Ex Parte Tuchman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2018

13909625 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/909,625 06/04/2013
8791 7590 05/01/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenneth D. Tuchman
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.
9092P007D 7757
EXAMINER
AIRAPETIAN, MILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2018 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):
FIP _Group@bstz.com
PTO.MAIL@BSTZPTO.COM
PTO.MAIL@BSTZ.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH D. TUCHMAN, BRUCE A. SHARPE,
and
HENRY D. TRUONG
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625 1
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TeleTech Holdings,
Inc. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed May 31,
2016; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed August 29, 2016; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed December 29, 2015; and original Specification
("Spec."), filed June 4, 2013.
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a data processing system, method, and
machine-readable medium for "providing life-cycle product support
services." Title (capitalization altered). Appellants' invention provides life-
cycle product services via "a single platform" that "provide[ s] not only
support services to a product registered by a user, but also other services"
including "selling or disposal of the product, participation in a discussion
forum associated with the product, and providing advertisements,
promotions, rewards, and/or recall associated with the product on behalf of a
client or manufacturer." Spec. i-fi-12, 28. According to Appellants, the
services are "provided to or initiated from a user through an application
running within a mobile device through a variety of communications
channels, without having to leave the same application from the mobile
device and without requiring the user to provide detailed information about
the product." Spec. i128; Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates Appellants'
invention, as reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method useful for
providing life cycle support services for a product, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, at a data processing system, a first request from
a mobile device communicatively coupled to the data processing
system over a communications network, the first request
requesting a support service for a product that has been acquired
by a user of the mobile device and previously registered with the
data processing system, the registration of the product being
stored in a database associated with the data processing system,
wherein the data processing system provides support services
concerning a plurality of products on behalf of a plurality of
product providers;
2
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
in response to the first request, establishing, by a multi-
channel communication system associated with the data
processing system, a communications session over the
communications network between the mobile device and a
support agent, the communications session being established
using a first communications channel that is available to the
support agent to allow the support agent to provide the support
service for the registered product, wherein the first
communications channel is one of a plurality of communications
channels that has been previously registered with the data
processing system as preferred communications channels by the
user and stored in the database associated with the data
processing system;
receiving, by a messaging system hosted by the data
processing system, a plurality of messages from one or more
computer systems of the plurality of product providers, the
plurality of messages identifying at least one of a promotion of
another product that is not the registered product, an upgrade of
the registered product, a service schedule reminder for the
registered product, a suggestion of an accessory for the registered
product, or a recall of the registered product;
determining, by an analysis module, that a selected one of
the plurality of messages should be routed to the mobile device
using a set of one or more filtering rules associated with the
registered product, the set of one or more filtering rules being
previously configured by the user and stored in the database,
wherein the set of one or more filtering rules includes a rule that
allows the selected message to be routed to the mobile device
based on at least one of a source of the selected message or a
subject matter of the selected message; and
transmitting, by the messaging system, the selected
message to the mobile device over the communications network
using a second communications channel, wherein the second
communications channel is one of the plurality of
communications channels that was previously registered with the
data processing system as preferred communications channels.
Br. 65-72 (Claims App'x).
3
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4---6.
ANALYSIS
In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the
Supreme Court reiterates an analytical two-step framework previously set
forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 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
the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. If the
claims are directed to eligible subject matter, the inquiry ends. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfzsh,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is
to consider the elements of the claims "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."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In other words,
the second step 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."' Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
4
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
In rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and dependent claims 2-
8, 10-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner finds these claims
are directed to an abstract idea of "providing life cycle support services for a
product using [an] algorithm" of "storing communication channels (e.g.,
email, chat, texting, etc.) preferred by the user [of the product] in a database
and using one of the preferred communication channels for communicating
with the user" to provide product support, which is analogous or similar to
the abstract ideas of organizing and storing information discussed in
Cyberfone, comparing information and using rules to identify options
discussed in SmartGene, manipulating and communicating data in order to
manage commercial transactions discussed in Ultramercial, and "a
fundamental economic practice" discussed in Alice, Bilski, and buySAFE.
Ans. 4---6 (citing Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F.
App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709
(Fed. Cir. 2014); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2347; Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593
(2010); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
Final Act. 3--4 (citing SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
852 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2012), ajf'd 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
The Examiner also finds "[ t ]he claims do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception." Final Act. 5. Particularly, the Examiner finds the additional
claimed elements of a non-transitory machine-readable medium, processor,
memory, application programming interface, data processing system,
communication system, messaging system, and analysis module are generic
computing elements and systems "operat[ing] using well-understood,
routine, and conventional activity" including "[ c ]ommunications between
5
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
computer systems" and "receiving, verifying, selecting, applying ... for
input, memory, look-up, comparison, and output." Ans. 5---6, 8; Final Act.
2-3, 5.
As to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants contend
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 (together with their dependent claims 2--4,
8, 10-12, 16, and 18-20), and dependent claims 5-7 and 13-15 are not
directed to an abstract idea. Br. 17--4 7. That is, Appellants argue these
claims are "directed to (i) a specific implementation of a solution to a
problem in the software arts (see, e.g., Enfzsh at 18), and (ii) to resolving a
business challenge that is particular to the communications network, such as
the Internet and social communities (see, e.g., DDR Holdings, at 1257)." Br.
33 (citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 1259 (Fed.
Cir. 2014)). Appellants argue "like the claims identified in Enfzsh, claim 1 is
not simply directed to any form of storing data, but instead [is] specifically
directed to a specific type of computer database (e.g., the 'database'
associated with storing 'preferred communication channels') that
improves the database operation." Br. 20; see also Br. 33, 46 (citing
Spec. i-fi-137-38, 44--48, 54). Appellants also argue
as identified by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, each of
claims 1--4, 8-12, and 16-20 is directed to techniques of
providing product support services for a user of a mobile device,
where a one-touch application on the mobile device can serve as
a central service point to a support center that provides support
services to a variety of products or services provided by a variety
of product providers that are independent of each other over a
communications network using a variety of communications
channels. . . . Specifically, the business challenge can be
defined as providing support services for a product on at least
6
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
one electronic device associated with an owner of the product
based on at least one of the following claimed solutions: (i) a
preferred group of communications channels that were
selected by the user and configured in a data processing system
providing the support services; and (ii) at least one of a source
of a message providing the support services or a subject matter
of a message providing the support services. . .. These
recitations are not discovered principles, prominent ideas in the
mind, or generalized algorithms. Rather, they are a practical
application for providing tangible product support services to
users of registered products over a communications network,
such as the Internet.
Br. 46-47 (citing Spec. i-fi-17, 33--42, 58, 63, 76-83, 93-95, 99).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note
these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 do not recite "a one-touch application on the mobile
device [that] can serve as a central service point to a support center,"
providing support services on behalf of "a variety of product providers that
are independent of each other," or a "message providing the support
services," as advocated by Appellants. See Br. 22, 46-47 (emphasis added).
Instead, claim 1 (and similarly, claims 9 and 17) merely recites a data
processing system that "provides support services concerning a plurality of
products on behalf of a plurality of product providers" and stores a
"registration of [a] product" that "has been acquired by a user of the mobile
device." With respect to support services, the claim recites "a
communications session over the communications network between the
mobile device and a support agent" to "allow the support agent to provide
the support service for the registered product"; and with respect to
messaging, the claim recites transmitting a selected message from a
7
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
"plurality of messages identifying at least one of a promotion of another
product that is not the registered product, an upgrade of the registered
product, a service schedule reminder for the registered product, a suggestion
of an accessory for the registered product, or a recall of the registered
product." See Br. 65 (Claims App'x) (emphasis added).
Thus, claims 1, 9, and 17 merely require receiving a request for
requesting a support service for the user's product, and allowing a support
agent (e.g., "a customer representative," "service center personnel," "support
specialist," or "support expert" that "respond to customer requests") to
communicate (e.g., via "real-time" voice, "voice over Internet protocol or
VoIP," or "call back" which may be a "scheduled call back") for providing
the support service. See Br. 65 (Claims App'x); Spec. i-fi-135, 38, 40, 58, 63.
Claims 1, 9, and 1 7 further require transmitting a message-such as a
promotion or accessory suggestion-to the user's mobile device. See Br. 65
(Claims App'x).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Appellants' claims 1, 9,
and 17 are directed to the abstract ideas of organizing, manipulating, and
transmitting information identified in Cyberfone and SmartGene. Ans. 6;
Final Act. 3--4; see SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 852
F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2012), ajf'd 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
Cyberfone, 558 F. App'x at 988, 992; see also Digitech Image Techs., LLC
v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (employing
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information); Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that "[t]he concept of data
collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known," and
8
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
"humans have always performed these functions"); Electric Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting
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"); Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (tailoring information presented to a user based on particular
information); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
728 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (generating tasks in an insurance
organization); and Versata Dev. Grp. Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (price-determination method involving arranging
organizational and product group hierarchies).
Furthermore, "a selected one of the plurality of messages" as claimed,
is merely information, and as such is intangible. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp.
v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355;
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67---68, 71-72 (1972) ("Phenomena of
nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work"); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 594--95
(1978) ("Reasoning that an algorithm, or mathematical formula, is like a law
of nature, Benson applied the established rule that a law of nature cannot be
the subject of a patent"). Information collection and analysis, including
when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas. See,
e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; and CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is,
9
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
"[ w ]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical
algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional
information is not patent eligible." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1349-51 ("Data in
its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under
any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101 ").
As further recognized by the Examiner, claims 1, 9, and 17 are
abstract because they are directed to "providing additional services related to
registered products" and commercially promoting products, which are
abstract ideas similar to transactional practices identified in Alice, Bilski, and
buySAFE, and advertising practices identified in Ultramercial. Ans. 6; Final
Act. 4; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57 (intermediated settlement to mitigate
risk); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 599 (risk hedging); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355
(guaranteeing a party's performance of its online transaction); Ultramercial,
772 F.3d at 709, 715-16. As explained in Appellants' Specification, the
method and data processing system provide "support services to a product
registered by a user" and "other services such as ... providing
advertisements, promotions, rewards" thus "enabl[ing] the manufacturers or
retailers to reach their customers, similar to targeted advertisement." See
Spec. i-fi-12, 28, 52. These "other services" are provided via the claimed
"selected message" transmitted to the user's mobile device via "a second
communications channel" such as the "Web, and/or [an] online community-
based forum" including "Facebookâ„¢ or Twitterâ„¢." See Br. 65 (Claims
App'x); Spec. i-fi-138, 40. Advertising and disseminating product information
to generate sales, and providing product support services to build customer
loyalty are fundamental business practices long prevalent in our system of
commerce.
10
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
Appellants also argue their claims, like the claims of DDR, "resolve a
communications network-centric or an Internet-centric business
challenge of providing users with support services over a
communications network using multiple communications channels
associated with the users" and "are inextricably tied to computer
technology." Br. 33, 54, 58, 63 (citing DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257). Appellants
further argue their claims are similar to the claims of Enfish because the
claims are "specifically directed to a specific type of computer database
(e.g., the 'database' associated with storing 'preferred communication
channels') that improves the database operation." Br. 20, 27, 33, 36, 58,
62 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1327).
We remain unpersuaded, as Appellants have not demonstrated their
claimed generic processor, database, data processing system, and
communications channels operate in combination to perform functions that
are not merely generic, as were the claims in DDR. See DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1256-58 (holding the claims at issue patent eligible because "they do
not broadly and generically claim 'use of the Internet' to perform an abstract
business practice (with insignificant added activity)," and "specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a
result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events
ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink"). Additionally, claims 1, 9,
and 17 focus on the problems of providing product support services and
advertising/marketing product information-problems that are not technical
problems or problems rooted in computer technology or particular only to
the Internet. Ans. 8; see Spec. i-fi-12, 7-8, 28, 52. Claims 1, 9, and 17 also do
not recite a specific improvement to the way computers operate, and
11
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
Appellants do not present evidence to establish these claims recite a specific
improvement to the computers. Ans. 4; see Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336, 1339.
Appellants also have not demonstrated their claims "improve the way
a computer stores and retrieves data in memory," as the claims in Enfish did
via a "self-referential table for a computer database." See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d
at 1336, 1339. For example, the claimed "database" stores product
registrations by users (see Spec. i-f 44), filtering rules (user preferences, see
Spec. i-fi-132, 94), and generically-claimed "preferred communications
channels" (which may be "a variety of communication channels or media,
such as, for example, email, chat, voice ... , video, Web, ... , etc.," see
Spec. i-f 40) for communicating over a "communications network." This
does not demonstrate an actual improvement in computer memory or storage
operations or in the technical functioning of the network. Ans. 4--5.
In fact, none of the steps and elements recited in Appellants' claims
provide, and nowhere in Appellants' Specification can we find, any
description or explanation as to how the claimed data manipulation steps are
intended to provide: (1) a "solution ... necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks," as explained by the Federal Circuit in DDR, 773
F.3d at 1257; (2) "a specific improvement to the way computers operate," as
explained in Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336; or (3) an "unconventional
technological solution ... to a technological problem" that "improve[ s] the
performance of the system itself," as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc., 841F.3d1288, 1300, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that claim 1 is not
abstract because the claimed communication session and support service
12
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
provide "a tangible non-abstract outcome." Br. 17, 20, 34. However, as
the Supreme Court emphasized in Bilski, "although the machine-or-
transformation test is not the only test for patentability, this by no means
indicates that anything which produces a 'useful, concrete, and tangible
result,' State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,
149 F.3d 1368, 1373 (CA Fed. 1998), is patentable." Bilski, 561 U.S. at
658---660 (Breyer, J., concurring).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 9, and 17 are
directed to an abstract idea.
Under step two of the Alice framework, Appellants argue claim 1 (and
similarly, claims 2--4, 8-12, and 16-20) "contains at least one 'inventive
concept' sufficient to ensure that each claim, as a whole, amounts to
'significantly more' than any alleged abstract idea" because claim 1 's
"limitations ... are clearly specialized for the function of 'providing life
cycle support services for a product' and are not a conventional use of a
computer for a routine function, nor the use of a computer in a generic
manner." Br. 33, 52.
We disagree. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings on pages 5, 6, and 8 of the Answer. We find the additional
limitations, taken individually and as a whole in the ordered combination, do
not add significantly more to the abstract idea of manipulating data to
provide product support services or transform the abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Particularly, claims 1, 9, and
17 recite well-understood, routine, and conventional elements (i.e.,
processors, memory, application programming interface, data processing
system, communication system, messaging system, analysis module, and
13
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
machine-readable medium) that enable manipulation of information
contained in support requests, support services, and product provider
messages using "a generic computer system" and other generic elements
"operat[ing] using well-understood, routine, and conventional activity"
including "[ c ]ommunications between computer systems" and "receiving,
verifying, selecting, applying ... for input, memory, look-up, comparison,
and output." Ans. 5---6, 8; Final Act. 2-3, 5. "[T]he use of generic computer
elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an
otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256); see also Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16
(claims merely reciting the abstract idea of using advertising as currency as
applied to particular technological environment of the Internet are not patent
eligible); Accenture Global Servs., 728 F .3d at 1345 (claims reciting
"generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract
concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be
completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a computer" are not patent
eligible); andDealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir.
2012) ("Simply adding a 'computer aided' limitation to a claim covering an
abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent
eligible").
Appellants also argue claims 1, 9, and 1 7 "resolve a communications
network-centric or an Internet-centric business challenge" by "using a
data processing system to propagate tailored messages to a mobile device
using only communications channels that are preferred by the user of the
product," and "are clearly specialized for the function of 'providing life
14
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
cycle support services for a product' and are not a conventional use of a
computer for a routine function, nor the use of a computer in a generic
manner." Br. 52, 54, 57 (citing DDR, 773 F.3d at 1245, 1257). This
argument is not persuasive because Appellants have not identified a specific
improvement to computer technology or an Internet network effected by
Appellants' claims. Additionally, as discussed supra, we are not persuaded
Appellants' stated advantages and selective use of communication channels
based on user's preferences are caused by a technical improvement to
database operation, computer operation, or network routing technology. For
example, claim 1 's method may use only the ''preferred communications
channels" (e.g., phone and email) simply because the user has provided only
his/her phone number and email to the support platform/ data processing
system.
Because Appellants' claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to a patent-
ineligible abstract concept and do not recite something "significantly more"
under the second prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to dependent claim 5 (and claims 6, 7, and 13-15 argued
therewith), Appellants argue claim 5 is not abstract because it provides a
"tangible non-abstract outcome" by the promotional "selected message
[that] identifies a promotion of another product that is not the registered
product," and by providing the "selected message to the mobile device only
if it is determined that the user is likely interested in the other product based
on the prior user interactions." Br. 62. Appellants also argue "identifying
and transmitting a selected message based on a promotion of a product and
prior user interactions is not an abstract concept that can be performed
15
Appeal 2017-001158
Application 13/909,625
mentally in a world that preceded communications networks, such as the
Internet." Br. 62 (citing DDR, 773 F.3d at 1245, 1257). However, these
arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. We
additionally note claim 5 is directed to marketing of products-by
distributing commercial information ("the selected message [that] identifies
a promotion") about "another product" deemed interesting to the customer
based on prior information on the customer. Thus, claim 5 is directed to a
fundamental business practice (marketing) long prevalent in our system of
commerce.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2--4, 6-8,
10-16, and 18-20, which fall with one of claims 1, 5, 9, and 17.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We, therefore, sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 2--4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-20.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16