Lucian Lita et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 18, 20212021001889 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2021) 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. 13/455,024 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation