Ex Parte Savage et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

11771215 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111771,215 0612912007 Kent Allen Savage
33438 7590 03/27/2018
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
FAM07001 7598
EXAMINER
RUHL, DENNIS WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT ALLEN SAVAGE, WESLEY SCHIESZ, and
MATTHEW HOVIS
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRA VICK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETRA VICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The Appellants identify Famecast, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kent Allen Savage et al. (Appellants) seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 35-522. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
U.S. Patent Application No. 11/771,215 was the subject of previous
Appeal No. 2011-009987. The claims at issue in Appeal No. 2011-009987
have been canceled.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM. 3
THE INVENTION
Claims 35 and 43 are independent. Claim 35 recites an apparatus for
managing a talent contest, and claim 43 recites a similar method. Claims
36-42 depend directly or indirectly from claim 35. Claims 44--52 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 43.
Claim 35, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
35. A talent contest management platform comprising:
an artist manager stored in non-transitory memory and operable
to execute on a processor to accept video presentations
2 Claims 1-31 have been cancelled.
3 Our decision references the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Jul. 13,
2015) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 11, 2015) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Mar. 13, 2015). Appellants did not file
a Reply Brief.
2
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
from plural artists through a network, each video
presentation classified by genre;
a fan manager stored in non-transitory memory and operable to
execute on a processor to register plural fans and to
selectively present the video presentations through the
network to the fans for viewing through plural stages, each
stage associated with a genre, the fan manager selectively
presenting the video presentations in an order based at
least on the number of fans associated with the artist of
each video presentation;
a voting system stored in non-transitory memory and operable to
execute on a processor, the voting system accessible to the
fans through the network and operable to accept votes for
artist presentations, the votes tallied at a predetermined
time to select a talent contest winner for each genre, the
voting system requiring a registration of each voter
including at least an e-mail address of each voter, the email
address confirmed by sending an e-mail having a visual
code to the e-mail address and requiring a response from
the e-mail address to authenticate the voter with the
response including the visual code manually input into the
response by each voter, the voting system operable to
analyze registrations by plural users to detect multiple
votes placed by a common user through the network at
least in part by scanning all votes cast by all voters for
fraud patterns associated with a predetermined video
including at least by comparing viewing of the
predetermined video and voting for the predetermined
video and all the videos.
3
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Call us 6,154,738 Nov. 28, 2000
Morgan US 2007/0043681 Al Feb.22,2007
Poulin US 7 ,427 ,025 B2 Sep.23,2008
VanderMey US 7,519,562 Bl Apr. 14, 2009
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 35-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the applicant
regards as the invention.
2. Claims 42-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
3. Claims 35, 36, and 43--47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Vander Mey, Call, and Morgan.
4. Claims 37--42 and 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Vander Mey, Call, Morgan, and
Poulin.
5. Claims 35-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to ineligible subject matter.
4
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
ANALYSIS 4
The Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of a rejection. See, e.g., Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citations omitted). Hyatt v. Dudas,
551F.3d1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments
appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived); In re
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (declining to consider the
appellant's new argument regarding the scope of a prior art patent when that
argument was not raised before the Board); In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
14 79 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (declining to consider whether prior art cited in an
obviousness rejection was non-analogous art when that argument was not
raised before the Board). Thus, the Board will generally not reach the merits
of any issues not contested by an appellant. Cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs,
952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant .... ").
Here, Appellants do not challenge a number of rejections made by the
Examiner. See Ans. 11. We summarily affirm those rejections below.
Further, many of Appellants challenges are cursory and do not respond to
the Examiner's specific findings or rationale, as explained below. We
review the challenged rejections for error based upon the issues identified by
Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.
4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, took effect on
March 18, 2013. Because the instant application was filed before that date,
any citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 103 are to their pre-AIA version.
5
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075. We will not review the rejections in
greater detail than that argued by Appellants.
The Rejection of Claims 35-52 as Indefinite
"[W]e apply the approach for assessing indefiniteness approved by the
Federal Circuit in Packard, i.e., '[a] claim is indefinite when it contains
words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."' Ex parte McAward, No.
2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017)
(precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 7 51F.3 d 13 07, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2014)). "Put differently, 'claims are required to be cast in clear-as opposed
to ambiguous, vague, indefinite-terms."' Id. (quoting Packard, 751 F.3d at
1313). "At the same time, this requirement is not a demand for unreasonable
precision." Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313.
Claims 35-42
Claim 3 5 recites:
the voting system operable to analyze registrations by plural
users to detect multiple votes placed by a common user through
the network at least in part by scanning all votes cast by all voters
for fraud patterns associated with a predetermined video
including at least by comparing viewing of the predetermined
video and voting for the predetermined video and all the videos.
The Examiner rejected claim 35 as indefinite because it is unclear
how the voting system determines multiple votes by a common user by
scanning all votes cast by all voters for fraud patterns associated with the
predetermined video, and by comparing viewing of the predetermined video
and voting for the predetermined video and all videos. See Final Act. 7-9.
6
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
Appellants respond that "those of skill in the art of network security are
familiar with statistical techniques that analyze network traffic to determine
the origins of communications." Br. 5.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it does not sufficiently
address the Examiner's rejection. See Ans. 4. Appellants' response is
conclusory and provides no explanation to support Appellants' assertion of
what one of ordinary skill in the art would know.
We agree with the Examiner that the language of claim 35 is unclear.
See Ans. 7-9. Further, the Specification is unhelpful in clarifying the
limitation. The Specification discloses the voting system having Safe Vote
Module 228 and separate Voting Results Monitor 230. See Spec. 13:6-15:8,
Fig. 8. Safe Vote Module 228 is described as "tracking votes by user
account, IP address and user agent so that a predetermined number of votes
are allowed for an artist from each account, such as one vote per artist per
account." Id. at 13: 17-19, Fig. 9. In other words, Safe Vote Module 228
detects multiple votes placed by a common user. The Specification does not
describe Safe Vote Module 228 scanning all votes cast by all voters for fraud
patterns associated with a predetermined video including at least by
comparing viewing of the predetermined video and voting for the
predetermined video and all the videos. Voting Results Monitor 230 "tracks
all votes placed and scans for fraud patterns, such as by comparing views of
an artist video submission against votes for the artist based on the video
submission." Spec. 13:23-25, Fig. 9. In other words, Voting Results
Monitor 230 detects fraud patterns by scanning all votes. The Specification
does not describe Voting Results Monitor 230 detecting multiple votes
placed by a common user.
7
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
Accordingly, the rejection of 35 as being indefinite is affirmed. We
also affirm the rejection of claims 36-42, which depend from claim 35, as
being indefinite for this reason.
Dependent Claim 3 6
Claim 3 6 recites "wherein the voting system determines voting fraud
based at least in part upon a comparison between the number of views of the
predetermined video, the number of votes for the predetermined video, and
the number of views and votes for all videos."
The Examiner also rejected claim 36 as indefinite because it's unclear
"how the determination of multiple votes from a common user is being made
by comparing the views of the video to the votes for the video, and the
number of views and votes for all videos." Final Act. 6.
Although the Appellants acknowledge that claim 36 was rejected as
indefinite (Br. 3), Appellants make no arguments in response to the rejection
(see generally Br.). This rejection of claim 36, therefore, is summarily
affirmed for this additional reason. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 43-52
Claim 43 recites "accepting talent contest video submissions from
artists and communicated through a network for a predetermined submission
deadline" and "presenting the video submissions to fans by communicating
the video submissions through the network for presentation at a display
device for a predetermined rating deadline."
The Examiner rejected claim 43 as indefinite because "[i]t is not
known what is meant to accept submission for a deadline" as opposed to
8
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
until the submission deadline. Final Act. 9. The Examiner applied the same
reasoning to the "for predetermine rating deadline." Id.
Br. 6.
Appellants respond:
The Examiner finds 'submission deadline' and 'rating deadline'
indefinite. Again the Examiner offers no evidence of
indefiniteness. Applicants respectfully submit that the concept
of a deadline is equally clear whether something is submitted for
the deadline or until the deadline.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive as it amounts to nothing more
than a general allegation that claim 43 is not indefinite. The plain language
of claim 43 recites "for" and not "until."
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 43 as being indefinite is affirmed.
We also affirm the rejection of claims 44--52, which depend from claim 43,
as being indefinite for this reason.
Claim 45
The Examiner also rejected claim 45 as indefinite because it requires
"presenting the plural video submissions to the fan in the random order."
Final Act. 11. Claim 45 depends from claim 44, which requires the
presenting of video submissions is done in order of the number of fans
associated with each artist. The Examiner argues that the presenting of the
video submission cannot be done both randomly and in the order required by
claim 44. Id.
Although the Appellants acknowledge that claim 45 was rejected as
indefinite (Br. 3), Appellants make no arguments in response to the rejection
9
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
(see generally Br.). The rejection of claim 45, therefore, is summarily
affirmed for this additional reason. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 46
Claim 46 depends directly from claim 45 and indirectly from
claim 44. Claim 46 recites "presenting the video submissions in order of the
number of fan views." Similarly as for claim 45, discussed above, the
Examiner argues that the presenting of the video submission cannot be done
in order of the number of fan views and randomly as required by claim 45 or
in the order required by claim 44. Final Act. 10.
Although the Appellants acknowledge that claim 46 was rejected as
indefinite (Br. 3), Appellants make no arguments in response to the rejection
(see generally Br.). The rejection of claim 46, therefore, is summarily
affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejection of Claims 42-52 as Failing to Comply with the Written
Description Requirement
Claim 42
Claim 42 recites "an e-commerce server operable to present
advertising with videos, the advertising determined [at] least in part based
upon a genre of the video presented with the advertising." The Examiner
rejected claim 42 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement because the Specification as originally filed "does not provide
any guidance or disclosure regarding how the e-commerce server works,
how it presents advertising with the videos, and how the presented
advertising is based on the genre of the video." Final Act. 11-12.
10
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
Although the Appellants acknowledge that claim 42 was rejected as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Br. 3),
Appellants make no arguments in response to the rejection (see generally
Br.). The rejection of claim 42, therefore, is summarily affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37( c)(l )(iv).
Claims 43-52
Claim 43 recites "the stages created in non-transitory memory with
instructions running on a processor." The Examiner rejected claim 43 as
failing to comply with the written description requirement because the
Specification does not provide support for the stages being created with
instructions running on a processor. Final Act. 12; see Ans. 10. The
Examiner states: "While the specification discloses that the talent contest
has stages, nothing is disclosed regarding how the stages are being created
by using instructions running on a processor." Id.; Ans. 10.
Appellants respond: "On page 6 at line 14, Figure 1 is described as a
system architecture of a talent contest management platform 10 built with
software tools including C++ modules. Plural stages 7 4 are depicted as one
of the modules of Figure 1. Applicants respectfully submit that one of skill
in the art would understand that software runs on a processor." Br. 6-7.
The Statute requires that the "specification shall contain a written
description of the invention .... " 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. To
satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably
convey to skilled artisans that the patentee possessed the claimed invention
as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). The requirement under§ 112 does not
11
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
demand that the specification recite the claimed invention verbatim. Id.
at 1352 (citations omitted).
Appellants' argument is persuasive. The Specification states: "A
talent contest management platform 10 is built with software tools, such as
an object oriented architecture having C++ modules .... " Spec. 6:15-17.
Figure 1 depicts talent contest management platform 10 having a
"Stages 74" module. Given this, we determine that the Specification and
drawings provide sufficient written description support for this limitation of
claim 43.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 43, and claims 44--52, dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement is reversed.
The Rejection of Claims 35, 36, and 43-47 as Unpatentable Over Vander
Mey, Call, and Morgan
Claims 3 5 and 3 6
Above we determine that claim 35 was indefinite because the
limitation related to detecting a fraud pattern was unclear. Appellants argues
that Vander Mey, Call, and Morgan fail to teach this limitation. Br. 6. The
Examiner asserts that the limitation would have been obvious given Vander
Mey, Call, and Morgan. Final Act. 13-20. We, however, cannot determine
if the prior art teaches the limitation because of the lack of clarity of the
limitation. We are constrained to reverse, proforma, the rejection of claim
35 and claim 36, depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Vander Mey,
Call, and Morgan. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962) (A
prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary
12
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the
meaning of claim language.).
Claims 43-47
The Examiner rejected 43 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Vander Mey, Call, and Morgan. Final Act. 13-20.
Other than a paragraph quoting a limitation of claim 43, the entirety of
Appellants' argument regarding the rejection of claim 43 is reproduced
below:
Br. 7.
Vander[ ]Mey, Call and Morgan cannot make obvious [ c ]laim 43
because Vander[ ]Mey, Call and Morgan fail to teach, suggest or
disclose all elements recited by [c ]laim 43. For example, Vander[
]Mey, Call and Morgan fail to teach, suggest or disclose
"analyzing all votes placed for all video submissions to detect
predetermined patterns of fraud with instructions executing on a
processor, the analyzing including at least comparing the number
of views of a predetermined video and the number of votes for
the video" as recited by [c]laim 43. Claim 43 includes a process
for obtaining submissions on which votes are counted and
requires that votes placed for "all" video submissions are
analyzed to detect patterns of fraud. The art cited by the
Examiner fails to address this more narrow scope set forth in
[ c ]laim 43. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the
Board reverse the rejection of [ c ]laim 43.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it does not sufficiently
address the Examiner's rejection. To meet the limitation at issue, the
Examiner provides a lengthy analysis as to why the limitation at issue would
have been obvious based on the teachings of the prior art. See Final
Act. 13-20. For example, the Examiner cites to multiple portions of Vander
13
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
Mey to teach determining reliability of user ratings for content based upon a
pattern of behavior See e.g., id. at 13 (citing Vander Mey 3:22--43).
Section 103 (a) forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). One cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references
individually when a challenge is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Appellants' argument does not sufficiently address why the
limitation would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
view of the prior art. Instead, Appellants attack the references individually,
arguing that none of the references teaches the limitation at issue.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 43 as being unpatentable over
Vander Mey, Call, and Morgan is affirmed. We also affirm the rejection of
claims 44--47 as being unpaintable over Vander Mey, Call, and Morgan
because Appellants having made no separate arguments directed to these
claims, thereby allowing claims 44--47 to stand or fall with claim 43. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Rejection of Claims 37-42 and 48-52 as Unpatentable over Vander
Mey, Call, Morgan, and Poulin
Claims 37-42
Claims 37--42 depend directly or indirectly from claims 35 and 36.
For the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 35 and 36,
14
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
we reverse, proforma, the rejection of claims 37--42 as unpatentable over
Vander Mey, Call, Morgan, and Poulin.
Claims 48-52
Claims 48-52 depend directly or indirectly from claim 43. Appellants
having made no separate arguments directed to these claims, thereby
allowing claims 48-52 to stand or fall with claim 43. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 48-52 as being
unpatentable over Vander Mey, Call, Morgan, and Poulin is affirmed.
The Rejection of Claims 35-52 under 35 USC§ 101
The Examiner rejected claims 35-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 2--4.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If the
15
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea,
the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where
the elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id.
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. Therefore, the Federal Circuit has
instructed that claims are to be considered in their entirety to determine
"whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Appellants rely upon the same argument regarding the patent
eligibility of independent claims 35 and 43 to challenge this rejection and
make no separate arguments concerning the patent eligibility of the
dependent claims. See Br. 3-5, 6. We select independent claim 35 5 as
representative. Thus, claims 36-52 stand or fall with claim 35. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37( c)(l )(iv).
5 The lack of clarity in claim 3 5 's limitation related to detecting a fraud
pattern does not impact our ability to resolve the issues raised by Appellants
with respect to patent eligibility. In the interest of judicial efficiency, we
consider the rejection of claims 35 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 on the merits.
16
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
Turning to the first step, the Examiner determined that the claims are
directed to the abstract idea of "managing a network based talent contest, in
a fair and transparent manner so that the public participation is supported" or
"managing a talent contest by detecting voter fraud," which are methods of
organizing human activities. Final Act. 3. The Examiner argues that the
idea of managing a talent contest is akin to the idea of managing a game of
Bingo, which the Federal Circuit determined was patent ineligible in Planet
Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In response, Appellants broadly assert that "it is respectfully
submitted that the claims of the present application are unlike that of any of
the examples provided by the Court." Br. 4. Appellants, however, do not
provide any explanation as to why claim 3 5 is not directed to a method of
organizing human activities (i.e., managing a talent contest), nor do they
respond to the Examiner's reasoning regarding Planet Bingo. We, thus, are
not persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred in determining that
claim 3 5 was directed to an abstract idea.
Turning to the second step, the Examiner determined that claim 3 5
does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than an abstract idea. Final Act. 4--7. The Examiner
determined that the claimed processor and network are nothing more than
generic computer components performing well understood, routine, and
conventional functions. See id.
In response, Appellants broadly assert that
the claims of the present application provide a substantial
improvement over the art in the field of managing presentation
of entertainment media through a network which further includes
the substantial limitations of a voting system provides
17
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
entertainers with reliable results for votes cast by viewers of the
entertainment media.
Br. 4. Appellants further "respectfully submit that the claims of the present
application are necessarily rooted in computer technology rather than simply
implement[ing] old ideas on a computer." Id. at 5 (citing DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The claims at issue in DDR Holdings were directed to retaining
website visitors, which the court determined was a problem "particular to the
Internet." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The Court also determined that
the invention was "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"
and that the claimed invention did not simply use computers to serve a
conventional business purpose. Id.; see also Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining claims which were
directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer and were not
simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business
practices).
Here, however, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the
functioning of the computer, or to an improvement necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks. The claims implement the idea of
managing a talent contest on a computer. "[I]f a patent's recitation of a
computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implemen[t]' an abstract idea 'on
... a computer,' ... that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the
18
Appeal2016-001636
Application 11/771,215
claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract
idea, of managing a talent contest.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 36-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent ineligible subject matter is affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 35-52 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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
19