Joaquin Torsiello et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2020

12539885 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/539,885 08/12/2009 Joaquin Torsiello 143-MMG-07-2009 1190
86548 7590 03/10/2020
Garlick & Markison (IH)
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
FEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2020 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):
MMurdock@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOAQUIN TORSIELLO,
JOHN FULBRIGHT,
DAVID C. JELLISON JR.,
and PHILIPPE GENERALI
____________

Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Joaquin Torsiello, John Fulbright, David C. Jellison Jr., and Philippe
Generali (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non–final
rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, 17–19 and 21, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of analyzing data related to media
audiences, and more particularly evaluating audience responses to particular
media content. Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
[1] receiving, from a first data provider, audience data
indicating how many audience members were tuned to a station
at different times,
by executing a program instruction in a processing
system, wherein the audience data includes consumer
identifiers linking individual records of the audience data
with individual consumers;
[2] receiving, from a second data provider, content data
indicating broadcast times during which each of a plurality of

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed February 26, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 19,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 21, 2018), and
Non-Final Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed September 8, 2017).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as iHeart Media
Management Services, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

3

content items was broadcast on the station, by executing a
program instruction in a processing system;
[3] for each consumer identifier, determining session data for
the individual consumers based on the audience data, wherein
the session data includes:
a station identifier identifying a media station;
a start value indicating a time at which a particular
consumer tuned to the media station;
and
an end value indicating a time at which the particular
consumer tuned away from the media station;
[4] comparing first session data associated with a first consumer
to subsequent session data associated with the first consumer,
wherein:
the first session data includes a first station identifier, a
first start value, and a first end value,
and
the subsequent session data includes a second station
identifier, a second start value, and a second end value;
[5] determining, in response to the first end value overlapping
the second start value, that a station switch occurred;
[6] determining a number of content-switches based on
comparing the session data and content data,
wherein the number of content-switches corresponds to a
number of audience members who switched away from a
station to at least one of a plurality of subsequent stations
during a first broadcast of a first content item, by
executing a program instruction in a processing system;
[7] determining how many audience members were expected to
switch away from the station to at least one of the plurality of
subsequent stations during the first broadcast of the first content
item, by executing a program instruction in a processing
system;
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

4

[8] assigning a performance factor to the first content item
based on a relationship between how many audience members
switched away from the station to at least one of the plurality of
subsequent stations and how many audience members were
expected to switch away from the station to at least one of the
plurality of subsequent stations, by executing a program
instruction in a processing system;
[8.1] wherein determining how many audience members
were expected to switch away from the station to at least
one of the plurality of subsequent stations comprises
determining a station-average for each minute of a day,
each station-average corresponding to an average number
of audience members who switched away from the
station to at least one of the plurality of subsequent
stations during each respective minute of the day, by
executing a program instruction in a processing system;
[9] determining an average number of audience members of the
station for each minute of the day, by executing a program
instruction in a processing system;
[10] determining a station-switch average for a first group of
times,
wherein the station-switch average corresponds to an
average of station averages, and the first group of times
includes a period of time during the first broadcast of the
first content item, by executing a program instruction in a
processing system;
and
[11] determining a switch percent for the first group of times,
wherein determining the switch percent includes subtracting the
station–switch average from the number of content switches,
and dividing the result by the average number of audience
members, by executing a program instruction in a processing
system.
Claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, 17–19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

5

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as
an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

6

claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites receiving data, determining data, comparing data,
determining data attributes such as indications of a station switch,
determining actual and expected totals, assigning factor data to content data,
determining averages data, and determining percent values data.
Determining and comparing data are rudimentary data analysis. Data
assignment, totals, averages, and percent computations are just that,
mathematical computations. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, and
computing data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation
details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any
and all possible means.
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

7

From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
market research. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would
ordinarily take place in advising one to compute total, average, and
percentage statistics from actual and expected market participant activity.
The advice to compute total, average, and percentage statistics from actual
and expected market participant activity involves receiving audience data,
which is an economic act of market research, and determining market
research activities, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “receiving . . . audience data,”

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

8

which is an activity that would take place whenever one is engaging in
market research for audience related business. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“determining a number of content-switches,” which is also characteristic of
market research.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to determining
audience response measurements to broadcast content. Non-Final Act. 5.
The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in market research by computing total, average, and
percentage statistics from actual and expected market participant activity
absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for
doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 2 recite receiving data.
Limitations 3–9 recite generic and conventional analyzing and computing of
audience behavior data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to
these results. The limitations thus recite advice for computing total, average,
and percentage statistics from actual and expected market participant
activity. To advocate computing total, average, and percentage statistics
from actual and expected market participant activity is conceptual advice for
results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
analyzing data related to media audiences, and more particularly to
evaluating audience responses to particular media content. Thus, all this
intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites market research. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because market research is used
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

9

to predict how to influence consumer behavior. The concept of market
research by computing total, average, and percentage statistics from actual
and expected market participant activity is one idea for quantifying such
research. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might
conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC
v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(analyzing data sets); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (generating rule-based
tasks for processing an insurance claim); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(managing a stable value protected life insurance policy); Dealertrack, Inc.
v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (processing loan information
through a clearinghouse); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data
and storing recognized patterns in the data).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, and
computing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, and
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

10

computation and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).
As such, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, and computing data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
Alternately, this is an example of a mathematical concept because the
steps of determining arithmetic totals, averages, and percentages perform
mathematical algorithms. The remaining steps are mere data gathering and
incidental post processing steps.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
market research by computing total, average, and percentage statistics from
actual and expected market participant activity, which is a commercial and
legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity
identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

11

such concepts “‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the “‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 2 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps
3–5 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired
by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual
advice. Steps 6–9 recite conventional totaling, averaging, and percentage
calculation mathematical algorithms computing result data. All purported
inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired,
and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or
in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
performing market research by computing total, average, and percentage
statistics from actual and expected market participant activity as performed
by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the
parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to
process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 24 pages of specification only spell out
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

12

different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of market research by computing total, average, and
percentage statistics from actual and expected market participant activity
under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement
in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to
nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply market research by
computing total, average, and percentage statistics from actual and expected
market participant activity using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of market
research by advising one to compute total, average, and percentage statistics

8 The Specification describes a generic a processor, memory, and a
communications interface. Spec. para. 13.
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

13

from actual and expected market participant activity, as distinguished from a
technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This
amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain
methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The
claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

14

“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, and computing data amounts to electronic
data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All
of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer
activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec.
Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend they invented any of
these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated
upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited
to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make
the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v.
InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
computation is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

15

Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving,
selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving
payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission),
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d
1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling,
and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claim 8 is
substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method
claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to
the practical application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

16

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of market research by advising one to compute total,
average, and percentage statistics from actual and expected market
participant activity, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Appellant's
claimed advance over the prior art is not ‘determining audience response
measurements to broadcast content.’ Instead, the claims are directed to a
technique and devices that indirectly detect physical interactions of users
with their media playback devices.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant contends
similarly that “the claims recite a detection tool.” Appeal Br. 14. No
detection is recited in the claims. See also Reply Brief 7–8. Appellant
refers to reviewing audience data for data indicating switching away from
content, not technological mechanisms for physically observing such
behavior. This review is conventional data analysis.
Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the
claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 14–15. In DDR Holdings,
the Court evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of
retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

17

functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly
transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an
advertisement and activating a hyperlink.” Id. at 1257. There, the Court
found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the
manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem
that had no “pre-Internet analog.” Id. at 1258. The Court cautioned,
however, “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric
challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. For example, in DDR Holdings
the Court distinguished the patent-eligible claims at issue from claims
found patent-ineligible in Ultramercial. See id. at 1258–59 (citing
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d a t 715–16). As noted there, the Ultramercial
claims were “directed to a specific method of advertising and content
distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the
Internet before.” Id. at 1258 (quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715–
16). Nevertheless, those claims were patent ineligible because they
“merely recite[d] 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.’” Id.
Appellant’s asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible
in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings.
The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited “providing [a] media product
for sale at an Internet website;” “restricting general public access to said
media product;” “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a]
sponsor message;” and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message,
presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer
Appeal 2018-007481
Application 12/539,885

18

access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one
query.” 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted claims recite
receiving, analyzing, and computing data. This is precisely the type of
Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that no evidence is
presented that the limitations are conventional and well understood. Reply
Br. 5–7. Such evidence is presented supra under Step 2B.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, 17–19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, 17–19 and 21 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–8, 10–14,
17–19, 21
101 Eligibility 1, 4–8, 10–14,
17–19, 21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED