Ex Parte Raina et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13330502 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/330,502 12/19/2011
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
05/02/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rajat Raina
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.
26295-18570 1036
EXAMINER
LI,SUNM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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 RAJAT RAINA, GOKUL RAJARAM, HONG GE,
JUNFENG PAN, and JOHN HEGEMAN
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Rajat Raina, Gokul Rajaram, Hong Ge, Junfeng Pan, and John
Hegeman (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final
rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-19, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The Appellants invented a way of advertising about objects in a social
networking system to users using collaborative filtering based on the users'
interactions with objects in the social networking system. Specification
para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
[ 1] maintaining an interaction log by a social networking
system, the interaction log including information about a
plurality of user interactions with a plurality of objects in the
social networking system;
[2] storing the interaction log distributed across a plurality of
databases, the interaction log stored as a user-object interaction
matrix structure comprising a plurality of matrices distributed
across the plurality of databases, in each of which rows
2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed March 8, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 6, 2017),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 6, 2017), and Final Action
("Final Act.," mailed June 3, 2016).
2
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
correspond to users of a user segment and columns correspond
to objects, a user segment for a matrix defined based on users
having a shared characteristic;
[3] for each of a plurality of pairs of objects in the social
networking system, computing, by a computer, a similarity
score for the pair of objects, by:
[3 .1] identifying one or more segments of users having
interactions with both of the pair of objects;
[3.2] identifying one or more data structures stored in one
or more of the databases corresponding to the identified
segments of users;
[3.3] determining a measure of users who have interacted
with both of the pair of objects, wherein the measure of
users who have interacted with both of the pair of objects
can be represented by a formula:
I (Object At) (Object Ba
where Object Ai denotes a measure of an
interaction of an ith user of n users with Object A,
Object Bi denotes a measure of an interaction of
the ith user of the n users with Object B, and
I(Object Ai) (Object Bi) denotes a sum of products
of measures of interaction with Object A and
Object B for all of then users,
[3 .4] determining a measure of users who have interacted
with at least one of the pair of objects,
[3 .5] normalizing, by the computer, the measure of users
who have interacted with both of the pair of objects by
the measure of users who have interacted with at least
one of the pair of objects,
and
[3 .6] determining the similarity score between the pair of
objects based on the normalized measure of users who
have interacted with both of the pair of objects;
3
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
[ 4] identifying, from the interaction log, an interaction with a
first object of the plurality of objects by a viewing user;
[5] selecting a second object from the plurality of objects based
on the similarity score between the first and the second object;
and
[6] sending an advertisement associated with the second object
for display to the viewing user.
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 12
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ...
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, "[w]hat
3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
("Revised Guidance").
4
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as
an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional
elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept'"-i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014)
(citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first
determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining
whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions ( a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial
exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited
judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims "apply, rely on,
or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on
the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Revised Guidance at 54. If
the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining
whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional
elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited
judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites maintaining and storing a log, computing similarity scores by
identifying data segments and the structures they are stored in and
5
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
determining and normalizing user measures, identifying an interaction,
selecting an object, and sending an advertisement. Maintaining a log is just
receiving and storing its data. Computing scores is conventional
mathematical analysis. Identifying and selecting data is rudimentary data
analysis. Sending an advertisement is data transmission. Thus, claim 1
recites receiving, storing, analyzing, and transmitting data. None of the
limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps,
but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts, 4 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity, 5 and (3) mental processes. 6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are fundamental
economic practices, or commercial or legal interactions or managing
4 See, e.g., Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
6
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as a certain
method of organizing human activity. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites
the concept of selecting and sending an advertisement. Specifically, claim 1
recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to send an
ad that is associated with an object that interacted with another object that is
similar to the first object based on a computed similarity score derived from
user interaction measurements. The advice to send an ad that is associated
with an object that interacted with another object that is similar to the first
object based on a computed similarity score derived from user interaction
measurements involves sending an ad, which is an economic act, and
selecting the ad, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 1 recites "sending an advertisement," which
is an activity that would take place whenever one is advertising. Similarly,
claim 1 recites "an advertisement ... for display to the viewing user,"
which is also characteristic of selecting an ad to send.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to selecting
advertisements for its users using collaborative filtering based on user
interactions with objects. Ans. 4.
The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in sending an advertisement absent any technological
mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 2 recite data gathering.
Limitation 3 recites performing a mathematical computation on collected
data representing interactions of software objects to produce similarity
scores. Limitations 4 and 5 recite conventional analyzing of data, which
advise one to apply generic functions such as identifying and selecting to get
7
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
to these results. Limitation 6 is the only step performing what the claim
produces and recites sending an ad that has been selected, which is simply
data transmission. Note that limitation 10 only implies the selection of the
ad, the selection is not actually recited as a step in claim 1. The limitations
thus recite advice for sending an ad that is associated with an object that
interacted with another object that is similar to the first object based on a
computed similarity score derived from user interaction measurements. To
advocate sending an ad that is associated with an object that interacted with
another object that is similar to the first object based on a computed
similarity score derived from user interaction measurements is conceptual
advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
advertising about objects in a social networking system to users using
collaborative filtering based on the users' interactions with objects in the
social networking system. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim
1 is directed to using some statistical measure to select and send an ad, i.e.
selecting and sending an advertisement. This is consistent with the
Examiner's determination.
This in tum is an example of fundamental economic practices, or
commercial or legal interactions or managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of
organizing human activity because advertising is a fundamental economic
practice as evidenced by its pervasiveness, advertising is an example of
commercial or legal interactions in creating and sending the ad, and
advertising based on data representing interactions among users is a way of
managing the personal behavior of those users to influence their purchase
8
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
decisions. The concept of selecting and sending an advertisement by
sending an ad that is associated with an object that interacted with another
object that is similar to the first object based on a computed similarity score
derived from user interaction measurements is one idea for how to quantify a
measure for selecting an ad to send. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of
how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using advertising).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, storing, analyzing,
and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the
data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TL!
Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, storage, analysis,
and transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular
computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation"). As such, claim 1 is directed to receiving, storing, analyzing,
and transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application
of that idea.
9
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 is directed
to selecting and sending an advertisement by sending an ad that is associated
with an object that interacted with another object that is similar to the first
object based on a computed similarity score derived from user interaction
measurements, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application. 7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas."
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. "[A]pplication[s]" of
such concepts " 'to a new and useful end,' " we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the " 'buildin[g] block[ s]' " of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 2 are pure data gathering
7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
10
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 6
is insignificant post solution activity, such as transmitting or displaying the
results. Steps 3-5 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of
results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than
conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is
interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically
enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically
achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellants' claim 1 simply recites the concept of
selecting and sending an advertisement by sending an ad that is associated
with an object that interacted with another object that is similar to the first
object based on a computed similarity score derived from user interaction
measurements as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 22+ pages of Specification spell out
different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of selecting and sending an advertisement by sending
an ad that is associated with an object that interacted with another object that
is similar to the first object based on a computed similarity score derived
8 The Specification describes a conventional computer system. Spec. para.
29.
11
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
from user interaction measurements under different scenarios. They do not
describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions.
Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an
instruction to apply selecting and sending an advertisement by sending an ad
that is associated with an object that interacted with another object that is
similar to the first object based on a computed similarity score derived from
user interaction measurements using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
selecting and sending an advertisement by advising one to sending an ad that
is associated with an object that interacted with another object that is similar
to the first object based on a computed similarity score derived from user
interaction measurements, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
12
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."'
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a
computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to "implement[t]" an abstract
idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of "additional
feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [ abstract idea] itself."
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted).
"[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
13
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by
the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, storing, analyzing, and transmitting data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a
computer.
All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d
1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of
the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be
achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming").
None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any
produce some unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they invented
any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a
generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data
operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is
'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does
not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc.
v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The limitation of
the interaction log stored as a user-object interaction matrix
structure comprising a plurality of matrices distributed across
the plurality of databases, in each of which rows correspond to
users of a user segment and columns correspond to objects, a
user segment for a matrix defined based on users having a
shared characteristic
14
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
is not a step, but a recitation of where the data resides. The claims recite
no particularly technological reliance on such distribution, and indeed the
remaining steps do not even mention such distribution. Instead, the
Specification paragraph 46 merely states that such distribution allows
accommodation of large data sets. This is no more than the use of
distribution for one of its intended purposes. Thus, to the extent this is a
structural limitation on the method steps, it is no more pertinent to this issue
than the structures of generic computers.
Storing data in matrices is equivalent to storing in database tables,
which are mathematical analogs of matrices. In any event, a matrix ( and a
table) is an abstract data type ( a term of art separate from the use of the term
"abstract" in the patent context) that in itself demonstrates no particular
technological implementation ( which is the point of referring to abstract
data types). Therefore, referring to a matrix in a claim does not produce a
technological implementation.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants' claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-storage-analysis-
transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving,
selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving
payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission),
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d
1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling,
15
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claim 15 is
substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method
claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to
the practical application of that concept.
As to the structural claim 14, it is
no different from the method claims in substance. The method
claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in
ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the
draftsman's art. '
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
16
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
legal interaction of selecting and sending an advertisement by advising one
to send an ad that is associated with an object that interacted with another
object that is similar to the first object based on a computed similarity score
derived from user interaction measurements, without significantly more.
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS
As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's
determinations and analysis from Final Action 16-25 and Answer 3-20 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
the claimed process includes new steps that were developed to
implement the concept of collaborative filtering within a social
networking system while addressing technical problems that did
not exist before. One fundamental purpose of social
networking systems is to select and present content that is likely
to be of interest to a user from among a near countless number
of content items. Improvements to these functions are not
abstract concepts, but instead provide a better social networking
system
Reply Br. 3. Merely ascribing some purpose to an abstract idea
generally does not make it less abstract. Conceptual improvements to an
abstract idea are still an abstract idea. "Adding one abstract idea ... to
another abstract idea ... does not render the claim nonabstract."
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (2017).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the claimed
process recites limitations that are unique to overcoming the technical
challenge of using collaborative filtering to identify objects of interest to
users among billions of users and objects and the many more numerous
interactions between them stored in different locations." Reply Br. 3.
17
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
Uniqueness is generally by itself not an indicator of being non-abstract.
Technical difficulties may be conceptually overcome, as is the case with the
instant claims. Conceptual ideas, absent technological implementation
details, are generally insufficient to tum an abstract idea into something not
abstract.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than
describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any
limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution
to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the
claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a
concrete embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269
(2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
this claimed limitation adds an unconventional step to
collaborative filtering (i.e., storing the interaction information
in a matrix by user segment). Moreover, since such a large
volume of information cannot all be stored in a single location,
this claimed limitation also addresses a technical constraint of
the social networking system by storing the interaction
information "across a plurality of databases." Without these
features, the claimed method of collaborative filtering would
not be technically feasible at the scale of existing social
networking systems.
Reply Br. 4. As we determined supra, storing data in a matrix is no more
than storing in a conventional table, which is a subset of a matrix. And even
then, a matrix is a conceptual generic "abstract data type" that in itself
provides no technological implementation details. Thus, this is no more than
reciting an idea to store data by user segment. As to distribution of the data,
as we determine supra, this is simply using distribution for its known
intended use, which is to assist in storing large amounts of data. As to
18
Appeal2017-008959
Application 13/330,502
technical feasibility at scale, the claims recite no particular scale, and scale is
simply a matter of context. "The Supreme Court and this court have
repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract
idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the
claims any less abstract." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the recited
calculation and normalization improves results. Reply Br. 5. Using math to
improve results by itself is generally insufficient. See Benson supra.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
19