Ex Parte Stonehocker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 2018

11096719 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/096,719 03/31/2005 Timothy P. Stonehocker 131836 7590 08/01/2018 Hogan Lovells US LLP - Amazon 3 Embarcadero Center Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 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. 020347.002301 2648 EXAMINER EVANS, KIMBERLYL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2018 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): hlusdocketing@hoganlovells.com teri.nelmark@hoganlovells.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY P. STONEHOCKER, JONATHAN LEBLANG, JASON L. SMART, RUBEN E. ORTEGA, UDI MANBER, and MATTHEWW. AMACKER Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, AMEE A. SHAH, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 TheAppellants 2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's fmal decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55---60, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Feb. 18, 2016), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 16, 2016), and Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 31, 2005), and to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 19, 2016) and Final Action ("Final Act.,"mailed July 2, 2015). 2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is "A9. com, Inc." Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention generally "relates to methods and apparatus for automatically generating recommended links. More particularly, the present invention relates to the collection of data associated with web activities and the automatic generation of recommended links based upon the collected data." Spec. 1, 11. 22-25. Claims 1, 17, 52, and 53 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with added paragraphing and bracketing for reference): 1. A computer-implemented method of providing recommended links to a user, the method comprising: under control of one or more computer systems configured with executable instructions, [ (a)] identifying a user for which to generate recommended links; [ (b)] selecting a plurality of recommended links agents from a plurality of available recommended links agents based upon a plurality of selection criteria, the plurality of available recommended links agents including at least one user-configurable recommended links agent and at least one preconfigured recommended links agent; [ ( c)] receiving a request to generate a combined list of recommended links from among a plurality of suggested lists of recommended links using the plurality of selection criteria and at least one of a plurality of logical operators for combining the plurality of selection criteria; [ ( d)] executing each of the plurality of recommended links agents to generate the plurality of suggested lists of recommended links, each suggested list of recommended links of the plurality of suggested lists of recommended links corresponding to a respective 2 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 distinct class of recommendations of a plurality of classes of recommendations, wherein each of the plurality of recommended links agent is caused to perform: [ ( d 1)] analyzing a browsing history of the user to identify one or more visited websites that the user visited during a determined time period; [(d2)] identifying a plurality of related websites that are related to the one or more visited websites; and [ ( d3)] generating one suggested list of recommended links of the plurality of suggested lists of recommended links from among the plurality of related websites; [ ( e)] generating the combined ordered list of recommended links based at least in part upon the plurality of selection criteria and the at least one of the plurality of logical operators; and [ ( f)] providing the combined list of recommended links for presentation to the user. Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims App.) REJECTIONS I. Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. II. Claims 1-7, 11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 49, 52, 53, and 56---60 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turnbull et al. (US 7,089,237 B2, iss. Aug. 8, 2006) (hereafter "Turnbull"), Kaplan et al. (US 5,446,891, iss. Aug. 29, 1995) (hereafter "Kaplan"), and Wu et al. (US 2004/0181543 Al, pub. Sept. 16, 2004) (hereafter "Wu"). 3 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 III. Claims 8-10 and 55 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turnbull, Kaplan, Wu, and www.alexa.com, available at http://lweb.archive.org/web/20030210161616/ pagcs.alexa.com/company/history.html?p=Corp_ W_t_ 40_Ll, retrieved June 25, 2008 (hereafter "Alexa"). IV. Claims 48 and50 standrejectedunderpre-AIA35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Turnbull, Kaplan, Wu, and Arganbright et al. (US 6,980,962 Bl, iss. Dec. 27, 2005) (hereafter"Arganbright"). ANALYSIS ReiectionI-35 USC Â§101 The Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 17 ( relying on the arguments presented for claim 1 for independent claims 1 7, 52, and 53, and dependent claims 2-11, 13, 15, 18-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 48-50, and 55---60). We select claim 1 as representative of the group; claims 2-11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55---60 stand or fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37( c )(1 )(iv). Under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int' l, 134 S. Ct. 234 7, 23 54 (2014) ( quoting Ass 'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 588-89 (2013)). 4 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework, set forth previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (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, 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. ( emphasis added) ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). If so, the second step is to consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether the additional elements "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78-79). The First Step Turning to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework, we consider the claims "in their entirety to ascertain 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). 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 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). In other words, the claims are assessed as to whether they "do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confmes the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLCv. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016) cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1596 (2017). 5 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 Under the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to "a method for providing recommended links to a user" (Ans. 6) by "identifying, selecting, analyzing and manipulating data ... and subsequently generating additional data [] based on a series of data collections and manipulations obtained from a repository" (Final Act. 5), a fundamental economic practice and method of organizing human activity (Ans. 7), i.e., an abstract idea. The Examiner cites to and compares the claim with those of prior judicial decisions that deem "[ c ]omparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options" an abstract idea. Ans. 7-9; see also Final Act. 3, 7. The Appellants do not state to what they consider the claim to be directed, but argue that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 7-16. Here, the Specification is titled "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF RECOMMENDED LINKS." According to the Specification, the invention "relates to methods and apparatus for automatically generating recommended links. More particularly, the present invention relates to the collection of data associated with web activities and the automatic generation of recommended links based upon the collected data." Spec. 1, 11. 22-25. TheDescriptionofthe Related Art section of the Specification discusses that because" it is easier to return to websites that they have previously accessed, users often remain unaware of other similar or newly created websites that may be of interest to them." Id. at 2, 11. 14--16. The Specification also discusses that "[ o ]ne of the challenges facing Internet users is identifying content that might be of interest." Id. at 10, 11. 7-8. The claimed invention thus "provide[ s] 6 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 improved mechanisms for introducing [ and recommending] websites or web pagesthatmaybeofinteresttoauser." Id. at2,ll. 17-18; 10,11. 12-13. To do so, the invention "may be implemented [by] software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software[, and] ... can also be embodied as computer readable code on a computer readable medium." Id. at 7, 11. 15-18. Independent claim 1 provides for "[a] computer-implemented method of providing recommended links to a user," comprising the steps of (a) identifying a user, (b) selecting a plurality of link agents based on criteria, ( c) receiving a request to generate a combined list of links using the criteria, ( d) executing the link agents to generate a plurality of suggested lists, the agents ( dl) analyzing data of browsing history, ( d2) identifying data of related websites based on browsing data, and ( d3) generating one list from the plurality from the related websites, ( e) generating the combined list based on the plurality of selection criteria, and ( f) providing the combined list. See Appeal Br. 21-22. (Claims App.). The apparatus for performing these steps comprises server 2002 connected by router 2004 to Internet 2006, business servers 2008, and computers 2014, 2024. Spec. 36, 1. 18-3 7, 1. 17 (cited in Appeal Br. 3). There are no further technological details regarding the servers. The Specification also does not provide details for how identifying a user, step (a), is performed. The Appellants direct attention to the Specification at page 29, lines 1-10 and page 36 lines 1-9 as support for this step. The cited portions simply state that "[t]he workflow manager at a set time identifies a customer for which to execute a set of agents" (Spec. 29, 11. 4--5), and that "a toolbar identifier 732, user identifier (e.g., account 7 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 number) 733 and/or IP address 734 may be used to identify both a user and a specific toolbar (e.g., computerlocation)" (id. at 36, 11. 4--5), but no details on how the user is identified with the information. As such, the identifying step can comprise receiving identifying data. Similarly, the Specification provides no details on how or in what way( s) the selection criteria are used to select the agents, step (b ). For the step of selecting link agents based on criteria, the Appellants cite to page 20, lines 5-15, page 24, lines 4--11, page 29, lines 1-10, and page 37, lines 1-24 as support. Appeal Br. 3. These portions of the Specification provide for calling one or more agents 310 (Spec. 20, 11. 6-11) and requesting a list of agents (id. at 29, 11. 4--5), but provide no further details on how the agents are selected based on selection criteria, i.e., technologically or by what algorithm. As such, the selecting step can comprise any selection of data. For the step of executing the agent, step ( d), the Appellants cite to page 29, lines 1-23 of the Specification as support (Appeal Br. 3--4) that provides the executing an agent comprises "process[ing] the pertinent data and report[ ing] a list of recommended sites to the recommended links manager." The agent analyzes the browsing history and identifies related websites of those websites visited, steps ( dl) and ( d2), by tracking history data and identifying related links as per the known process of categorizing and scoring visited sites described in US Patent No. 6,691,163, issued Feb. 10, 2004. See Spec. 12, 1. 7-13, 1. 19. Based on the portions of the Specification relied on by the Appellants ( Appeal Br. 4, citing Spec. 19, 1. 20-20, 1. 21 ), the agent generates a suggested list, step ( d3), "based on a specific set of heuristics." Id. at 19, 11. 20-21. There are no specific details discussing how the list is generated technologically or by what algorithm. 8 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 As such, the step of executing the agent comprises processing data by tracking, identifying by a known method, and generically generating data. Similarly, the Specification provides no specific details on how the step of generating the combined list of links, step ( e ), is performed. The portion of the Specification relied on by the Appellants, i.e., page 27, lines 18-24 (Appeal Br. 4) provides that the user may define how the criteria in the list are to be combined and that multiple criteria can be combined in a single statement, but does not provide further details on how the generating of the combined list is performed, i.e., technologically or by what algorithm. As such, the generating of a combined list comprises processing data to achieve resulting data. In light of the Specification's description of the problem and solution, the purported advance over the prior art by the claimed invention is a way to provide more relevant and interesting content to a user. In that context, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1 is directed to providing recommended links to a user by identifying, receiving, selecting, and analyzing data, and presenting the results of the analysis. 3 The claim is directed to an idea similar to ideas deemed abstract by our reviewing court in Intellectual Ventures I LLCv. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369-70(Fed. Cir. 2015)(customizing and tailoring web page content based on navigation history and known user information), Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting 3 We note 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). The Board's "slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis." Id. at 1241. 9 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 information and "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category"), AffinUy Labs, 838 F.3d at 12 71 ( customizing a user interface to have targeted advertising based on user information), and Personalized Media Commc 'ns, LLC v. Amazon. Com, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d325, 338 (D. Del. 2015), aff'dsub nom., 671 F. App'x 777 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (providing personalized recommendations). Here, the claims involve nothing more than providing relevant information by identifying, selecting, receiving, processing, and analyzing data, generating further data based on the analysis, and providing the outcome of the generated data without any particular inventive technology- an abstract idea. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. As such, we find unpersuasive the Appellants' argument that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because it is not directed to a "' fundamental economic practices of computer and communication technologies"' (Appeal Br. 10 (citing Final Act. 5))4, "does not describe concepts relating to agreements between people" (id. at 11 ), and is not "directed to risk management" (id.). We further find unpersuasive the Appellants' argument that "[ e ]ven assuming that the concept of 'providing recommended links to a user' is an abstract idea, the claims are not directed to that idea" (id.), because the "claim elements require[] specialized computer equipment capable of analyzing and generating lists of recommended links, and not any mental 4 We note that the Examiner does not use this phrase quoted by the Appellants. Rather, the Examiner states that the claims are "directed to an abstract idea" (Final Act. 5) and that"[ c ]ollecting, storing, organizing, manipulating and generating/providing the data based on the collected data is a common feature of this technological environment" (id.). 10 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 process or mathematical concept that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper system," and "the activities encapsulated by such browsing history analysis and link recommendation were not performed prior to the introduction of computer technology and thus cannot be considered foundational or basic as contemplated byÂ§ lOl"(id. at 12). As noted above, the Specification provides no details on how the steps of identifying a user, selecting, analyzing, and generating are performed, i.e., technologically or by what algorithm, and provides that identifying relevant websites is performed by a known process. At the level of generality claimed and described in the Specification, the claim simply "describe[ s] 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." AffinUy Labs., 838 F.3d at 1269. Further, the claim's use of a server to implement the steps does not automatically make them not directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352 ( claims "relate to a computerized scheme for mitigating 'settlement risk"'). The Appellants' reliance onDiamondv. Diehr,450U.S. 175,184 (1981) (Appeal Br. 12) is misplaced. In Diamond, the court held that the "computer-implemented process for curing rubber was patent eligible, but not because it involved a computer." Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2358. Rather, the claim at issue there solved a technological problem, used a thermocouple to record temperatures that the industry had not previously been able to obtain, and fed the temperatures into a computer, which calculated cure time by using a mathematical equation. Id. Those steps "transformed the process 11 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 into an inventive application of the formula." Id. Here, there are no similar steps. The steps of generating lists based on data (see Appeal Br. 12) do not transform the data in a way that solves a technological problem, as in Diamond. We find unpersuasive the Appellants' arguments that the claim is not directed to an unpatentable abstract idea because it is directed to an improvement in the computer functionality itself and translates a "novel analysis" to "novel rules." Reply Br. 15-16 (citing Enfish andMcRO). In Enfish, the court determined the claims were directed to a self-referential table for a computer database and were directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers operate." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Conversely, here, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. At best, they improve a way of providing more relevant information using the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. As discussed above, the Specification does not provide details on the technological manner in which the steps are performed, including the analyzing step. InMcRO, the claims were directed to a specific improvement in computer animation and used rules to "transform[] a traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into a mathematically automated process executed on computers," not simply the use of the computer. Fair Warning IP, LLCv. Iatric Sys. Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094(Fed. Cir. 2016)(citing McRO, 837F.3dat 1314). The claim here recites an invention that is merely the routine or conventional use of a generic computer. See Fair Warning, 839 F.3d at 1097. We similarly find unpersuasive the Appellants' argument that the claim is similar to those found not to be directed to an abstract idea in 12 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 BASCOMGloballnternetServs., Inc. v. AT&TMobilUyLLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In BASCOM, the court "agree[d] with the district court that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract." Id. at 1348. Thus, to the extent the Appellants argue that the claim is similar to BASCOM, it is similarly directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis. Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The Second Step The second step of the Mayo/Alice framework is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). Under the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, we agree with and fmd supported the Examiner's determination that the elements of claim 1, individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 9-16. We are not persuaded of Examiner error by the Appellants' arguments that assert the opposite. See Appeal Br. 12-17; Reply Br. 17-23. We fmd unpersuasive the Appellants' arguments that the claims are significantly more than an abstract idea because they are analogous to those of DDRHoldings LLCv. Hotels.com,LP., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 11-13, 18-19, 22. InDDRHoldings, the 13 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 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. 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 Ultramerci al, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014), in that, in DDRHoldings, 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. In contrast, here, according to the Appellants, the claim addresses the problem of "identifying and recommending relevant links to a user." Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 11. Although the type of information recommended, i.e., the links, are Internet-centric, identifying and recommending information is not a problem rooted in technology arising out of computer networks, but rather a business problem that existed prior to the Internet and computers. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1359-71 (tailoring content as claimed did not address problems unique to the Internet). Also, unlike DDR Holdings, here, the purported "specific technical solution" (Appeal Br. 16) requires a generic processing device, i.e., server, operating in its normal capacity to perform the functions of identifying, 14 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 selecting, receiving, processing, and analyzing data, generating further data based on the analysis, and providing the outcome of the generated data. See Fair Warning, 839 F.3dat 1097, SmartflashLLCv. Apple Inc., 680 F. App'x 977,984 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 687 (2018) ("Smartflash's asserted claims recite reading, receiving, and responding to payment validation data and, based upon the amount of payment, and access rules, allowing access to multimedia content. This is precisely the type of Internet activity that we found ineligible in Ultramercial. "); Spec. 36, 11. 18-21. The Appellants do not direct attention to, and we do not see, where the Specification provides that the processing device acts in an abnormal manner or outside of its ordinary capacity. Rather, the claim recites an invention that is merely the routine or conventional use of a generic computer. SeeFairWarning, 839F.3dat l097;DDRHoldings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. We also fmd unpersuasive the Appellants' argument that the Examiner errs in contending that "the claim[] at issue recite[ s] generic computer structure" (Appeal Br. 14; see also id. at 15-16; Reply Br. 19-22) because the claim requires "computer hardware programmed for a specific purpose" (id. at 16). As noted above, the Specification provides no technical or technological details for the server that implements the steps of the claim. There is also no further specification of particular technology for performing the steps. See VersataDev. Grp. Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 20l5);AffinityLabsofTexas, LLCv. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d. at 1336 ( focusing on whether the claim is "an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is 15 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 used in its ordinary capacity"); DDR Holdings, 773 F .3d at 1256 ("[ A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. The bare fact that a computer exists in the physical rather than purely conceptual realm 'is beside the point'" ( citation omitted) ( quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358)). The introduction of a computer to implement an abstract idea is not a patentable application of the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357-58. The computer implementation here is purely conventional and performs basic functions. See id. at 2359---60. Moreover, a generic computer specially programmed to perform the conventional functions of presenting and receiving data, making a selection, and executing code does not amount to an inventive concept such that the claim is significantly more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357---60 (applying an abstract idea, such as an algorithm, on a general purpose computer is not enough to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.); EON Corp. IP HoldingsLLCv. AT&T MobilityLLC, 785 F.3d616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("A general purpose computer is flexible-it can do anything it is programmed to do."). We find unpersuasive the Appellants' arguments that the claim is significantly more than that abstract idea because it "improve[ s] an existing technological process" (Reply Br. 17) and "provide[ s] a solution, including a new algorithm, in software format, to improve the agnostic nature of hardware by enabling the hardware to analyze a browsing history of a user to provide" a suggested and combined list of recommended links (id. at 18). As discussed above, the Specification, including the claims, does not provide 16 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 technological details on the manner in which the steps of the method are performed nor any details on how the hardware itself is improved. In response to the Appellants' argument that "because claim 1 does not preempt any abstract idea, this necessarily implies that claim 1 requires 'significantly more' than the abstract idea" (Appeal Br. 17; see also id. at 16), we note that although the Supreme Court has described "the concern that drives this exclusionary principle[, i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter,] as one of pre-emption" (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354), characterizing preemption as a driving concemforpatent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. "The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability" and "[fJor this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the Â§ 101 analysis." AriosaDiagnostics,Inc. v. Sequenom,Inc., 788F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). Although "preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Id. 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 are not persuaded of Examiner error in therejectionunder35U.S.C. Â§ 101 of claim 1,andofclaims 2-11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55---60, which fall with claim 1, and we sustain the rejection. 17 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 Reiections!I-IV-35 USC Â§103(a) We agree with the Appellants' contention that the Examiner does not adequately show that the prior art teaches receiving a request and generating a combined list of recommended links from among a plurality of suggested lists of recommended links using the plurality of selection criteria, as recited in limitations ( c) and ( e) of independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 17, 52, and 53. Appeal Br. 18-19. The Examiner relies on the combination of Turnbull and Kaplan for teaching these limitations. See Final Act. 10-16; Ans. 22-24. The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Turnbull teaches a plurality of agents generating a plurality of lists of recommended links and Kaplan teaches receiving a request and generating a combined list from that plurality of lists using selection criteria. Id. Specifically, the Examiner interprets the addition of associative matrices and the combined linkage of information from multiple matrices to arrive at al single set of recommendation in the form of a user profile and/or via HYPERFLEX of Kaplan as teaching applicant's combined list of recommended links from among a plurality of suggested lists of recommended links using the plurality of selection criteria. Final Act. 11. Although we agree with the Examiner that Turnbull teaches a plurality of recommended link agents each generating a list of recommended links (see Ans. 22-23; Turnbull, col. 18, 11. 21-38), the Examiner has not adequately explained how Kaplan teaches combining these lists of Turnbull. Kaplan discloses recommending "panels to the user according to both the relationship with either the selected panel, the goals of the user, or both; that is according to a 'context."' Kaplan, col. 12, 11. 9-12. The panels contain 18 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 information, text, and graphics. Id. at col. 11, 11. 40-42. Recommendations can be based solely on a selected goal, or relate instead to contents of a particular panel of interest. Id. at 11. 26-29. The system can "limit[] its recommendations to those based on the strength of the association between 'linked panel' and other panels in the system." Id. at 11. 33-36. As such, Kaplan teaches limiting recommendations to those with strong associations between panels, but we do not see, and the Examiner has not adequately explained, how Kaplan teaches combining generated lists of recommendations into one list based on selected criteria. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how Kaplan's limiting of recommendations would combine Turnbull' s plurality of individual lists of recommendations to generate a single list based on selected criteria. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)ofindependentclaims 1, 17, 52, and 53, and of their dependent claims 2-7, 11, 13, 15, 18-22, 26-29, 33-37, 43, 44, 49, and 59---60. The Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 8-10, 48, 50, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Turnbull, Kaplan, and Wu, and further in view of Alexa or Arganbright, rely on the same inadequately supported finding as discussed above and are not cured by additional fmdings and/or reasoning associated therewith. See Final Act. 35, 37. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed above, we do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 8-10, 48, 50, and 55. 19 Appeal 2017-001890 Application 11/096, 719 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33- 37, 43, 44, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55---60 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is AFFIRMED. The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17-22, 26-29, 33- 37, 43, 44, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55---60 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are REVERSED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C. F. R. Â§ 1. 13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 20