Lucian Lita et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 18, 2021

2021001889 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2021)

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.
13/455,024 04/24/2012 Lucian Vlad Lita 088325-1036726
(187600US)
8747
51206 7590 08/18/2021
Oracle / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
PATEL, DIPEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LUCIAN VLAD LITA and OMAR TAWAKOL
____________

Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant appeared for oral hearing on July 22, 2021.

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant1 claims a method of managing online user data, and more
particularly, a method for providing aggregated subsets of non-unique user data to

1We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BlueKai, Inc., a subsidiary of
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

2

user data buyers that can be employed as a basis for targeting of online
advertisement campaigns. (Spec., page 1, ll. 3–5).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for providing
user data responsive to queries, the method comprising:

collecting, by a first application executing on a data
supplier server, user data representing interactions of a plurality of
user devices with one or more web servers, the user data being
collected from a plurality of data sources, the user data including
unique user data that uniquely identifies one or more user devices of
the plurality of user devices, the unique user data indicating one or
more attributes of the interactions, and the unique user data being
available for querying by the data supplier server;

identifying one or more restrictions associated with
providing the collected user data to a data requesting server, the one
or more restrictions being associated with a privacy standard, wherein
the privacy standard indicates a minimum threshold number of users
associated with the user data that preserves user anonymity;

in response to identifying the one or more restrictions,
performing a process for transforming the unique user data within the
collected user data into non-unique user data so as to enable the data
requesting server to query the non-unique user data, and the process
including:

identifying one or more common attributes within the
unique user data, each of the one or more common attributes
representing an attribute shared between user devices of the
plurality of user devices;

indexing the unique user data by the one or more
common attributes using an identifier, the indexing causing a
plurality of groups to be defined, and each group of the

Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

3

plurality of groups sharing at least one common attribute of the
one or more common attributes and being associated with the
identifier; and
storing one or more groups as non-unique user data,
the one or more groups being stored according to the
corresponding identifier without identifying individual user
devices;

determining that the process has been completed;

in response to determining that the process has been
completed, enabling the data requesting server to query the non-
unique user data;

receiving, at the data supplier server, a query communication
comprising one or more user data attributes from a second application
executing on the data requesting server, the query communication
including a data set granularity representing a maximum number of
user devices to be associated with a result of the query
communication; and

in response to receiving the query communication,
generating one or more result data sets responsive to the query
communication, the generation of the one or more result data sets
including:

querying the stored one or more groups based on the
one or more user data attributes;

based on the querying, generating the one or more
result data sets responsive to the querying, the one or more
result data sets including at least a first portion of the non-
unique user data, the at least first portion of the non-unique user
data matching the one or more user data attributes without
uniquely identifying individual user devices associated with the
at least first portion of the non-unique user data, and the one or
more result data sets representing a number of user devices
equal to or less than the maximum number of user devices
indicated by the data set granularity;
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

4

identifying an anonymity threshold value, the
anonymity threshold value indicating a size of a data set of user
data that maintains anonymity of individual user devices
represented by the data set, the anonymity threshold value being
based on the minimum threshold number of users indicated by
the privacy standard;

comparing the number of user devices represented by
the one or more result data sets to the anonymity threshold
value;

determining whether to adjust the one or more result
data sets, based at least in part on the comparison; and

in response to a determination to adjust the one or
more result data sets, generating an adjusted result data set by
grouping the one or more result data sets with at least a second
portion of the non-unique user data, wherein the adjusted result
data set corresponds to a number of anonymized user devices
that satisfies the anonymity threshold value, and the at least
second portion of the non-unique user data includes at least one
additional user data attribute that is different from the one or
more user data attributes included in the query communication;
and

transmitting the adjusted result data set to the data
requesting server in response to the query communication, such that
the adjusted result data set provides anonymity to the number of
anonymized user devices represented by the adjusted result data set.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–6, 8–14, 16–22, and 24–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Clyne (US 2011/0035288 A1; published Feb. 10,
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

5

2011), in view of Kim (US 8,559,927 B2; issued Oct. 15, 2013), in view of
Evenhaim (US 2007/0282796 A1; published Dec. 6, 2007).
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clyne, Kim, Evenhaim, in view of Sussman et al. (US
2007/0162301 A1; published July 12, 2007), referred to hereinafter as Sussman.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, . . . 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. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–218 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012))
(citations omitted).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

6

directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the
‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the
[S]pecification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter.’” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp., 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 “abstract idea” for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36.
In so doing we apply a “directed to” two prong test: 1) evaluate whether the
claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception,
evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50, pp. 50–57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).2
The Examiner determines that the claims recite a method of organizing
human activity because they recite sales activity between a data supplier of user
data and a data buyer in an online advertising campaign. (Non-Final Act. 6). The
Examiner additionally determines that the claims recite a mathematical concept.
(Non-Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds that the additional elements recited in
claim 1 which include a computer, first and second applications, servers, one or
more user devices, and databases simply amount to using these generic tools to
implement the abstract idea. (Id. at 9–12). The Examiner also determines that the

2 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will
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.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54.
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

7

claims do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract
idea. (Id. at 12).
The Specification discloses that the online advertising industry utilizes user
data to provide targeted advertising campaigns that can optimize ad placement, ad
content, real-time bidding, and the like. (Spec. page, 1, ll. 7–8). Various
embodiments are directed to collecting, aggregating and indexing unique and non-
unique user data from a plurality of users. A query may be provided by a user data
buyer, a user data aggregator and the like. Subsets of user data may be aggregated
based on non-unique geographic information such as a five digit zip code etc.
Each subset of aggregated user data may include weighting that indicates its
relevance to a query. (Spec. 4). The number of users in each subset of aggregated
user data may be decreased or increased so long as the number of users is no
smaller than a minimum amount that serves at least in part to protect the
anonymity of the users. A user data buyer is any individual, partnership, company,
business or the like that may buy, rent, lease, bid and/or otherwise obtain access to
aggregated user data. A user data supplier is any entity, individual, partnership,
company, business or the like that may collect user data and may sell, rent, lease
and/or otherwise provide the collected user data to a user data aggregator. (Spec.
3). An increased fee may be charged to a user data buyer that requests search
results with subsets of aggregated user data for smaller numbers of anonymized
users. (Spec. 5). A decreased fee may be charged to the user data buyer that
requests search results with subsets of aggregated user data for a larger number of
anonymized users. Therefore, it is clear that the Specification discloses a method
of buying and selling user data.
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites “collecting by a first
application on a data supplier server, user data representing interactions of a
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

8

plurality of user devices,” “generating an adjusted result data set,” and
“transmitting the adjusted result data set to the data requesting server in response to
the query communication.”
We thus agree with the Examiner’s findings that claim 1 recites a method of
organizing human activity because it recites sales activity between a data supplier
of user data and a data buyer. Controlling the behavior of persons concerning sales
activity between a data supplier and a data buyer is a method of organizing human
behavior, which is not eligible subject matter. See Alice, 578 U.S. 208 at 218–19.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to test,” claim 1 requires a
“computer,” “first application,” “second application,” “data supplier server,” “user
devices,” and “web servers.” These recitations do not impose “a meaningful limit
on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception” such as to amount to a practical
application of the present invention. Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. We find no
indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant directs us to any indication, that
the operations recited in claim 1 invoke any 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) (“[A]fter
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does
not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
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, short of attorney argument, that
attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or functionality to the
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

9

claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates
the abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the revised
Guidance. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
In this regard, these recitations do not affect an improvement in the
functioning of the first application, second application, data supplier server, user
devices, the web servers or other technology, do not recite a particular machine or
manufacture that is integral to claim 1, and do not transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing. Id. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception
that is not integrated into a practical application and thus claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that claim 1
is directed to abstract ideas, the claim must include an “inventive concept” in order
to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must be an element or combination of elements that
is sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than
the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original)
(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73
(2012)).
The introduction of computer elements in the form of a computer, first
application, second application, a data supplier server, user devices, and web
servers into the claim does not alter the analysis at Alice step two.
[T]he 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 “implemen[t]” an
abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

10

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 featur[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 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).
Instead, “the relevant question is whether claim 1 here does more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic
computer.” Id. at 225. It does not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer elements at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify the data
as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the trading industry. See Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 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”). 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 Am. Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

11

Considered as an ordered combination, the computer elements of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-access/display is
equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. 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) (holding that sequence of data retrieval,
analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-
Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring
was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the
computer elements recited. As we stated above, claim 1 does not affect an
improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification spells
out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied to perform
the invention. For example, the Specification discloses that the client devices may
be any computing device capable of communicating over a network to send and
receive information such as a laptop, smart phone etc. (Spec. 5–6). The data
supplier server is any network device usable to collect user data. (Spec. 9). The
first and second applications may include any application that has the capability to
provide send and/or receive content. (Spec. 6, 14). The web server may be any of
a variety of servers configured to provide content over a network to a computing
device. (Spec. 18). Thus, claim 1 at issue amount to nothing significantly more
than instructions to apply the abstract idea of organizing sales activity between a
data supplier of user data and a data buyer in an online advertising campaign using
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

12

some unspecified, generic computer elements. Under our precedents, that is not
enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 226.
We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 10–29; Reply Br. 4–7)
Appellant has submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us
that stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our analysis above
substantially covers the substance of all the arguments which have been made.
But, for purposes of emphasis, we will address various arguments in order to make
individual rebuttals of same.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
argument that the claims surpass the eligibility threshold set by the Guidance
because the original data set is transformed in response to an automatic
determination that the original data set includes at least one user attribute that, as it
exists in the original data set, could be used to uniquely identify a user. Initially,
we note that we do not understand what is meant by “eligibility threshold.”
(Appeal Br. 12, 19). Appellant has not provided any authority for the concept of
an eligibility threshold. If the Appellant is arguing that claim 1 recites a practical
application because the original data set is transformed, we find this argument
unpersuasive. We note that the alleged “transformation” is merely a manipulation
of data, which is not sufficient to meet the transformation prong under § 101. See
Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 71–72 (a computer-based algorithm that merely transforms
data from one form to another is not patent-eligible).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
argument that the claims do not recite a method of organizing human activity
because the pending claims are directed to digital communications that involve
transferring exchangeable data sets or user data between different computing
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

13

systems. As the Federal Circuit has made clear, “the basic character of a process
claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by
computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a
computer readable medium.” See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982)).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
argument that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept. We agree with the
Examiner’s response to this argument found on page 9 of the Answer. In addition,
even if the claims did not recite a mathematical concept, the claims are determined
to recite a method of managing human activity and are abstract on that basis alone.
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process.
(Appeal Br. 17–18). We will not address the issue of whether the claims recite a
mental process because the Examiner has not determined that the claims recite a
mental process.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
argument that the claims include a technical point of novelty. Appellant does not
explain what is meant by a “technical point of novelty.” To the extent Appellant
maintains that the limitations of claim 1 necessarily amount to “significantly more”
than an abstract idea because the claimed apparatus is allegedly novel and thus
patentable over the prior art, Appellant misapprehends the controlling precedent.
Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an
“inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-
obviousness, but rather, a search for “‘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, 573 U.S. at 217. A novel and
nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

14

ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner oversimplified the technical feature of the pending
claims and overlooked many specific technical features in the claims. Appellant
does not explain what recitations in the claims were overlooked by the Examiner.
In any case, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive at least because the Examiner’s
characterization here, is fully consistent with the Specification, as discussed above.
That claim 1 includes more words than the phrase the Examiner used to articulate
the abstract idea to which the claim is directed is an insufficient basis to
persuasively argue that the claim language has been mischaracterized or that the
Examiner has otherwise failed to consider all of the limitations of the claim. See
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s rejection did not satisfy the
requirements of the Berkheimer Memo is not persuasive because the argument is
directed to recitations in the claim that are part of the abstract idea. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the automatic generation of a response to a query for a user
data received at a data supplier system has not been established by evidence to be
well-understood, routine and conventional as require.
Addressing step two of the Mayo/Alice framework in Berkheimer, the
Federal Circuit held that the question of whether a claim element or combination of
elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
relevant field is a question of fact. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2018). Yet, the law is clear that the claim elements to be considered
(when determining whether the claims include additional elements or a
combination of elements that amount to “significantly more” that the judicial
exception) cannot be the abstract idea itself. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

15

(requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain
other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an
‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself” (emphasis added)).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to the
remaining claims because Appellant has not argued the separate eligibility of the
remaining claims.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
We will not sustain this rejection because we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not established that the prior art discloses “generating an adjusted
result data set . . . wherein the adjusted result data set . . . includes at least one
additional user data attribute that is different from the one or more user data
attributes included in the query communication.” (Appeal Br. 30; Reply Br. 6).
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 51, 56, and 59 of Evenhaim for teaching
this subject matter in the Non-Final Action. (Non-Final Act. 23). In response to
the Appellant’s arguments the Examiner relies on paragraph 102 of Evenhaim in
the Answer for teaching this subject matter. (Ans. 17).
Paragraph 51 discloses that it has become common practice for a “source-
entity” to condense their data around larger cluster variables such as by age group
or state or gender to dissolve their identity into an ensemble of others. Paragraph
56 discloses that the names and ID of individuals can be included in the data set as
long as the population definition is large enough to dilute any definitive conclusion
about an individual’s personal data into the “sea” of the group data. Paragraph 59
discloses aggregating the plurality of files into a data warehouse and protecting the
privacy by bundling responses of the individual source entities into a large source
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

16

entity de-identified data collection. Paragraph 102 discloses for the instant
protocol to be properly effective, the data must be large enough to provide a
sufficient level of matching to address privacy concerns. While these paragraphs
do disclose that the data set should be large enough to protect the privacy of the
data, there is no disclosure in these portions of Evenhaim that the data includes one
data attribute that is different from the data attributes included in the query
communication.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 1. We will also not sustain the rejections as it is directed to claims 2–6, 8–
14, 16–22 and 24–30 subject to this rejection because each of these claims
requires the subject matter we have found lacking in the relied-upon prior art. We
will also not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 15, and 23 because each of these
claims includes the subject matter found missing in the relied-upon art and the
Examiner has not established that Sussman teaches the subject matter found
missing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1–6, 8–14, 16–22, and
24–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 7, 15, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–30 101 Eligibility 1–30
Appeal 2021-001889
Application 13/455,024

17

1–6, 8–
14, 16–
22, 24–30
103 Clyne, Kim,
Evenhaim
1–6, 8–
14, 16–
22, 24–
30
7, 15, 23 103 Clyne, Kim,
Evenhaim, Sussman
7, 15, 23
Overall
Outcome
1–30

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