Ex Parte Yan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2018

13689298 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/689,298 11/29/2012 72058 7590 10/01/2018 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Zhenyu Yan 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. 058083-0857903-2587US01 6056 EXAMINER CIRNU, ALEXANDRU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2018 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHENYU YAN and ANDREW I. SCHEIN Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 Technology Center 3681 Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 21--41. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. March 1, 2016 Amendment and Response to Non-Final Office Action 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed May 20, 2016, the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed October 27, 2016, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed December 15, 2016, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed February 15, 2017. 2 The real party in interest is listed as Adobe Systems Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 Invention Appellants' invention relates to "techniques and structures for generating a predictive model for predicting a result of an online advertising campaign." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 21 is reproduced below with emphasis: 21. A method for modifying a number of responsive electronic communications that are received via a data network in response to online advertisements that are transmitted over the data network, the method comprising: selecting, by a processing device, a campaign parameter value that controls a cost of transmitting first online advertisements during a first time period, wherein selecting the campaign parameter comprises retrieving the campaign parameter value from a nontransitory computer-readable medium in communication with the processing device; causing, by the processing device, the first online advertisements to be transmitted via the data network during the first time period, wherein the first online advertisements are transmitted subject to the selected campaign parameter value and a cost constraint related to the campaign parameter value, wherein the processing device configures a network interface device to transmit messages indicating that the first online advertisements are to be transmitted; receiving, by the processing device and via the data network, first responsive electronic communications, wherein each first responsive electronic communication is generated by a computing device interacting with one of the first online advertisements transmitted during the first time period; executing, by the processing device, operations compnsmg: determining that an additional electronic communication was not transmitted during the first time period due to a cost of transmitting the online advertisements being equal to or exceeding the cost constraint; 2 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 determining a relationship between the campaign parameter value and the number of the first responsive electronic communications received during the first time period, wherein the relationship is determined based on (i) an influence of the cost constraint and the campaign parameter value on the number of the first responsive electronic communications received during the first time period and (ii) a likelihood that a larger number of responsive electronic communications would have been received during the first time period in an absence of the cost constraint, and modifying the campaign parameter value based on the determined relationship; and causing second online advertisements to be transmitted during a second time period such that a larger number of second responsive communications are received during the second time period, wherein the second online advertisements are transmitted subject to the modified campaign parameter value. Appeal Br. 39-40 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Saidi US 2005/0108753 Al May 19, 2005 Collins US 2008/0255915 Al Oct. 16, 2008 Li US 2009/0299855 Al Dec. 3, 2009 Tuladhar US 2010/0082421 Al Apr. 1, 2010 Cetin US 2011/0225042 Al Sept. 15, 2011 Elvekrog US 2011/0288935 Al Nov. 24, 2011 Zhou US 2012/0197711 Al Aug. 2, 2012 Cui US 2013/0339126 Al Dec. 19, 2013 The Rejections Claims 21--41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4. Claims 21, 27, 28, 34, 35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(b) (pre-AIA) as anticipated by Collins. Final Act. 5-7. 3 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 Claims 22, 29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) (pre- AIA) as unpatentable over Collins and Saidi. Final Act. 7-8. Claims 23, 24, 30, 31, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) as unpatentable over Collins and Cetin. Final Act. 8-9. Claims 25, 26, 32, 33, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) as unpatentable over Collins, Cetin, and Elvekrog. Final Act. 9-10. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) (pre-AIA) as unpatentable over Collins, Cui, Tuladhar, Li, and Zhou. Final Act. 10-13. 3 THE PATENT-ELIGIBILTY REJECTION Independent Claims 21, 28, and 35 Appellants argue claims 21, 28, and 35 as group. Appeal Br. 8-23. We select claim 21 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants' arguments are numerous. Appeal Br. 8-23; Reply Br. 2-7. Appellants assert the Examiner has not made a prima facie case of unpatentability. Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue that claim 21 is not directed to an abstract idea but rather is explicitly directed to a technological innovation. Appeal Br. 9-12, 15-19; 20-23; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants further contend claim 21 is not directed to a concept the courts have identified as an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 18-19. Appellants assert the Examiner ignored claim limitations in determining that claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea and is not significantly more. Appeal Br. 11-14. In 3 The rejection based on 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph (pre-AIA) (Final Act. 4) has been withdrawn (Ans. 3). Notably, the Examiner's Answer is not numbered. We refer to this document's pages sequentially as provided in the record. 4 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 particular, Appellants argue claim 21 recites an improvement in a technical field of electronic communications using a data network and addresses an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology. Appeal Br. 20-23. ISSUE Under Â§ 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by concluding the claim is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error. In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Court set forth a two-step analytical framework for evaluating patent- eligible subject matter. First, we "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If so, we "consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements" add enough to transform the "nature of the claim" into "significantly more" than a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 2355, 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). As a preliminary matter, Appellants contend the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of unpatentability because "the Examiner failed to articulate [ a clear] rationale [ that supports the determination that an abstract idea has been claimed] in the rejections of claims 21--41." Appeal Br. 8-9; see also Appeal Br. 14 and Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further assert 5 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 the Examiner has not analyze each claim as a whole. Appeal Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded. The notice requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. Â§ 132 requires the applicant to be notified of the reasons for a rejection together with such information as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing with prosecution of the application. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In this case, the Examiner has provided a sufficient explanation why claim 21 is not patent eligible under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 101 to meet this notice requirement. Specifically, the Examiner identified the abstract idea in claim 21 and discusses why the claim is not significant more than this abstract idea. Final Act. 2--4 ( addressing the two prongs in the Mayo/Alice test and providing an explanation of both prongs). Granted, the Examiner has not specifically quoted limitations from claim 21. Appeal Br. 8-9. Nonetheless, the Examiner analyzed the claim's limitations collectively in determining what abstract idea the claim is drawn to and in arriving at the conclusion that claim 21 is directed to at least one abstract idea. The rejection further articulates a rationale supporting claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea. For example, the Examiner indicates the claim's limitations are similar to (1) comparing new and stored information, (2) using rules to identify options, and (3) organizing information using mathematical relationships. Final Act. 2. Furthermore, the Examiner states the additional elements in claim 21 "merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea." Final Act. 3. The Examiner analyzes the claim 21 's 6 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 limitations individually and "considered the claim as a whole" when finding the claim recites "generic computer system ( e.g., a computer system comprising generic elements such as a data network, processing device, interface, [and] processor) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself." Final Act. 3 (bolding omitted). The Examiner indicates the claim do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and the claims as recited do no more than implement the abstract idea in a technological environment. Final Act. 3--4. We next turn to Appellants' specific arguments concerning claim 21 and the Mayo/Alice test. Mayo/Alice Step 1 Step one in the Mayol Alice framework involves looking at the "focus" of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This "inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Examiner finds the claim is "directed to generating an advertising campaign predictive model, which is considered to be an abstract idea." Final Act. 2 (bolding omitted). We agree. Looking at claim 21 's/ocus, the claim is directed to improving an advertising campaign predictive model to increase the number of responsive communications from the campaign. For example, claim 21 recites a method "for modifying a number of responsive electronic communications that are received ... in response to online 7 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 advertisements" in its preamble, executing operations, including determining a relationship between a campaign parameter value and the number of responses based on "a likelihood that a larger number of responsive electronic communications would have been received during the first time period in an absence of the cost constraint," modifying a "value based on the determined relationship," and transmitting an advertisement, subject to the modified value, "such that a larger number of second responsive communications are received." Appeal Br. 39-40 (Claims App.). These steps involve using rules to identify options and/or organizing information using mathematical relationships as noted by the Examiner. Final Act. 2. The Specification also supports claim 21 's focus relates to improving an advertisement predictive model. As noted earlier, Appellants' invention relates to "techniques and structures for generating a predictive model for predicting a result of an online advertising campaign." Spec. ,r 2; see also Spec. 12, cited in Appeal Br. 1 (stating "methods and apparatus for online advertising prediction are described."). The Specification also discusses biases that are introduced with traditional models that "set a campaign budget constraint" and due to biases that may cap or delete responses, the traditional models "do not accurately reflect what the actual responses could be without the budget constraint." Spec. ,r 1. Other steps in claim 21 further implement the abstract idea of generating an advertising campaign predictive model to increase the number of responsive communications from the campaign. The claim recites selecting a campaign parameter value (e.g., a bid amount, a duration, or bid type as discussed in Spec. ,r 18) that controls a cost of transmitting an online 8 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 advertisement by retrieving the value from a medium ( e.g., uses stored information discussed in Final Act. 2), transmits the online advertisement subject to the parameter value and a cost constraint related to the parameter value, receives responsive electronic communications (e.g., impressions, clicks, or conversions as discussed in Spec. ,r 18), determines an additional electronic communication was not transmitted due to advertising costs equaling or exceeding the cost constraint ( e.g., compares information using rules discussed in Final Act. 2), and transmits a second online advertisement to increase the response number subject to a modified value. Appeal Br. 39- 40 ( Claims App.). Courts have found that certain activities, including collecting information, analyzing information using mathematical algorithms, and storing information, similar to recitations in claim 21 (see Final Act. 2), are drawn to processes within an abstract-idea category. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (indicating collecting and analyzing information are within the realm of abstract ideas), Content E':xtraction and Transnlission LLC v, !Yells Fargo Bank Nat 'l Ass 'n, 776 F,3d 1343, 1347 (Fed, Cir, 2014) (indicating collecting, recognizing, and storing data are well-known abstract ideas), and Digitech Irnage Tech 's, LLC v. Electronics}lw Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 13441 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (discussing ineligible abstract processes of gathering and combining data and manipulating data employing mathematical algorithms\ cited in Final Act. 2 and Ans. IL The Examiner indicates the same, S'ee Ans. 14 (stating the "claimed limitations pertain to gathering data/storing data/manipulating data/constructing predictive models, [and] cornputini'). Additionally, receiving and transmitting information, similar to red tations in claim 21, have been considered to be 9 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 processes directed to abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. 5/ymantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertions (Appeal Br. 18-19), the concepts in claim 21 are similar to those in court decisions detennined to be abstract. Appellants further contend the Examiner incorrectly compares claim 21 to the claims in SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 18-19. Regardless of whether SmartGene applies to the instant record, the above-noted decisions support claim 21 is directed to at least one abstract idea. Based on the record, we disagree that the Examiner failed to identify any claim language considered when determining claim 21 was directed to an abstract idea or that the Examiner ignored claim language in clairn 21 in determining the c1aim is directed to at least one abstract idea. Appea1 Br. 10----11. i\ddWonally, we disagree that the Examiner's rationale for determining claim 21 is drawn to an abstract idea was based entirely on the claim involving mathematical relationships and formulas. See Appea1 Br. 10-1 L Appellants further contend that, to the extent clairn 21 involves predictive models and mathematica1 formulas) the Examiner bas ignored "specific requirements imposed on') the concepts of predictive models or mathematical algorithms. Appeal BL 11. Specifically) Appellants quote, bold, and italicize various limitations in claim 21, asserting "[t]he Examiner ignored each of these features) vvhich impose the types of specific limitation on the 'predictions' and "nmnerical values) used in the claims that the AfcRO decision found to be sufficient for patent eligibility.') Appeal Br. 11. \Ve are not persuaded. 10 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 Appellants fail to explain adequately how the bolded and italicized language in claim 21 is similar to AicRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America. inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 11-12. In any event one notable difference between claim 21 and the claims in lvicRO is A1cRO's claimed improvement allows computers to produce "'accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters' that previously could only be produced by human animators." See AfcRO, 837 F.3d at 1314--15; see also Ans. 5 (stating the instant claimed invention differs from J\ilcRO's claims and fact pattern). Here, Appellants have not demonstrated an improvement in claim 21 allowing a computer to produce a computer animation result or a new computer function that previously could only be done by humans. Rather, as discussed above, claim 21 's focus is on improving responses to online advertisements using a predictive model and not on improving a computer function. Appeal Br. 39--40 (Claims App.). Next, Appellants draw a comparison between claim 21 and claims issued in Collins, U.S. Patent No. 9,159,073, asserting claim 21 is patent eligible due to the similarities. Appeal Br. 15-18. We are not persuaded. As Appellants indicate, "the Office's decisions with respect to one application are not necessarily binding upon [] the examination of another application." Appeal Br. 15. Namely, "it is immaterial in ex parte prosecution whether the same or similar claims have been allowed to others." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,264 (CCPA 1976). Lastly, Appellants contend that claim 21 addresses an Internet-centric problem like DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 21-23. To the extent claim 21 implies the Internet's use (e.g., sending data over a network and involving "online 11 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 advertisements"), "not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258. As previously stated, claim 21 's focus is on improving responses to online advertisements using a predictive model and not on improving a computer, a computer's function, or an Internet function. Appeal Br. 39-40 (Claims App.). Moreover, the problem of improving advertisement responses is not specific to computer networks or rooted in computer technology as asserted. Appeal Br. 22. In fact, issues surrounding how to improve customer responses from advertisements using predictive modeling, such as the focus of claim 21, have existed for years and prior to the Internet. An entire marketing discipline, advertising, has developed to study this topic. Accordingly, when considering claim 21 's character as a whole consistent with the Specification, the claim's focus is directed to improving advertising campaign predictive models to increase the number of responses to advertisements. Mayo/Alice Step 2 Because we determine claim 1 is directed to at least one an abstract idea, we proceed to analyze the claim under step two. We consider the elements of claim 21 both individually and as combination to determine whether the additional elements add enough to transform the claim into significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept. Step two involves the search for an "inventive concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. An "inventive concept" requires more than "well- understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in" by the relevant community. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F .3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80). 12 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 Appellants argue that the Examiner is ignoring language in claim 21 and thus does not consider its limitations as an ordered combination in determining whether the additional elements add significantly more than a patent-ineligible concept. Appeal Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-7. We are not persuaded. We first refer to our previous discussion regarding adequate notice. Additionally, the second prong of the Mayo/Alice test requires consideration of the limitations in claim 21 individually or as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the claim into the claim's nature into a patent-eligible application. The rejection has considered the additional elements as required. Specifically, the rejection states that claim 21 "amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. generating an advertising campaign predictive model) on a computer, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system ( e.g. a computer system comprising generic elements such as a data network, processing device, interface, processor) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself." Final Act. 3; see Ans. 8. Here, the Examiner considered claim 1 's limitations individually and collectively as instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., performs the recited instructions) and determined the additional elements, such as the data network, the processing device, and the network interface in claim 21, fail to transform the claim's nature into a patent-eligible concept. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 7-8, 16. When reviewing the disclosure, these additional elements are described generally. The Specification discusses the data network, such as the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wireless LAN (WAN), WiMax network, or a cellular network, to provide a communication network. Spec. 13 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 ,r,r 14, 23, Fig. 1. The Specification further discusses general-purpose processors implementing instructions. Spec. ,r,r 45--46, Fig. 4 ( 41 Oa-n). The Specification describes a network interface generally as allowing data to be exchanged between a computer system and other devices in a network. Spec. ,r,r 45, 50, Fig. 4 ( 440). Thus, like the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 14), we agree that the additional elements in claim 21 fail to transform the claim's nature into a patent-eligible concept but rather are used as a tool to perform the claim's steps. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (holding "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("the claims recite both a generic computer element-a processor-and a series of generic computer 'components' that merely restate their individual functions."). Moreover, a computer receiving and sending the information over a network, such as the recited "processing device" in claim 21, is not an inventive concept underÂ§ 101. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Citing to Alice, Appellants contend claim 21 (1) effects "an improvement in the technical field of electronic communication via a data network" (Appeal Br. 19), including "a novel feature for modifying the operation of a data network" (Appeal Br. 20 (citing Spec. ,r,r 7, 9)), and (2) "address[ es] an Internet-centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology" (Appeal Br. 19-20). Appellants assert claim 21 's invention impacts traffic volume over the data network by increasing the responsive communications, and the responsive 14 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 communications are directly tied to the network's operation and control data traffic. Appeal Br. 21. We are unpersuaded. Claim 21 recites "causing second online advertisements to be transmitted during a second time period such that a larger number of second responsive communications are received." Appeal Br. 40 (Claims App.). But, this does not claim modifying the data network's operation. Rather, the data network, as claimed, still functions in its conventional manner to provide communications over a network. Also, our reviewing court has made it clear that merely making the practice of an abstract idea more effective by implementing the idea on a computer does not suffice to meet the inventive concept requirement of Alice. See OJP Techs,, Inc. v. Anwzon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, even if the recited predictive model in claim 21 results in more responses ( e.g., a more effective abstract idea), implementing the idea on a data network, as well as on a processing device and a network interface, do not amount an inventive concept. The Specification describes a model, like claim 21, accounts for "the likelihood that a larger response value than the observed response value likely would have occurred for censored observations for an online advertising campaign" or "absent the budget constraint." Spec. ,r 7, cited in Appeal Br. 20. Yet, this improvement is not rooted in computer technology, but rather in the model's features to improve "predicting results of a new online advertising campaign" (Spec. ,r 7) as previously discussed. The Specification further discusses "algorithms or symbolic representations of operations on binary digital signals stored within a memory of a specific apparatus" (Spec. ,r 9, cited in Appeal Br. 20), but claim 21 does not require 15 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 symbolic representations of operations on binary digital signals. Nor does Paragraph 9 describe the algorithms as improving electronic communications/a data network or modifying operations of a data network as asserted. Spec. ,r 9. Lastly, Appellants contend claim 21 addresses an Internet-centric problem similar to DDR Holdings. Appeal Br. 21-23. Specifically, Appellants contend "the problem of controlling the amount of data transmitted over a network and generated specifically by interaction with online advertisements" is "a problem specific to computer networks." Appeal Br. 22. Appellants assert the "causing second online advertisements" recitation in claim 21 is "subject to the modified campaign parameter value" that "relies on 'a likelihood that a larger number of responsive electronic communications would have been received during the first time in the absence of the cost constraint.' (i.e., that more responsive data would be generated by interactions with online advertisements)." Appeal Br. 22. This argument is not persuasive. The Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings states: [W]e caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent. For example, in our recently-decided Ultramercial opinion, the patentee argued that its claims were "directed to a specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the Internet before." But this alone could not render its claims patent- eligible. In particular, we found the claims to merely recite the abstract idea of "offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement," along with "routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the Internet." 16 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 DDR Holdings., 773 F.3d at 1258 (citations omitted). As noted above, claim 21 does not solve a challenge particular to the Internet but rather is particular to predictive modeling of online advertisements over a network, such as the Internet. The computer limitations in claim 21 are merely tools to achieve this method. Moreover, even presuming claim 21 is directed to an advertising process never employed on the Internet, this alone does not render the claim patent- eligible. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258. Rather, the additional features, such as the data network, do no more than routine and conventional activities. See Final Act. 3--4. In contrast with DDR Holdings, Appellants have not identified any unconventional computer, network, or Internet behavior performed by claim 21 's limitations. The nature of claim 21 's additional elements implement or perform the abstract idea using generic computer components to achieve claimed results and merely provide an environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of improving advertising campaign predictive models that increases the number of responses to advertisements. See TL! Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed Cir. 2016). For the above reasons, claim 21 's limitations, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not sufficiently transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 21 and independent claims 28 and 35, which are not separately argued. Dependent Claim 41 Appellants contend the rejection of claim 41 does not explain which 17 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 claim elements lack significantly more than the abstract idea and fail to provide any rationale regarding any feature in the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 14--15. We are not persuaded for reasons discussed above when addressing adequate notice. See also Ans. 13, 16. Additionally, Appellants indicate "claim 41 recites a highly detailed algorithm." Appeal Br. 20. In particular, claim 41 's limitations recite more details regarding the predictive advertising model (Appeal Br. 48-50 (Claims App.)) and do not concern an Internet-centric problem or computer technology problem as previously discussed. Appellants contend claim 41 involves "significantly more than using conventional techniques for generating a predictive model or computing an estimation model" (Appeal Br. 20) and a "highly specific, particular ordered combination of claim elements" (Appeal Br. 23). However, Appellants fail to identify which elements in the claim involve more than conventional techniques. Even presuming claim 41 is directed to a process never employed on the Internet, this alone does not render the claim patent- eligible. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258. Additionally, claim 41 does not recite a further step involving the network, a processing device, or the network interface. Granted, Enfish recognizes an improvement in computer-related technology can be directed to software. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335, cited in Appeal Br. 21. But, claim 41 does not recite, and Appellants fail to identify, how its limitations, individually or as an ordered combination, improved a computer or technological function, such that additional elements add enough to transform claim 41 into more than a patent-ineligible concept. 18 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of dependent claim 41. Remaining Dependent Claims For the remaining dependent claims, Appellants repeat arguments presented for claim 21, including the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case ofunpatentability (Appeal Br. 8-9), the rejection does not discuss any of the features of the claims (Appeal Br. 14), and the Examiner did not provide any rationale why the claims lack features that are significantly more than the abstract idea (Appeal Br. 15). Appellants do not identify any steps in the remaining claims (see Appeal Br. 8-9, 14--15) to rebut the Examiner's determination that the remaining claims are drawn to an abstract idea of improving advertising campaign predictive models to increase the number of responsive communications and do not transform this abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4; see also Ans. 8-9. We thus are not persuaded. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 22--40 not separately argued. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner determines Collins discloses all the limitation in independent claims 21, 28, and 35. Final Act. 5-7. Appellants argue Collins does not disclose the recited "determining a relationship between a campaign parameter and a number of responsive communications based on . . . a likelihood that a larger number of responsive electronic communications would have been received during the first time period in an absence of the cost constraint" in claim 21 and commensurate limitations in independent claims 28 and 35. Appeal Br. 25. Appellants contend Collins discloses a 19 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 broad idea of optimizing a campaign strategy but fails to discuss determining responses in the absence of a budget or cost constraint. Appeal Br. 24--27; Reply Br. 7-9. ISSUE Under Â§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding that Collins discloses "determining a relationship between the campaign parameter value and the number of the first responsive electronic communications received during the first time period, wherein the relationship is determined based on ... a likelihood that a larger number of responsive electronic communications would have been received during the first time period in an absence of the cost constraint"? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are persuaded of error. When addressing the above disputed recitation, the Examiner cites many paragraphs, stating Collins discloses impressions depend on a cost constraint and a technique for increasing the number of conversions through campaign optimization. Final Act. 6 (citing Collins ,r,r 58, 60, 77, 86, 91-92, 95-96, 99, 100-101, 127, 137-139, 145, 152-153, 160-161); Ans. 18-19 (further citing Collins ,r 81 ). In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner elaborates the broadly recited "likelihood" is similar to Collins "optimization." Ans. 18-19 (citing Collins ,r,r 95, 137). The Examiner finds that Collins's optimization of an ad campaign (Collins ,r 77) is performed to obtain better results, such as increasing the number of conversions while minimizing costs (Collins ,r 95). Ans. 18. The Examiner further explains the cost in Collins is 20 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 the recited "campaign parameter value" and Collins discloses determining a relationship between costs and a number of responses. Ans. 18 ( citing Collins ,r 95). The cited sections of Collins fail to disclose determining a "campaign parameter value" -"responsive electronic communications" relationship based on "a likelihood that a larger number of responsive electronic communications would have been received ... in an absence of the cost constraint" as claim 21 recites. Appeal Br. 40 (Claims App.). The Examiner focuses on Paragraphs 95 and 13 7 to teach this limitation. Ans. 18-19. These paragraphs discuss campaign optimizer component 77 5 facilitating ad optimization and increasing the number of conversions (e.g., responsive communications) from an ad. Collins ,r,r 95, 98, 13 7. Paragraphs 95 and 137 also address the campaign optimizer component process involves obtaining data, including costs and how to spend money over the entire period of the campaign. Collins ,r,r 86, 95, 137, 161. As such, Collins discusses determining relationships between costs ( e.g., a campaign value) and a larger number of responses. But, spending money over the entire period of an ad campaign as discussed in Collins (Collins ,r,r 95, 137) does not necessarily disclose disregarding a cost constraint or "in the absence of the cost constraint" as additionally recited in claim 21. That is, spending money over an entire period may suggest spending the same amount of money over the same period but spending the money differently ( e.g., using different bid amounts or throttling the rate at which ads are served differently), so as increase, maximize, or optimize the conversion number. See Collins ,r,r 87, 95, 137, 153. Moreover, Collins teaches "minimizing the cost of the campaign" but 21 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 does not discuss considering the absence of a cost constraint or the likelihood that a larger number of responses will occur without a cost constraint. Collins ,r 95, 137, 153. These paragraphs thus do not discuss determining a campaign parameter value-response relationship that disregards a cost constraint ( e.g., "in absence of the cost constraint") as recited in claim 21. Paragraph 99 also discusses campaign optimizer component 77 5 that considers budget-related conditions or constraints and obtains ad campaign information included "ROAS (return on ad spend)" and "CPI ( clicks per impression)." Collins ,r 99. Collins thus determines a relationship between a campaign parameter and the response number and factors in cost constraints. Collins ,r 99. Other cited paragraphs also discuss or consider costs or budgets. Collins ,r,r 100, 138-139, 152. However, Collins fails to address gathering information related to the number of responses-let alone the likelihood of a larger number of responses-absent a cost constraint. Other cited paragraphs address forecasting or analyzing data to predict the number of impressions or clicks expected for an ad but fail to discuss analyzing this data in the absence of a cost constraint. Collins ,r 92, 96, 127, 160. Nor does the Examiner explain adequately how Collins's optimization process considers "an absence of the cost constraint" as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 6; Ans. 18-19. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of (1) independent claim 21, (2) independent claims 28 and 3 5, which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 27, 34, and 40 for similar reasons. 22 Appeal2017-005360 Application 13/689,298 THE REMAINING REJECTIONS For each of the remaining rejections, the Examiner continues to rely on Collins to teach or suggest the above noted deficiency. Final Act. 7-13. We thus will not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 of the remaining claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 21--41 under Â§ 101. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 27, 28, 34, 35, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102 and claims 22-26, 29-33, 36-39, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 23