/0027725 Al; published Feb. 1,
2007; "Dimberger"), and Miller et al. (US 2004/0153330 Al; published
Aug. 5, 2004; "Miller"). Final Act. 10-28. In addition claims 4 and 10 were
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Eggenberger,
Savage, Jones, Helitzer, Dimberger, Miller, and Laird et al. (US
2005/0085257 Al; published Apr. 21, 2005; "Laird"); claims 5 and 11 were
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Eggenberger,
Savage, Jones, Helitzer, Dimberger, Miller, and Bonissone et al. (US
2004/0220840 Al; published Nov. 4, 2004; "Bonissone"); claim 18 was
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Eggenberger,
Savage, Jones, Helitzer, Dimberger, Miller, Gallo et al. (US 2006/0156228
Al; published July 13, 2006; "Gallo"), and Ouzounian (US 2009/0119338
Al; published May 7, 2009); and claim 19 was rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Eggenberger, Savage, Jones, Helitzer,
Dimberger, Miller, and Gallo. Final Act. 28-35. However, these§ I03(a)
rejections were withdrawn in the Examiner's Answer, and are no longer
pending on appeal. Ans. 3, 23.
4
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. If the
claims are directed to eligible subject matter, the inquiry ends. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfzsh,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is
to consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In other words,
the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself."' Id. ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
Alice/Mayo-Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Turning to the first part of the Alice/ Mayo analysis, the Examiner
determines claims 1 and 7 are directed to "an algorithm for determining a
fire risk" and "an expected loss amount to [an] identified building in the
event of a fire" based on "the real estate value of the identified building" and
"based on a plurality of loss event records wherein each loss event record
includes one or more building data, or geographic attributes contributing to a
loss event," which is "a fundamental economic practice as seen for example
in Savage ... and/or in Eggenberger." Ans. 5; Final Act. 5 (citing Savage
,r,r 5, 26, and 29); see Eggenberger Abstract. The Examiner also determines
claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea of "collecting data,
5
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that
recognized data in a memory," which is analogous or similar to the abstract
ideas of gathering and organizing data discussed in CyberSource and
Content Extraction. Ans. 7-8, 18, and 20 ( citing CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Final Act. 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and
similarly claim 7, as directed to non-statutory subject matter because the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and the Examiner overgeneralized
the claims. App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 2-3. Particularly, Appellants argue
"the Examiner is incorrect in asserting that claims 1 and 7 are simply
directed to 'determining a fire risk based on a plurality of loss event
records"'; rather, "the 'focus' of claims 1 and 7 is multiple data sources from
which data is extracted and the processing that is performed on the extracted
data" including "generating weighted data from the extracted data,
performing a statistical regression analysis on a driving time and the
weighted data to determine an expected loss amount to an identified building
in the event of a fire," and "modifying the expected loss amount" based on
the presence of a fire detection or suppression component( s) in the building.
App. Br. 14.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the
Examiner did not overgeneralize the claims as "determining a fire risk based
on a plurality of loss event records" as Appellants assert. See App. Br. 14.
Rather, the Examiner determines, and we agree, claims 1 and 7 are abstract
because they recite generic data gathering and manipulation steps that can
6
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
also "be performed mentally" or "by a human using a pen and paper."
Ans. 7-8, 18; Final Act. 6-7. The data gathering steps include "obtaining
data from multiple sources and extracting data," such as the claimed
extracting data associated with the identified building including the
building's real estate value, age, size, and whether the building has a
basement-steps that can be performed by a person consulting county and
city records of residential ( or other types of) buildings. Ans. 20; see App.
Br. A-1 (Claims App'x). The data manipulation steps include steps of
"comparing data that can be performed mentally," such as the claimed
"identify[ing], from the third data source, one or more fire stations near an
address of the identified building" and obtaining "a driving time from the
one or more fire stations to the address of the identified building"-steps
that can be performed by a person consulting a map of a neighborhood
where the building is located. Ans. 8; see App. Br. A-1 (Claims App'x).
Data manipulation steps further include the claimed "assigning
weights to the extracted data," "perform[ing] ... a statistical regression
analysis, " and "modify[ing] ... the expected loss amount "-steps that can
be performed by a person using a pen and paper. Final Act. 7; see App. Br.
A-1, A-2 (Claims App'x). Appellants argue the claimed "extracting data
from multiple data sources, generating weighted data from the extracted
data, performing a statistical regression analysis, and modifying an expected
loss amount based on a specific factor" provide "an improvement to the
accuracy and the efficiency in which insurance policies are priced to more
accurately reflect a property's actual fire risk." Reply Br. 3. However,
claim 1 recites "generate weighted data by assigning weights to the extracted
data associated with the identified building," "perform ... a statistical
7
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
regression analysis on the driving time and the weighted data to determine,
based on the real estate value of the identified building, an expected loss
amount," and "modify ... the expected loss amount based on a presence of
at least one [ fire detection, growth, and suppression] component" of the
building are broadly claimed steps that do not specify or impose any bounds
on the "weights," generated "weighted data," "statistical regression
analysis," and modification of "expected loss amount." See App. Br. A-1,
A-2 (Claims App'x); Final Act. 7. In other words, these broadly claimed
steps can be performed by a person estimating an expected loss amount
based on the person's knowledge of a building, such as, for example, based
on the person's knowledge of his or her single-family home and his or her
knowledge of personal property values of items in the house.
Such data gathering and manipulation steps are abstract ideas similar
to data gathering and manipulation techniques identified in Cyberfone,
Digitech, Content Extraction, Electric Power Group, and Intellectual
Ventures. See Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F.
App'x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (employing
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information); PerkinElmer,
Inc. v Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. Appx. 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (comparing data to
determine a risk level); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (finding
that "[t]he concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is
undisputedly well-known," and "humans have always performed these
functions"); Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-
54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information and "analyzing information by
steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms,
8
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea
category"); and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792
F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring information presented to a user
based on particular information). Additionally, the law is clear that "a
method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract
idea and is not patent-eligible under§ 101." CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373.
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to
reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen
and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 ("That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.").
Furthermore, "an expected loss amount" as claimed, is merely
information, and as such is intangible. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T
Corp., 550 U.S. 437,451 n.12 (2007); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Gottschalk
v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67---68, 71-72 (1972) ("Phenomena of nature,
though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts
are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological
work."); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978) ("Reasoning that an
algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, Benson applied
the established rule that a law of nature cannot be the subject of a patent").
"[C]ollecting information, including when limited to particular content
(which does not change its character as information)," and "analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more," are "within the realm of abstract ideas." Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54; see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech, 758 F.3d at
9
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
13 50 ("Data in its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that
does not fall under any of the categories of eligible subject matter under
section 101"); and CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370.
We also agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 7 are abstract
because they are directed to a fundamental economic business practice of
creating a contractual relationship (insurance) by determining fire risk and
expected loss for a building, for assisting an insurance company in assessing
the risk of insuring the building or for modifying an insurance policy
associated with the building. Ans. 5; Final Act. 5; see Spec. ,r,r 2 ("system
and method for analyzing insurance risk data and, more particularly, for
predicting a real-time probability of loss events for insurance policies and
determining risk reduction actions to prevent or mitigate such events"), 46,
51 ("calculate a fire risk score for the building to assist an insurance
company assess a risk of insuring the building"). Similar abstract ideas for
implementing contractual relationships ( e.g., for insurance purposes) have
been identified in Bancorp, Accenture Global Services, and Alice. See
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (concluding managing an insurance policy was
an abstract idea); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software,
Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345, see also 41--44 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting
"generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract
concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be
completed upon the occurrence of an event, e.g., for processing an insurance
claim] on a computer" not patent eligible); and Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57
(intermediated settlement of traded or exchanged financial obligations to
mitigate the risk that one party will not perform).
10
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
Appellants further argue claim 1 is similar to the claims in Enfish
because "the claimed multiple data sources from which data is extracted and
the processing that is performed on the extracted data provides ... an
improvement in computer capabilities." App. Br. 14--15 ( citing Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Particularly,
Appellants argue claims 1 and 7 are directed to improvements in computer
functionality because "the claimed multiple data sources and the processing
enables the claimed system and method to accurately assess fire risk to an
identified building, ... determine and modify an expected loss amount to the
identified building based on data from multiple sources," "generat[ e]
weighted data and perform[] a statistical regression analysis." App. Br. 14.
Appellants' Specification, however, does not describe how the claimed
applications for determining fire risk and expected loss amounts effect
specific improvements to the computer processor, program memory,
communication network, or to the way, such systems operate. Ans. 15, 18,
and 20-22. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. Additionally, Appellants do not
present evidence to establish their claims "are directed to improvements in
computer functionality" (see App. Br. 15). Appellants also have not
demonstrated their claim "improve[ s] the way a computer stores and
retrieves data in memory," as the claims in Enfish did via a "self-referential
table for a computer database." See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1327, 1337.
Appellants also have not demonstrated their claim provides a
"solution ... necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,"
as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014), or an "unconventional
11
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
technological solution ... to a technological problem" that "improve[ s] the
performance of the system itself," as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We also find Appellants reliance on McRO unavailing. Reply Br. 2-3
(citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Particularly, Appellants argue their claims, like the claims
of McRO, "are directed to the improvement of a technological process" and
"recite a series of steps that improve the accuracy and efficiency of existing
processes," provide an "overall result . .. [that] does ... improve upon other
existing processes related to assessing the risk of fires and the impacts
thereof," and "[a]bsent these improvements, insurance policies would
continue to be inaccurately priced." Reply Br. 2-3. However, the court
determined that McRO' s claim was not directed to an abstract idea because it
"uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an
improved technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation
techniques"; in contrast, Appellants' claimed series of steps address a
business problem of assisting an insurance company in assessing a risk of
insuring a building. See McRO, 837 F.3d 1299, 1316; Ans. 13, 18, 20, and
22. Additionally, the claims in McRO were drawn to improvements in the
operation of a computer at a task, rather than applying a computer system to
perform known data extraction and processing steps ( e.g., perform a
statistical regression analysis, and modify an amount of expected loss), as in
Appellants' claims 1 and 7. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. We additionally
note Appellants' claims do not require an "insurance premium price" to be
accurately priced, as Appellants advocate (see Reply Br. 3).
12
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
Appellants also argue their claims are not directed to an abstract idea
because the "claims recite a particular solution to [a] problem and define a
particular way to achieve a desired outcome to this problem," the problem
being "that conventional replacement-driven property analyses fail to
account for certain factors which results in inaccurate fire risk assessment."
Reply Br. 3 ( citing Spec. ,r 5). We remain unpersuaded because the claims
focus on the problem of assisting an insurance company to assess or modify
an estimated risk of insuring a building-a problem that is not a technical
problem or one rooted in computer technology or particular only to the
Internet. See Spec. ,r,r 2, 46, 51 and; Ans. 13, 21-22; see also DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257-58 (finding claims directed to a "solution ...
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" are patent eligible).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner claims 1 and 7 are directed
to an abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo-Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Under the second part of the Alice/ Mayo analysis, the Examiner
determines claims 1 and 7 "do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception";
rather, the claims recite generic computer elements "perform[ing] generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry." Final Act. 6, 8; Ans. 9-10, 20.
Appellants argue claims 1 and 7 recite an "'inventive concept' ... [ of]
data extraction from the multiple data sources and the processing that is
performed on the extracted data," and this inventive concept is "necessarily
rooted in computer technology" to provide "a solution to problems caused
13
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
by conventional systems." App. Br. 15 (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
1245). As discussed supra, we are not persuaded Appellants' claims 1 and 7
provide a "solution ... necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,"
as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings. See DDR, 773 F.3d at
1257. Additionally, as discussed supra, the steps recited in claims 1 and 7
are consistent with an algorithm readily performed mentally or with pen and
paper by a human being. We are also not persuaded the added computer
elements such as the computer processor, program memory, data sources,
communication network, and risk analysis engine transform the abstract idea
into a patent eligible invention. Ans. 9-10, 20. "[T]he use of generic
computer elements like a microprocessor" to perform conventional computer
functions "do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256).
Appellants further argue their claims are similar to the claims in
Bascom, particularly because Appellants' claims recite a "specific
arrangement" of claim elements and "rely on a specific order of processing
steps, i.e., the data is extracted, the data is processed, the statistical
regression analysis is performed, the expected loss amount is determined,
and the expected loss amount is modified" which "is no different than the
content-filtering system in Bascom." Reply Br. 4 (citing Bascom Global
Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). We disagree. Appellants' claims and Specification do not identify a
specific improvement to computer technology or computer operation
effected by the claims. In contrast, Bascom's patent-eligible ordered
14
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
combination of claim limitations contain an "inventive concept [that]
harnesses [a] technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by
associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements
while locating the filtering system on an ISP [Internet Service Provider]
server," thus "improv[ing] the performance of the computer system itself'
with a "technology-based solution ... to filter content on the Internet that
overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems." See
Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350-52.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that independent claims 1
and 7 are directed to an abstract idea and amount to nothing more than an
attempt to patent the abstract idea embodied in the claimed steps. See Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78).
Because we agree with the Examiner's analysis and find Appellants'
arguments insufficient to show error, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No separate arguments are presented for
dependent claims 2---6, 8-12, 18, and 19, which fall with independent claims
1 and 7. App. Br. 15; see 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We, therefore, sustain
the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 2-6, 8-12, 18, and
19.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-12, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
15
Appeal2017-005509
Application 13/115,983
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-12, 18,
and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16