Ex Parte Linietsky et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2019

12949600 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/949,600 11/18/2010
86548 7590 06/27/2019
Garlick & Markison (IH)
100 Congress A venue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Laurence B. Linietsky
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.
224-0MR-10-2010 6083
EXAMINER
MACASIANO, MARILYN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2019 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):
MMurdock@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAURENCE B. LINIETSKY, RALPH C. MUNSEN,
and ALAN L. CARLSON
Appeal 2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and AMEE A. SHAH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-183 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief
("Appeal Br.," filed June 30, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Jan. 3,
2018), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Nov. 18, 2010), and to the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 3, 2017) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 7, 2017).
2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is "iHeartMedia
Management Services, Inc." Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn.
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' "invention generally relates to audience data
gathering, and more particularly to a method of correlating behavioral
information regarding a single user from multiple sources, and awarding
promotional credits to the user based on the behavioral information."
Spec. 1, 11. 10-13.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1
(Appeal Br. 17) (Claims App.) is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below (with added bracketing for reference):
1. A computer-implemented method of gathering data
pertaining to an individual's behavior, comprising:
[(a)] obtaining first behavioral information, through use of
a first anonymous user ID cookie, from a single user when the
single user visits a first website and assigning a first user
identifier to the single user, by executing first program
instructions in a computer system;
[(b)] obtaining second behavioral information, through
use of a second anonymous user ID cookie, from the single user
when the single user visits a second website that provides a
different product from the first website and assigning a second
user identifier to the single user, by executing second program
instructions in the computer system;
[ ( c)] correlating the first behavioral information and the
second behavioral information to determine that the first
behavioral information and the second behavioral information
are that of the single user, by executing third program
instructions in the computer system;
[ ( d)] associating the first user identifier with the second
user identifier, by executing fourth program instructions in the
computer system;
[ ( e)] aggregating the first behavioral information with the
second behavioral information, based on the associating, to
2
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
generate aggregated behavioral information, by executing fifth
program instructions in the computer system; and
[(f)] storing the aggregated behavioral information in a
profile associated with the single user.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 6, 10, 12.
We select claim 1 from the group, with the remaining claims standing or
falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice,
573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the
concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
3
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219--20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
(1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
4
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted).
"A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 Revised Guidance"). Under the 2019
Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance.
5
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
Step One of the Mayol Alice Framework
Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework, the Examiner
determines that claim 1 is "directed to the abstract idea of gathering and
analyzing data on individuals and awarding promotional credits based on the
data" (Final Act. 3), which is a "concept of certain methods of organizing
human activity" similar to collecting and analyzing information and using
advertising as currency (id. at 4). When viewed through the lens of the 2019
Revised Guidance, the Examiner's analysis depicts the claimed subject
matter as one of"[ c ]ertain methods of organizing human activity" of
commercial interactions under Prong One of Revised Step 2A. 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The Appellants disagree and characterize the claim as "directed to
determining, based on behavioral information collected using anonymous
cookies, whether user actions taken on multiple different websites can be
attributed to the same user." Appeal Br. 11.
Before determining whether the claims at issue are directed to an
abstract idea, we first determine to what the claims are directed.
[T]he "directed to" inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
considered in light of the specification, based on whether "their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343,
1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
818 F.3d 1369, 1375, 2016 WL 1393573, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(inquiring into "the focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art").
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
question is whether the claims as a whole "focus on a specific means or
method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or
6
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and
machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. Here, the Specification is titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD
FOR PROFILING LISTENERS TO IMPROVE CONTENT
DISTRIBUTION AND LISTENER RETENTION." Spec. 1, 11. 1-2
( emphases omitted). Under the Field of the Invention section, the
Specification provides for an "invention [that] generally relates to audience
data gathering, and more particularly to a method of correlating behavioral
information regarding a single user from multiple sources, and awarding
promotional credits to the user based on the behavioral information." Id. 1,
11. 10-13. The problem with prior ways of organizing listener data related to
broadcast or streaming radio is that they "consist of disparate databases and
loosely organized information," such that "[p ]arties interested in using and
applying the data are hindered in what they can accomplish." Id. 1, 11. 16-
19. "The lack of coherent listener data makes it difficult for media outlets to
effectively promote themselves to the listeners because a complete and
usable representation of a listener's preferences, reactions, demographics,
psychographics, etc." Id. 1, 11. 19-22. The invention(s) described in the
Specification "devise more coherent method of listener data gathering to
enable the development of improved content distribution and advertising or
promotional campaigns." Id. 1, 11. 23-25.
"But while the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a
claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must
always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." ChargePoint,
7
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, an
examination of claim 1 shows that the claim recites "[a] computer-
implemented method of gathering data pertaining to an individual's
behavior, comprising:" (a) "obtaining first behavioral information, through
use of a first anonymous user ID cookie" when a "single user visits a first
website and assigning a first user identifier to the single user"; (b) "obtaining
second behavioral information, through use of a second anonymous user ID
cookie" when the user "visits a second website that provides a different
product from the first website and assigning a second user identifier to the
single user"; ( c) "correlating the first behavioral information and the second
behavioral information to determine that the first behavioral information and
the second behavioral information are that of the single user";
( d) "associating the first user identifier with the second user identifier";
( e) "aggregating the first behavioral information with the second behavioral
information, based on the associating, to generate aggregated behavioral
information"; and (f) "storing the aggregated behavioral information in a
profile associated with the single user." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The
steps are performed by executing program instructions in a computer system.
The independent claim does not recite using the data in any way beyond
storing it, although some dependent claims use the data to select and send
content such as advertisements. See claims 3, 5, 6 (Appeal Br. 17-18,
Claims App.).
Although there is no requirement that claim construction be
performed before a § 101 analysis, in some cases, claim construction can be
desirable and helpful. See Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the
8
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
Specification provides that "the present invention may take the form of an
entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including
firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining
software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as
a 'circuit,' 'module' or 'system."' Spec. 6, 11. 11-15. The term "behavioral"
is not defined in the claim or elsewhere in the Specification, but appears to
comprise user activity. See id. at 16, 11. 10-17. The term "cookie" is also
not defined in the claim or in the Specification. We find that the ordinary
and customary meaning at the time of the invention of a cookie, as the term
in used here, is of a "block of data that a Web server stores on a client
system," a copy of which is sent back to the server upon repeated visits to a
web site for use in identifying the user and instruct the server to send a
customized version of the web page. MICROSOFT PRESS COMPUTER
DICTIONARY - 3rd Ed., page 119 (1997) ("Computer Dictionary").
The steps of obtaining, correlating, associating, and aggregating data,
i.e., steps (a) through (e), are recited without any details as to how the
functions are performed, i.e., in what way(s) technologically or by what
algorithm. The Appellants cite to the Specification's page 16, lines 20
through 25, page 18, lines 2 through 27, and Figure 5 as support for all of
these steps. Appeal Br. 3--4. Page 16, lines 20 through 25, provides that a
user can interact with a radio website and that the radio website can send
identifier, point value, and description data to a services provider. Page 18
provides that a data harvester can identify a device using an identifier, gather
data by obtaining data from user activities when the user visits a website,
correlate information to determine that two sets of behavioral information
are that of a single user, associate data based in common data, rate the
9
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
association, and if commonality, merge the behavioral information. Figure 5
depicts steps in a process with blocks for obtaining, correlating, and
associating data. There are no further details on how the steps are
performed.
When considered collectively and under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim limitations, the limitations recite a method for
gathering and storing data pertaining to an individual's behavior that can be
used for any purpose such as advertising. 4 Limitations (a) and (b) of
obtaining/receiving data are pre-solution steps and are ordinarily performed
in gathering data. Limitations ( c) and ( d) of correlating information and
associating identifiers are simply data matching/analyses steps that can be
performed mentally and are ordinarily performed when gathering and storing
data. Limitation ( e) of aggregating data based on the associating is simply a
data combining step, can be performed mentally, and is ordinarily performed
when matching and storing data. Limitation (f) of storing aggregated data is
a post-solution activity that simply stores the results of the correlating,
associating, and aggregating.
Gathering and storing data is similar to the concepts of "data
collection, recognition, and storage" in Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
"(1) sending information, (2) directing the sent information, (3) monitoring
the receipt of the sent information, and ( 4) accumulating records about
4 Although we and the Examiner describe, at different levels of abstraction,
to what the claims are directed, it is recognized that "[ a ]n abstract idea can
generally be described at different levels of abstraction." Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in
this case does not, "impact the patentability analysis." See id. at 1241.
10
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
receipt of the sent information" in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 139
S. Ct. 378 (2018), "gathering and analyzing information of a specified
content, then displaying the results" in Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016), collecting, analyzing,
manipulating, and processing data and displaying the results of the analysis,
manipulation, and processing in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017), classifying image data and
storing the data based on its classification in In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and tailoring information
based on user information and navigation data in Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, we conclude the claim recites a way of gathering and storing
data for use in selecting content such as advertising, a concept performed in
the human mind, which is one of the mental processes identified in the 2019
Revised Guidance, and a commercial interaction such as advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is one of the certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the 2019 Revised
Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As such, we find unpersuasive the
Appellants' argument that Electric Power is not analogous to the claim. See
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4--5.
Even were we to characterize the claim as the Appellants do as
reciting a method of "determining, based on behavioral information
collected using anonymous cookies, whether user actions taken on multiple
different websites can be attributed to the same user" (Appeal Br. 11 ), the
claim would still recite a way of determining whether user actions are of the
11
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
same user. This would be similar to the cases cited above, and would still be
reciting determining data, a concept performed in the human mind.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54, we look to whether 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," i.e., "integrates a judicial exception into
a practical application." Here, the Appellants contend that the claim
"recite[ s] a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology"
(Appeal Br. 12) similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Appeal Br. 12-14). 5 When viewed through the lens
of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Appellants content that there is "[ a ]n
additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field" as
described in the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing DDR
Holdings) as indicative that the elements may have integrated the judicial
exception into a practical application. We disagree.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims
addressed the problem of retaining website visitors who, if adhering to the
routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be
transported instantly away from a host's website after clicking on an
advertisement and activating a hyperlink. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257.
5 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance). Solely for
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office guidance). See 2019 Revised
Guidance at 55.
12
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
The Federal Circuit, thus, held that the claims were directed to statutory
subject matter because they claim a solution "necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks." Id. The court cautioned that "not all claims
purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent." Id.
at 1258. And the court contrasted the claims to those at issue in
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014), in that, in
DDR Holdings, the computer network was not operating in its "normal,
expected manner" and the claims did not "recite an invention that is ...
merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet." Id. at 1258-59.
Here, the Appellants state that "[a]t least one technological problem
solved by the claims is the inability to link anonymous behavioral data
collected from different websites." Appeal Br. 12. However, this is
unsupported attorney argument. The Appellants do not direct attention to
where the Specification describes that there exited an inability, at the time of
the invention, of linking data collected from different websites. Rather, the
Specification describes the problem being addressed as a "lack of coherent
listener data [that] makes it difficult for media outlets to effectively promote
themselves." Spec. 1, 11. 18-20. The problem of having appropriate data to
effectively promote existed prior to the Internet.
Further, the Appellants do not provide reasoning or explanation how
the claim has a "technical solution" (Appeal Br. 13) that purports to solve
the problem. As stated above, the claim recites the results of the functions
without how to implement them. The purported solution uses a conventional
computer (see id. at 4, 1. 5-5, 1. 16) operating in its ordinary and customary
capacity to obtain, correlate, associate, aggregate, and sort data and uses
13
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
cookies in a conventional manner (see Computer Dictionary 119). The
Appellants do not direct attention to, and we do not see, where the
Specification describes the computer acting in an unconventional manner or
using cookies in an unconventional manner to link data.
The Appellants also contend that the clam is similar to those of McRO
because the claim "recite[ s] a technological process that has not been
previously performed by humans in the same way as claimed" and is thus
"more than merely instructions to implement a conventional method
previously performed by humans using generic components." Appeal
Br. 15. We disagree.
In McRO, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in
computer animation and used rules to automate a subjective task of humans
to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. See McRO,
837 F.3d at 1314--15. Unlike Flook, Bilski, and Alice, it was not the use of
the computer but the incorporation of the rules that improved an existing
technological process. Id. at 1314.
Here, there is no such improvement to a technological process. As
discussed above, the claimed process of gathering and storing data is recited
without any technological details on how the steps of obtaining, correlating,
associating, aggregating, and storing are performed technologically other
than using a conventional computer in its ordinary capacity. The Appellants
also do not direct our attention to anything in the Specification to indicate
that the invention provides a technical improvement in gathering and storing
data or that it incorporates rules to automate a subjective task of humans, as
in McRO. The benefit of the invention is not a technical or technological
14
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
improvement, but rather, any benefit lies in the analysis, i.e., correlating,
associating, and aggregating of data.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination
that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Second Step
Under the second step in the Alice framework, corresponding to Step
2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we find supported the Examiner's
determination that the claim limitations, taken individually or as an ordered
combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. See Final Act. 3, 5-7. We disagree with the Appellants'
contention that the Examiner "does not adequately consider the claims as a
whole." Appeal Br. 13 (emphases omitted); see also id. at 14. The
Examiner specifically considers the elements "both individually and as an
ordered combination" in making the determination that the claim "do[es] not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea." Final Act. 5.
The Appellants do not offer additional reasoning or argument why the
claim "[ a ]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is
indicative that an inventive concept may be present." 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. We agree with the Examiner that "the
additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality,
provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits
to practicing the abstract idea" (Final Act. 3) and that the computer system
and cookie "perform[] generic computer functions routinely used in
computer applications" (id. at 5).
15
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claimed
computer system operates in its ordinary and conventional capacity to
perform the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of
obtaining data using cookies, correlating, and associating, aggregating, and
storing data. See Spec. 4, 1. 5-5, 1. 16; 6, 1110-17 (describing a general
purpose, conventional computing system); see also Electric Power, 830 F.3d
at 1354--55 (gathering, sending, monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and
presenting information does not transform the abstract process into a patent-
eligible invention); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 ("Nearly every computer ... [is]
capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission
functions required by the method claims."); In re TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at
612 ("storing, receiving, and extracting data" are generic computer
functions); 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");
Computer Dictionary 119 ("When a user returns to the same Web site, the
browser sends a copy of the cookie back to the server. Cookies are used to
identify users, to instruct the server to send a customized version of the
requested Web page, to submit account information for the user, and for
other administrative purposes."). Moreover, the claim simply recites the
functional results to be achieved of receiving data, matching data,
determining data, and grouping data. The claim "provides only a result-
oriented solution[] with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes
it." Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342.
16
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
the Appellants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception (obtain), analysis
( correlate, associate, and aggregate), and storing is equally generic and
conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, , 772 F.3d
at 715 (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) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media, 874
F.3d at 1339 (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and
monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary
and conventional.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination
that the limitations of claim 1 do not transform the claim into significantly
more than the abstract idea.
For at least the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 1 and of claims 2-18, which fall
with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
AFFIRMED.
17
Appeal2018-002362
Application 12/949,600
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).
AFFIRMED
18