John Hegeman et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 5, 201913171101 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/171,101 06/28/2011 John Hegeman 26295-18560 4954 87851 7590 12/05/2019 Facebook/Fenwick Silicon Valley Center 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 EXAMINER LI, SUN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/05/2019 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): fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com ptoc@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN HEGEMAN and RONG YAN ____________ Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examinerâs final rejection of claims 1â21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term âAppellantâ to refer to âapplicantâ as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellantâs Appeal Brief (âAppeal Br.,â filed February 13, 2018) and Reply Brief (âReply Br.,â filed April 24, 2018), and the Examinerâs Answer (âAns.,â mailed March 20, 2018) and Final Office Action (âFinal Act.,â mailed August 14, 2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellantâs claimed invention ârelates to selecting and presenting advertisements to users in an online serviceâ and, more particularly, to âselecting and presenting advertisements to users in an online service based on cost modifiers normalized based on the market value of the advertisements or usersâ (Spec. ¶ 2). Claims 1, 12, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: [(a)] receiving a plurality of advertisements, each advertisement associated with a bid price; [(b)] receiving feedback from a group of users representing a level of interest explicitly indicated by the group of users for each of at least a subset of the advertisements; [(c)] for each of at least the subset of the advertisements; [(c1)] computing an expected revenue value for presenting the advertisement to a particular user based on the bid price; [(c2)] identifying, from the received feedback, feedback provided for the advertisement by users having social relationships with the particular user through a social networking service[;] [(c3)] computing a modifier value based on the identified feedback; [(c4)] normalizing, by a computer, the modifier value for the advertisement based on a market value associated with a characteristic of the particular user; and [(c5)] computing a total value for the advertisement based on the expected revenue value and the normalized modifier value; Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 3 [(d)] selecting one or more advertisements for presentation to the particular user from the plurality of advertisements based at least in part on the total values of the advertisements; and [(e)] sending the selected one or more advertisements for display to the particular user. REJECTION Claims 1â21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS Appellant argues claims 1â21 as a group (Appeal Br. 5â15). We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent eligible if it claims a ânew and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.â 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: â[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideasâ are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intâl, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), âfor distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.â Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to âdetermine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.â Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 4 ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered âindividually and âas an ordered combinationââ to determine whether there are additional elements that ââtransform the nature of the claimâ into a patent-eligible application.â Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is âa search for an âinventive conceptâ â i.e., an element or combination of elements that is âsufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.ââ Id. at 217â18 (alteration in original). In rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined that the claims are directed to âobtaining/collecting bid and feedback information, analyzing feedback information, processing [the feedback] information, . . . selecting [an] . . . advertisement based on the analysis, and sending the selected advertisementâ (i.e., to an abstract idea not meaningfully different from the abstract idea identified in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and that the claims also involve ââorganizing information through mathematical correlations,â which was identified by the court[ ] as an abstract idea in Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)â (Final Act. 19â22). The Examiner also determined that the claims do not include additional elements or a combination of elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (id. at 23â26). After Appellantâs briefs were filed, and the Examinerâs Answer mailed, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the âUSPTOâ) published revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 5 ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the â2019 Revised Guidanceâ). That guidance revised the USPTOâs examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) â[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract ideaâ; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not âdirected toâ a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50. The 2019 Revised Guidance, by its terms, applies to all applications, and to all patents resulting from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Id.2 Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A) The first step in the Mayo/Alice framework, as mentioned above, is to determine whether the claims at issue are âdirected toâ a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. This first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is a two-prong test; in Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 2 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (âMPEPâ) § 2106.04(II) and also supersedes all versions of the USPTOâs âEligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.â See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (âEligibility-related guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.â). Accordingly, Appellantâs arguments challenging the sufficiency of the Examinerâs rejection will not be addressed to the extent those arguments are based on currently superseded USPTO guidance. Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 6 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next consider whether the claim includes additional elements, beyond the judicial exception, that âintegrate the [judicial] exception into a practical application,â i.e., that 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 (âStep 2A, Prong Twoâ). Id. at 54â55. Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is âdirected toâ the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellantâs arguments that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 6â12). The Federal Circuit has explained that âthe âdirected toâ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether âtheir character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.ââ Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an âabstract ideaâ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335â36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that the claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is entitled âUSER FEEDBACK-BASED SELECTION OF ONLINE ADVERTISEMENTS USING NORMALIZED COST MODIFIERS,â and states that the disclosure relates to âselecting and presenting advertisements to users in an online serviceâ (Spec. ¶ 2). The Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 7 Specification describes, in the Background section, that online services, such as social networking services, search engines, news aggregators, Internet shopping services, and content delivery services, have become a popular venue for presenting advertisements to prospective buyers (Spec. ¶ 3). Some online services provide their services free of charge or charge only minimal fees (id.); other online services adopt a bidding system that requires multiple advertisers to compete for advertisement space (id. ¶ 5). The Specification describes that attractive content items tend to increase user traffic and increase the overall advertisement fees collected by the online services; therefore, online services strive to provide more interesting and attractive content items to their users (id. ¶ 6). Recognizing that the number and content of the advertisements may diminish the attractiveness of the content items, the Specification describes that, in order to increase the relevance of the advertisements, some online services analyze information about users and their activities (e.g., search terms used) to target advertisements to those users; these online services, thus, estimate or predict the current context of a userâs Internet usage based on user input or user characteristics, and target advertisements most likely to be of interest to the user (id. ¶ 7). The present invention is ostensibly intended to provide an improved method and system for selecting advertisements for presentation to a user of an online service. The Specification, thus, describes that the online service selects one or more advertisements from a pool of advertisements based on feedback about the advertisements received from a group of users who have previously viewed the advertisements (id. ¶ 8). âIn this way, the online service can take into account not only the expected revenue that it will Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 8 receive from presenting an advertisement to a user, but also the value to the online service of presenting content to its users that is interesting and that creates a positive experience for the usersâ (id.). Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a method comprising: (1) âreceiving a plurality of advertisements, each advertisement associated with a bid priceâ (step (a)); (2) receiving feedback about at least a subset of the advertisements from users who have viewed the advertisements, i.e., âreceiving feedback from a group of users representing a level of interest explicitly indicated by the group of users for each of at least a subset of the advertisementsâ (step (b)); (3) computing, for each advertisement in the subset, a total value of the advertisement based on the expected revenue value of presenting the advertisement to a particular user and the feedback received for the advertisement, i.e., for each of at least the subset of the advertisements; computing an expected revenue value for presenting the advertisement to a particular user based on the bid price; identifying, from the received feedback, feedback provided for the advertisement by users having social relationships with the particular user through a social networking service[;] computing a modifier value based on the identified feedback; normalizing, by a computer, the modifier value for the advertisement based on a market value associated with a characteristic of the particular user; and computing a total value for the advertisement based on the expected revenue value and the normalized modifier value (steps (c) and (c1)â(c5)); and (4) selecting one or more advertisements based on the total value of the advertisements and presenting the selected Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 9 advertisement(s) to the user, i.e., âselecting one or more advertisements for presentation to the particular user from the plurality of advertisements based at least in part on the total values of the advertisementsâ and âsending the selected one or more advertisements for display to the particular userâ (limitations (d) and (e)). These limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite (1) collecting information, i.e., a plurality of advertisements and feedback regarding at least a subset of the advertisements; (2) analyzing the information, i.e., determining a total value for each of the advertisements in the subset; and (3) displaying the results of the collection and analysis, i.e., selecting one or more advertisements based on the total values of the advertisements and displaying the selected advertisements to a user â i.e., targeted advertising, which a method of organizing human activity, and, therefore, an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts abstract. For example, in Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 778 F. Appâx 882, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit held that abstract ideas include tracking a userâs computer network activity and using information gained about the user to deliver targeted media, such as advertisements. See also, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (customizing a user interface to have targeted advertising based on user information); 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); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2014), affâd, 622 F. Appâx 915 Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 10 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding that targeting advertisements to certain consumers is no more than an abstract idea). Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), we next consider whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two). The only additional element in claim 1, beyond the abstract idea, is a computer for implementing the claimed method â an element that is disclosed in the Specification at a high degree of generality, i.e., as comprising a collection of generic components (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 38â41, 43, 45, 48, and 50). We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct us to any indication, that the operations recited in claim 1 invoke any assertedly inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (â[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent- eligible.â). We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record that attributes an improvement in computer technology and/or functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 11 abstract idea into a âpractical application,â as that phrase is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.3 Appellant argues that the claims go beyond the collection, analysis, and display of information present in Electric Power, and âdescribe a new source or type of information (e.g., identified feedback from other users having a social relationship with a particular user in a social networking system) and new techniques (e.g., computing modifier value based on identified feedback) for analyzing it (e.g., selection of an advertisement for a particular user)â (Appeal Br. 7â8). Yet, the law is clear that limiting the collection and analysis of information to particular content does not make the collection and analysis any less abstract. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (âAs many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is âlimited to particular contentâ or a particular âsource,â that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.â (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353, 1355 (citing cases)). That the techniques of analyzing the information may be ânewâ also is insufficient, without more, to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. âGroundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.â Assân for Molecular Pathology v. 3 The 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP § 2106.05(a)â(c) and (e) in describing the considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements integrates the judicial exception, e.g., the abstract idea, into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as determined under one or more of these MPEP sections, the claim is not âdirected toâ the judicial exception. Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 12 Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188â89 (1981) (âThe ânoveltyâ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.â). It also is not controlling that the claims do not preempt any and all ways of selecting advertisements (Appeal Br. 8â10; see also id. at 12). Although the Supreme Court has described âthe concern that drives [the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent-eligible subject matter] as one of pre- emption,â Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. âThe Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentabilityâ and â[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.â Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216). â[P]reemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, [but] the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.â Id. That claim 1 requires a computer is, moreover, not a persuasive reason to argue that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 10â11). Although âa method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101,â CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011), it does not automatically follow that methods requiring physical components â i.e., methods that arguably cannot be performed entirely in Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 13 the human mind â are, therefore, not directed to abstract ideas. Indeed, an argument, substantially similar to Appellantâs, was expressly rejected by the Court in Alice. Thus, although the claimed invention in Alice involved a computer system acting as a third-party intermediary between two parties: âAs stipulated, the claimed method requires the use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions; in other words, â[t]he computer is itself the intermediary,ââ Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 224, the Court held that âthe claims at issue amount to ânothing significantly moreâ than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer.â Id. at 225â26. See also In re TLI Commcâns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (â[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry.â). Responding to the Examinerâs Answer, Appellant asserts in the Reply Brief that the present claims are similar to the claims at issue in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims utilize âa new type of information (the identified feedback based on connections of the particular user)â in selecting advertisements for a particular user and, thus, enable an online system âto do things it could not do before (select advertisements more likely to enhance user experience instead of simply to increase the advertisement revenue collected by an online service provider)â (Reply Br. 8). Yet, we can find no parallel between claim 1 and the claims at issue in Finjan. In Finjan, the court determined that the claims were directed to a non- abstract improvement in computer functionality (rather than the abstract idea Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 14 of computer security), and employed âa new kind of file that enable[d] a computer security system to do things it could not do before,â namely, tailor access for different users and identify threats before a file reaches a userâs computer. Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305. Claim 1, on the other hand, uses generic computer components and generic computer functionality to analyze feedback data and select those advertisements most likely to be of interest to a particular user. As such, claim 1 falls within the familiar class of claims that do not âfocus . . . on . . . an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.â Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in the claim are no more than generic components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223â24 (â[W]holly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of âadditional featur[e]â that provides any âpractical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.ââ (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B) Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 15 that provides an âinventive concept,â i.e., whether the additional elements amount to âsignificantly moreâ than the judicial exception itself. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Addressing step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, Appellant attempts to draw an analogy between the pending claims and the claim at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), arguing that the pending claims are patent eligible because the claimed invention is âan improvement on relevant technologyâ (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant asserts that â[t]he claimed invention improves on the relevant technology by providing advertisements to users that will also be of interest to the users by âaccounting for both the direct monetary value to the online service as well as the indirect value to the online service of a positive user experience for its usersââ (id. at 14 (citing Spec. 3â4); see also Reply Br. 7â8). But, we fail to see how, and Appellant does not explain how, providing advertisements to users that will be of interest to those users amounts to a technological improvement as opposed to an improvement in a business practice. It clearly appears from the Specification that the problem the claimed invention addresses is one prompted by a desire to avoid the degradation of the user experience, decrease in user traffic, and ultimately the decrease in revenue collected by the online service provider that may occur when advertisements are presented to users based solely on maximizing the advertisement fees collected by the online service provider, i.e., by selecting advertisements having a higher bidding price, without regard to whether the advertisements will be of interest to users. This is not a technical problem; instead, it is a business concern. And the purported solution here of Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 16 selecting advertisements for presentation to a particular user based on feedback about the advertisements received from other users, who have viewed the advertisements and have social relationships with the targeted user through a social networking service, is a business, not a technical, solution. As described above, we find no indication of record that the operations recited in claim 1 invoke any assertedly inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. In McRO, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, is directed to a âtechnological improvement over the existing, manual 3âD animation techniquesâ and uses âlimited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.â McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allow computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules are limiting because they define morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. Id. at 1313. Appellant has not identified any analogous improvement here that is attributable to the claimed invention. Although presenting advertisements that are relevant and will be of interest to a user may improve a business process, it does not achieve an improved technological result. We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we Appeal 2018-005281 Application 13/171,101 17 sustain the Examinerâs rejection of claim 1, and claims 2â21, which fall with claim 1. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) /Basis Affirmed Reversed 1â21 101 Eligibility 1â21 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation