Ex Parte Hegeman et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 27, 2019

13294052 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/294,052 11/10/2011 87851 7590 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 07/01/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Hegeman 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. 26295-18558 1106 EXAMINER LI,SUNM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2019 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): ptoc@fenwick.com fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN HEGEMAN and RONG YAN Appeal2018-005546 1 Application 13/294,052 Technology Center 3600 Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, BETH Z. SHAW, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's non- final rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2018-005552. Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 BACKGROUND This patent application concerns "optimizing advertisement bidding, and more particularly to determining advertisement bids for advertisers based on an advertising budget and/ or weighted performance categories provided by the advertisers." Specification ,r 2, filed November 10, 2011 ("Spec."). Claims 1, 2, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: determining, for each of a plurality of ads, a weighting for each of a plurality of performance categories associated with the ad, the weightings determined based on information received from an advertiser about the advertiser's preferences for one or more of the performance categories; receiving a request for an ad from a client associated with a user of an online system; responsive to the ad request and before sending an ad from the plurality of ads, for each of the plurality of ads: retrieving historical statistics for the user from a database; determining a likelihood that the user performs actions associated with performance categories, wherein the predicted likelihood for a performance category is based on the retrieved historical statistics; determining, for each of the performance categories, an impression value for displaying the ad to the client, wherein the impression value of the ad for a performance category comprises the predicted likelihood for the performance category weighted by the weighting for the performance category; and determining, by a processor, a bid for the ad specific to the user of the ad request based on an aggregation of the impression values for the performance categories; 2 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 selecting a received ad based on the determined bids for the received ads; and sending the selected ad for to the user of the client for display. Appeal Brief 13-14, filed January 8, 2018 ("App. Br."). REJECTIONS 1-8, 10-12, 14--16, and 18-20 Â§ 101 DISCUSSION We have reviewed the Examiner's Â§ 101 rejection and Appellants' arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and conclusions in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 6, 2017 ("Non-Final Act.") and the Answer mailed March 8, 2018 ("Ans."). Section 101 Rejection Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof' is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. But the Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section: "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. v. CLSBanklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is "directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine "the elements of 3 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 [the] 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." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claim for an "inventive concept," "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 217-18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The Patent Office has revised its guidance about this framework. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under the Revised Guidance, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim ( 1) recites subject matter that falls within one of the abstract idea groupings listed in the Revised Guidance and (2) fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51, 54. If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as noted above, we then determine whether the claim has an inventive concept. The Revised Guidance explains that when making this determination, we should consider whether the additional claim elements add "a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field" or "simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. With these principles in mind, we tum to the merits of the Â§ 101 rejection. Appellants argue claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--16, and 18-20 together 4 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 for this rejection, so as permitted by 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37, we decide the appeal for this rejection based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Abstract Idea The Examiner determined that claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the "mental processes" and "certain methods of organizing human activity" abstract idea groupings identified in the Revised Guidance. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 15 ( determining that the claims recite limitations that "can be done mentally or by paper [and] pen"); Ans. 4 (determining that the claims are directed toward "a long-prevalent economic practice"); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 ( explaining that the abstract idea exception includes mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices). For the reasons discussed below, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Mental Processes Claim 1 recites limitations that encompass acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper. For example, claim 1 recites "determining, for each of a plurality of ads, a weighting for each of a plurality of performance categories associated with the ad, the weightings determined based on information received from an advertiser about the advertiser's preferences for one or more of the performance categories." App. Br. 13. Although this limitation recites that the weightings are determined based on information received from advertisers, the limitation does not specify how the determination is performed. Similarly, the written description explains that the disclosed invention receives performance weightings for performance categories from advertisers, see Spec. ,r 59, but 5 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 does not explicitly limit the recited determination to a particular method. This limitation is thus broad enough to encompass, for example, people mentally assigning performance weightings to performance categories. Cf CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ( determining that a claim step "is so broadly worded that it encompasses literally any method" for performing the step, including "even logical reasoning that can be performed entirely in the human mind"). Claim 1 next recites "receiving a request for an ad from a client associated with a user of an online system" and, "responsive to the ad request and before sending an ad from the plurality of ads, for each of the plurality of ads," performing a series of steps including "retrieving historical statistics for the user from a database." App. Br. 13-14. People can perform the "receiving" and "retrieving" steps by, for instance, reading the recited request and statistics from a computer screen, a piece of paper, or a database. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (determining that a claim step that "requires 'obtaining information about other transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is identified with the [] credit card transaction'----can be performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a preexisting database"). In any case, even if these limitations required physical steps such as entering a search query into a computer, these steps would not make claim 1 patent eligible. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 ("[E]ven if some physical steps are required to obtain information from the database ( e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability. "). 6 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 Claim 1 then recites "determining a likelihood that the user performs actions associated with performance categories, wherein the predicted likelihood for a performance category is based on the retrieved historical statistics." App. Br. 14. This limitation also recites what the determined likelihood is "based on" but does not meaningfully limit how the determination is performed, and the written description does not restrict the limitation to a particular method. So this limitation encompasses acts that people can perform in their minds, such as setting the likelihood that a user performs actions associated with performance categories to the likelihood reflected by the retrieved historical statistics. For instance, if the retrieved historical statistics show that a user has clicked on an advertisement 50% of the time, people can mentally set the likelihood that the user clicks on the advertisement to 50%. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373. The following limitation in claim 1 recites "determining, for each of the performance categories, an impression value for displaying the ad to the client, wherein the impression value of the ad for a performance category comprises the predicted likelihood for the performance category weighted by the weighting for the performance category." App. Br. 14. The written description indicates that this limitation encompasses mathematical calculations that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 49 ( disclosing that the potential value of an impression can be determined by "summing the products of each performance weighting and the associated predicted performance value for a particular performance category, for each performance category for which an advertiser 220 provides a weighting, and multiplying the sum by the value of an ad to the advertiser 220"), 60 ("In one embodiment, the values 7 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 representing predicted ad performance categories are multiplied by associated values representing performance weightings for each category, and the resulting products are summed to determine the value of the ad impression."). Similarly, claim 1 next recites "determining, by a processor, a bid for the ad specific to the user of the ad request based on an aggregation of the impression values for the performance categories." App. Br. 14. By its own terms, this limitation encompasses simply adding the recited impression values to determine a bid. These limitations thus encompass mental processes. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]e continue to 'treat[] analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."' (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Finally, claim 1 recites "selecting a received ad based on the determined bids for the received ads." App. Br. 14. As with some limitations discussed above, the limitation recites what the selecting step is "based on," but neither this limitation nor the written description limits the step to a particular method. This limitation thus encompasses, for example, a person mentally selecting the received ad with the highest determined bid. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373; Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1148 ("[T]he limited, straightforward nature of the steps involved in the claimed method make evident that a skilled artisan could perform the steps mentally."). Despite the broad language recited in these limitations, Appellants take issue with the Examiner's determination that the claimed method "can be done mentally or by paper [and] pen." Reply Brief 6, filed May 8, 2018 8 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 ("Reply Br."). Appellants assert that the McR02and Enfzsh 3 decisions involved claim elements that "could have also been performed by a human on pen and paper," yet the Federal Circuit determined that the claims in these cases were patent eligible. Reply Br. 6 ( quotation marks omitted). In Appellants' view, these decisions "emphasize that the criteria for patent- eligibility is not whether the steps could be performed by pen and paper, but whether those steps were a specific and unconventional means for achieving a beneficial result." Reply Br. 6 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants have not shown that claim 1 has the specificity or the unconventionality of the claims at issue in McRO and Enfzsh. In McRO, the claim before the court was "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. The rules were "limited" and had "specific characteristics," and the claim incorporated "the specific features of the rules as claim limitations." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 1316. In contrast, as discussed above, claim 1 at best broadly recites that certain steps are "based on" or "comprise" particular information or values but does not meaningfully limit how the steps are performed. See App. Br. 13-14. And to the extent that the written description discusses the recited steps, the written description does not limit the steps to a particular method or suggest that the 2 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 3 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 9 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 steps employ special rules. Claim 1 is thus distinguishable from the patent- eligible claim in McRO. 4 As for Enfzsh, the claims at issue were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in [a] self-referential table." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. Here, Appellants have not shown that the claimed method improves the way computers operate. Claim 1 does not recite that a computer performs the recited steps, except for the final "determining" limitation. See App. Br. 13-14. And the written description indicates that the "invention" concerns "optimizing advertisement bidding, and more particularly to determining advertisement bids for advertisers based on an advertising budget and/ or weighted performance categories provided by the advertisers," Spec. ,r 2, not improving how computers perform. In fact, when the written description discusses computer components, the written description does so in a manner that suggests these components are generic and perform generic functions. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 63 ( disclosing that computer code "can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps, operations, or processes described"), 64 ( explaining that the invention may relate to an apparatus that comprises "a general-purpose computing device"). Claim 1 is therefore not directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate like the claims in Enfzsh. 4 The claim in McRO also went "beyond merely ... carrying out a fundamental economic practice." McRO, 837 F.3d at1315. As discussed below, claim 1 does not. 10 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 Appellants also contend that the Thales 5 and Finjan 6 decisions support their position. See App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 5. But Appellants have not shown that claim 1 is sufficiently similar to the claims in Thales and Finjan. In Thales, the claims were "directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner." Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348--49. And in Finjan, the claims used "a new kind of file that enable[ d] a computer security system to do things it could not do before." Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305. Appellants have not shown that claim 1 employs computer components in an unconventional manner, nor have Appellants shown that the claimed method makes computers perform differently, much less that the method uses new types of files to do so. In sum, the limitations discussed above recite steps that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites mental processes. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (determining that a claim whose "steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" is directed to an unpatentable mental process). This is true even though at least one limitation explicitly recites that a processor performs the claimed step. "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind." Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 ("If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind 5 Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 6 Appellants do not provide a citation for the Finjan decision. See Reply Br. 5. Given Appellants' argument, we understand Appellants to refer to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 11 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category .... "). We therefore conclude that claim 1 recites mental processes, one of the abstract idea groupings identified in the Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity Claim 1 recites a method that, in response to a user requesting an advertisement and before sending an advertisement, ( 1) determines advertisement bids based on impression values for performance categories and (2) uses the bids to select an advertisement to send to the user. See App. Br. 13-14. This is a business practice that is not meaningfully different from other business practices that courts have determined are abstract ideas. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]e hold that the concept of delivering user-selected media content to portable devices is an abstract idea .... "); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("There is no dispute that newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on information known about the customer-for example, a newspaper might advertise based on the customer's location. Providing this minimal tailoring----e.g., providing different newspaper inserts based upon the location of the individual-is an abstract idea."); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining that using an advertisement as an exchange or currency is an abstract idea); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd, 622 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract ideas of "targeting advertisements to certain consumers, and 12 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 using a bidding system to determine when and how advertisements will be displayed," both of which are "fundamental, long-standing, well-known concepts" that "have 'no particular concrete or tangible form' and are therefore abstract"). Appellants assert that "inventions with a business aim have been [ determined] eligible post-Alice" and point to the Trading Technologies 7 and DDR Holdings 8 decisions as examples. See App. Br. 7 (quotation marks omitted). In Trading Technologies, the Federal Circuit agreed with a district court that claims that required "a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art" were patent eligible. Trading Technologies, 675 F. App'x at 1004. Appellants have not persuasively explained why claim 1 is analogous to the claims in Trading Technologies. See App. Br. 7. And in DDR Holdings, "the claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Appellants have not shown that is the case here. Rather, claim 1 appears directed to "nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent-eligible." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256. For at least the above reasons, we determine that claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity 7 Trading Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. CQG, INC, 675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 8 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 13 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 abstract idea group identified in the Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (explaining that certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). For this additional reason, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Practical Application Because we determine that claim 1 recites abstract ideas, we next consider whether claim 1 integrates these abstract ideas into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. In doing so, we consider whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in combination, "integrate the [ abstract ideas] into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. For the recited certain methods of organizing human activity, the only additional element is the recited "processor." See App. Br. 13-14. As discussed above, the written description indicates that the recited processor is a generic computer component that performs generic functions. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 62---65. Using a generic computer component as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not enough to integrate the recited certain methods of organizing human activity into a practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 ("[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of 'additional featur[ e]' that provides any 'practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself."' ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). 14 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 For the recited mental processes, the additional elements include the recited processor and the step of "sending the selected ad for to the user of the client for display." See App. Br. 13-14. As discussed above, the processor is a generic computer component used as a tool to implement an abstract idea. And "sending the selected ad for to the user of the client for display" involves the well-known activity of sending a selected advertisement to a client for display. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 3 ( disclosing that prior art online services generate revenue by presenting advertisements to users), 5 ( disclosing that prior art online services select and present an advertisement that has the highest bid). This step alone is not enough to provide an inventive concept. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."); cf Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (determining that use of well-known random analysis techniques was token extra-solution activity that did not make the abstract idea patentable). Considered individually or together, these additional elements do not integrate the recited mental processes into a practical application. For the above reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. Inventive Concept Finally, we consider whether claim 1 has an inventive concept, that is, whether the claim has additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). As discussed above, this requires us to evaluate whether the additional claim elements add "a specific limitation or 15 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field" or "simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The Examiner determined that the additional elements recited in claim 1 encompass "a generic computer [ used] to perform generic functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry." Ans. 8. Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to provide support for this determination as required by the Berkheimer, 9 Aatrix, 10 and Exergen 11 decisions and Office guidance 12 about these decisions. See Reply Br. 6-7. We disagree. The Examiner pointed to the written description to support this determination, see Ans. 7-9, and the written description adequately does so. As discussed above, for the recited certain methods of organizing human activity, the only additional element is the recited processor. See App. Br. 13-14. The written description describes the processor and the functions it performs at a high level with few technical details, indicating that both the processor and its accompanying functions were well known to those in the art. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 63-64; see also 9 Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 10 Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 11 Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., 725 F. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 12 USPTO, Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer- 20180419 .PDF ("Berkheimer Memo"). 16 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("[A] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art."); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component ( software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources."). This is sufficient to support the Examiner's determination. See Berkheimer Memo 3 ( explaining that a specification that describes additional elements "in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well- known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a)" can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional). As to the recited mental processes, the additional elements include the recited processor and the step of "sending the selected ad for to the user of the client for display." See App. Br. 13-14. As just discussed, the written description indicates that the recited processor is a well-known computer component that performs well-known functions. And as discussed above, "sending the selected ad for to the user of the client for display" involves conventional activity. Considered alone or together, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. Appellants contend that the "determining" steps recited in claim 1 provide an inventive concept. See App. Br. 11-12. According to Appellants, using "ad performance categories to determine bids on a per-user basis is neither a standard or conventional application in the advertising industry nor a routine or conventional application in the field of social networking 17 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 systems." App. Br. 12. Appellants argue that claim 1 is analogous to the claims in BASCOM13 because the "particular arrangement of claim elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of determining a bid for an advertisement." App. Br. 12. We disagree. Appellants rely on part of the identified abstract ideas to provide an inventive concept, but an "abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, 'no matter how groundbreaking the advance.'" Trading Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. !BG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). And in BASCOM, the court determined an inventive concept existed "in the non- conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces," specifically installing "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 claimed invention in BASCOM "represent[ ed] a software-based invention[ ] that improve[ d] the performance of the computer system itself." BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351 ( second alteration in original) ( quotation marks omitted). Appellants have not shown that the additional elements recited in claim 1 are arranged in an unconventional manner that improves the performance of a computer system. In sum, the additional elements for the recited abstract ideas "simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality." Revised Guidance, 84 13 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 18 Appeal2018-005546 Application 13/294,052 Fed. Reg. at 56. We therefore determine that claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept. Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not have an inventive concept. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under Â§ 101. 1-8, 10-12, 14-- 16, and 18-20 Outcome Â§ 101 DECISION 1-8, 10-12, 14-- 16, and 18-20 1-8, 10-12, 14-- 16, and 18-20 No period for taking any action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50([). AFFIRMED 19