Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2020

13679765 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/679,765 11/16/2012 Sachit Kamat 901432-US-
NP- (3080.053US
9538
45839 7590 03/09/2020
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / LinkedIn/Microsoft
PO BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SENSENIG, SHAUN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@slwip.com
slw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SACHIT KAMAT, CHRISTIAN POSSE, ANMOL BHASIN,
CHUN YU WONG, PARKER R. BARRILE, and YI ETHAN ZHANG
____________________

Appeal 2019-0023621
Application 13/679,7652
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) the Final Office Action mailed
June 30, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed April 30, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); (3) the Advisory Action mailed May 21, 2018 (“Advisory
Act.”); (4) Amended Appeal Brief filed July 20, 2018 (“Claims Appendix”);
(5) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 26, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply
Brief filed Jan. 28, 2019. Appellant’s Amended Appeal Brief corrected the
claims appendix, and lacks page numbers. Accordingly, we refer to the 8
pages of the Amended Appeal Brief in the order they appear, ad seriatim.
2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended (i) 35 U.S.C. § 103, e.g., to rename 35 U.S.C.
§ 103’s subsections; and (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 112, e.g., to rename the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 from 35 U.S.C. § 112(2) to 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b). The filing date of the present application is November 16, 2012,
prior to the AIA’s effective date for applications (March 16, 2013).
Accordingly, this Decision refers to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. § 103
and 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, i.e., § 103(a) and § 112(2).
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant3 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31. Claims 2, 8, 14, 20, and 26
have been canceled. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Disclosed and Claimed Invention
Appellant’s disclosed invention “generally relates to the presentation
of sponsored job messages to users of a social network based on a job profile
and user characteristics” (Spec. ¶ 1). After scoring results for relevance of
job and user characteristics, job information is displayed to users of a social
network on a user interface (see e.g., Fig. 10, video display 1010) in the
form of a message (Spec. ¶ 15; claim 1; Abstract). Appellant has developed
a system and method
that displays job postings to users of a social network based on
characteristics, such as the user's social network profile, the
user's behavior or activities, and the user's social graph, such as
people, companies, and groups that the user has connected with,
follows, or joins within the social network. In this way, a user
may seamlessly receive pertinent job postings based on their
prior social network activity. Relatedly, job posting entities
may sponsor job postings on the social network or on a

3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

3
platform with access to the user's social network characteristics
with the increased expectation that the expense of sponsoring a
job posting may be relatively more likely to result in the job
posting being presented to a user with suitable characteristics.

Spec. ¶ 15.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal, with bracketed lettering/numbering
and formatting added, and emphases added to key portions of the claim at
issue, reads as follows:
l. A non-transitory memory device, the memory device
communicatively coupled to a processor and comprising
instructions which, when performed on the processor, cause the
processor to perform operations comprising:
[A] receive a user characteristic of a user of an online
social networking system;
[B] receive a job characteristic of a job profile of each of
a plurality of jobs posted to the online social networking
system;
[C] for at least some of the plurality of jobs, receive a job
bid from an entity posting an associated one of the plurality of
jobs to the online social networking system;
[D] for each of the plurality of jobs, determine a
relevance score based on [1] the job characteristic and [2] the
user characteristic;
[E] for each of the plurality of jobs, determine an
aggregate job score for the user based on [1] the relevance
score and [2] the job bid; and
[F] cause a user interface to present a message related to
at least some of the plurality of jobs to the user based, at least in
part, on:
[1] the respective aggregate job score of each of
the plurality of jobs; and
[2] the respective relevance score having a
magnitude greater than a predetermined threshold.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

4
Claims Appendix, p. 2 (emphases, formatting, and bracketed
lettering/numbering added).
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
(an abstract idea), without significantly more. Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and
27–31 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(2). Final Act. 4. This
rejection has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3; see also Advisory
Act. 1, box 4), and is, therefore, not before us on appeal. Accordingly, we
will not address this rejection further.
(3) Claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novack (US 2009/0299993
A1; published Dec. 3, 2009) and Yahia et al. (US 2008/0114672 A1;
published May 15, 2008) (hereinafter, “Yahia”). Final Act. 5–11.
Appellant’s Contentions
(1) With regard to the patent eligibility rejection, Appellant primarily
makes arguments regarding claim 1, and generally contends the claims are
not directed to an abstract idea, but to improvements in the relevant
technology (see Appeal Br. 9–20), e.g., the generation of user interfaces (see
Appeal Br. 17), “an improvement to computer functionality” (Appeal Br.
17).
Appellant makes only nominal arguments to dependent claims 3, 4,
and 7, simply repeating what claims 3, 4, and 7 recite, and contending the
specific operations for determining the scores of these claims “are directed
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

5
to patentable subject matter” (see Appeal Br. 17). Such conclusions are not
considered a separate argument for patent eligibility. See e.g.,
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(last sentence) (“A statement which merely points
out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (stating that interpreting 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) to require a more
substantive argument than a naked assertion that the prior art fails to teach
limitation in order to address a claim separately, is not an unreasonable
interpretation of the rule); Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 at *4 (BPAI
2009) (informative) (“Appellants’ argument . . . repeatedly restates elements
of the claim language and simply argues that the elements are missing from
the reference. However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain
why the Examiner’s explicit fact finding is in error.”). Additionally, any
arguments not presented are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
Therefore, based on Appellant’s patent eligibility arguments, and
because claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 contain
commensurate limitations, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1,
3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
patent-ineligibility.
(2) With regard to the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3–7, 9–13,
15–19, 21–25, and 27–31, Appellant primarily argues the merits of
independent claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 23–28), and makes similar arguments
as to the patentability of remaining independent claims 13 and 25, as well as
dependent claims 5, 6, 9–12, 17–19, 21–24, 29, and 30. See Appeal Br. 28.
As to independent claim 1, Appellant contends (Appeal Br. 24–28) that the
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

6
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, because Novack
and Yahia, whether taken individually or in combination, fail to teach or
suggest limitations D–F recited in claim 1.
Based on Appellant’s obviousness arguments, and because claims 1,
5, 6, 9–12, 17, 18, 21–24, 29, and 30 contain commensurate limitations, we
select claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 5, 6, 9–12, 17, 18, 21–24, 29,
and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over the base
combination of Novack and Yahia.
(3) With regard to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 3, 4,
7, 15, 16, 19, 27, 28, and 31, Appellant (a) relies on the arguments presented
as to claims 1, 13, and 25 from which these claims ultimately depend; and
(b) presents separate arguments as to claims 3, 4, and 7. See Appeal Br. 28–
29.
Based on Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 15, 16, 19,
27, 28, and 31, and because these claims fall into three groups of claims
having commensurate limitations (e.g., claims reciting combining,
multiplying, and using percentages), we select (i) claim 3 as representative
of claims 3, 15, and 27 (reciting “combining”); (ii) claim 4 as representative
of claims 4, 16, and 28 (reciting “multiplying”); and (iii) claim 7 as
representative of claims 7, 19, and 31 (reciting using “percentage”), all
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over the combination of
Novack and Yahia.
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 9–
30) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–7), the following issues are presented
on appeal:
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

7
(1) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, as well as 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31
grouped therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter (i.e., a judicial exception such as an abstract idea),
without significantly more)?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 9–12, 17, 18, 21–
24, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Novack and Yahia because the combination fails to teach or
suggest limitations D–F recited in representative claim 1?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 3, 15, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Novack
and Yahia because the combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed
“combining” limitation recited in representative claim 3?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 4, 16, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Novack
and Yahia because the combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed
“multiplying” limitation recited in representative claim 4?
(5) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 7, 19, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Novack
and Yahia because the combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed
“percentage” limitation recited in representative claim 7?

ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

8
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

9
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

10
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).4 Under the Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong 1”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (9th Ed.,
Rev. 08.2017, 2018) (“Step 2A, Prong 2”).5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception (“Step 2B”).
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.

4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, updating and clarifying the Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df).
5 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

11
Even if the claim recites an abstract idea, the Federal Circuit explains
the “directed to” inquiry is not simply asking whether the claims involve a
patent-ineligible concept:
The “directed to” inquiry . . . cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical
products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural
phenomenon—after all, they take place in the physical world.
See Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1293 (“For all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract ideas.”) Rather, the “directed to”
inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light
of the specification, based on whether “their character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
also Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188 (“In determining the eligibility of respondents’
claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be
considered as a whole.”); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the question is whether the claims as a
whole “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery”).
Step 1
Under Step 1 of the patent-eligibility inquiry under § 101, we
determine whether a claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories
of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In the instant case on appeal, representative claim 1 recites “[a] non-
transitory memory device” which is “coupled to a processor” for presenting
a message on a “user interface” (claim 1). Therefore, claim 1, as an
apparatus claim, recites at least one of the enumerated categories (e.g.,
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

12
machine or manufacture) of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant (see Reply Br. 2) that claim 1 is
directed to a statutory category.
As a result, as to claim 1, as well as claims 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25,
and 27–31 grouped therewith, we continue our analysis under Step 2A,
Prong 1 of the Guidance to determine whether claim 1recites a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Although claim 1 nominally recites a “memory device” connected to
“a processor” (see claim 1, preamble) and “an online social networking
system” (see claim 1, limitation A), and presents output messages on “a user
interface” (see claim 1, limitation F), the focus of claim 1 is on performing
the steps of a mental processes (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972), including steps A through F set forth in the body of claim 1. As
such, the claimed invention recites a mental process, which is an abstract
idea. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“analyzing information by steps people [can] go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more [are]
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”); Clarilogic v.
Formfree Holdings, 681 F. App’x. 950, 954–55 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (gathering,
analyzing, and outputting financial data/assessment is an abstract idea that is
patent ineligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (targeted marketing is a form of
“tailoring information based on [provided] data,” which has been previously
held by the Federal Circuit to be an abstract idea, and a concept that is a
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

13
“fundamental practice” that dates back to newspaper advertisements); Morsa
v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that
both “targeting advertisements to certain consumers, and using a bidding
system to determine when and how advertisements will be displayed” are
abstract ideas), aff’d per curiam, 622 F. App’x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(determining that using an advertisement as an exchange or currency is an
abstract idea).
At a high level, representative claim 1 recites a memory and processor
(i.e., a computer; see Fig. 10) for performing the method of presenting
sponsored job messages to users of a social network based on job and user
characteristics (see claim 1; Spec. ¶ 1), where after scoring results for the
relevance of the job and user characteristics, job information is displayed to
users of a social network on a user interface (Fig. 10, video display 1010) in
the form of a message (see claim 1; Spec. ¶ 15; claim 1; Abstract). The
Examiner determines, and we agree, that claim 1 is
directed to comparing received user characteristics, received job
characteristics and received bids to determine scores which
represent the abstract ideas of “concepts relating to
interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing
relationships or transactions between people, social activities,
and human behavior”, “collecting and comparing known
information”, and “comparing new and stored information and
using rules to identify portions”.

Final Act. 2.
We agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 2; Ans. 4–5) that claim 1
sets forth a mental process. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972). And, we agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 2; Ans. 4) that the
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

14
comparing of job and user characteristics and determination of relevance set
forth in claim 1 represent abstract ideas such as managing relationships and
transactions between people (i.e., the organization of human activity such as
targeted advertising and/or job recruiting). Claim 1 recites not only a mental
process, but also the organization of human activity, such as business
relations between people (e.g., collecting job and user characteristics and
scoring results for the relevance of the job and user characteristics).
Thus, we also agree with the Examiner that in the process of claim 1,
“pre-internet concepts (comparing a person's data to job requirements,
producing scores to show matches, etc.) are performed on the internet
without any significant changes to the processing” (Ans. 9). Notably,
Appellant’s Specification describes that portions of the job recruiting
process (recited in claim 1) can be performed manually by a job recruiter:
The job recruiter can identify users who have user
characteristics that are desirable for recruiting and manually
select users of the social network to whom a message relating
to the job can or should be presented.

Spec. ¶ 23 (emphases added).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner that the online social networking
system set for in claim 1 (see claim 1, limitation A) is only used as a tool (to
collect necessary information) for performing certain activities of the recited
process (see Ans. 9). See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1146 (“While the Supreme
Court has altered the § 101 analysis since CyberSource in cases like Mayo
and Alice, we continue to ‘treat[] analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.’”) (quoting
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

15
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”);
Benson, 409 U.S. at 67.
Our reviewing court has also concluded that abstract ideas include the
concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data
set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873
F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding “claims directed to the
collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea”).
Moreover, our reviewing court has concluded that acts of parsing,
comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In addition, the collection of
information and analysis of information (e.g., recognizing certain data
within the dataset) are also abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, “collecting,
displaying, and manipulating data” is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures
I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see
also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection
and analysis”) (quotations omitted).
In addition, our reviewing court has held that combining several
abstract ideas (e.g., like a mental process and a fundamental economic
activity as here) does not render the combination any less abstract.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

16
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render
the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims were
directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
Because we conclude claim 1 recites an abstract idea and/or
combination of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the
Guidance to determine whether claim 1 is “directed to” the judicial
exception, by determining whether additional elements of the claim integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application. Such additional elements may
reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55.
Step 2A, Prong 2 – Practical Application
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, we determine whether the recited judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim
is not directed to the judicial exception.
But for the recitation of a generic “user interface” for presenting job
messages to a user (claim 1), we find the recited steps or acts, could be
performed as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper. See Synopsys,
839 F.3d at 1146 (“While the Supreme Court has altered the § 101 analysis
since CyberSource in cases like Mayo and Alice, we continue to ‘treat[]
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category.’”) (quoting Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1354); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

17
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable,
even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the
Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection
[and] analysis . . . does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355. Receiving and
analyzing (or identifying data), by itself, does not transform an otherwise-
abstract process or system of information collection and analysis. See id.
Like the claims at issue in Electric Power, we find Appellant’s claim 1 does
not invoke “any assertedly inventive programming” or an “arguably
inventive set of components or methods.” Id.
Appellant contends that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, but
to “an improvement to computer functionality, i.e., the generation of a user
interface that improves [the] efficiency based on the targeting feature
generated by the aggregate job score” (Appeal Br. 17). Thus, Appellant’s
invention improves efficiency and accuracy of posting jobs befitting a user,
based on the relevancies of the job and user characteristics, and not the
speed or efficiency of the memory, processor, and/or user interface (i.e., the
computer).
We disagree with Appellant that the focus of claim 1 is on a technical
improvement (or practical application of the abstract idea). See Appeal Br.
11; Reply Br. 2. More specifically, we disagree with Appellant that claim 1
is not directed to a judicial exception because “[t]he claims do not recite a
mental process, because the claims are all directed to computing instructions
tied to a specific computer component and operating within the context of an
online social networking system” (Reply Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

18
As noted in our discussion of Step 2A, Prong 1 above, we agree with
the Examiner that the online social networking system set forth in claim 1
(see claim 1, limitation A) is only used as a tool for performing certain
activities of the recited process (to collect necessary information) (see Ans.
9). The online social networking system recited in limitation A of claim 1
only serves to provide data needed for analysis, here, user characteristics.
We also disagree with Appellant that “[t]he claims are not practically
performed by the human mind, as a human mind cannot access and receive
information from a plurality of jobs posted to the online social networking
system” (Reply Br. 2). This is contradicted by Appellant’s Specification,
which states that “[t]he job recruiter can identify users who have user
characteristics that are desirable for recruiting and manually select users of
the social network to whom a message relating to the job can or should be
presented” (Spec. ¶ 23) (emphases added).
Therefore, as noted in our discussion of Step 2A, Prong 1 above, we
agree with the Examiner that in the process of claim 1, “pre-internet
concepts (comparing a person's data to job requirements, producing scores to
show matches, etc.) are performed on the internet without any significant
changes to the processing” (Ans. 9).
The mere recitation of identifying and presenting information in claim
1 does not embody an improvement in computer capabilities as in Enfish.
See 822 F.3d at 1336 (“[T]he plain focus of the claims is on an improvement
to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a
computer is used in its ordinary capacity.”). Rather, the focus of claim 1 is
on facilitating the job recruiting and advertisement process, i.e., determining
which jobs to present to users based on relevancy and matching of job and
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

19
user characteristics. This is an improvement to help the user, but not the
computer itself (or in the case of claim 1, the user interface and/or processor
and memory). Claim 1 does not recite a method of posting targeted,
relevant, matching jobs to users that improves the speed or efficiency of the
memory device and/or processor, reduces memory requirements, or
otherwise improves a user interface.
To the extent that Appellant would argue the claimed method to
perform targeted job posting faster than other computerized scheduling
methods, that would not provide an improvement to the computer itself.
See, e.g., Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly
more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be
performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for
permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”) (emphasis added);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (2016)
(“While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the
process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase comes from the
capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method
itself”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”).
The claimed invention (see claim 1) identifies data (e.g., user and job
characteristics in limitations A and B, job bids in limitation C); analyzes data
(e.g., determining a relevance score in limitation D, and determining an
aggregate job score in limitation E); and then presents data (e.g., post-
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

20
solution activity, such as presenting a job message on a user interface in
limitation F). Thus, the steps of (i) limitations A through E are merely
conventional data gathering and analysis (see MPEP § 2106.05(g); OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354); and (ii) limitation F is insignificant extra-
solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(g)). As such, based on the record before us, we determine that the
claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application.
Merely adding a programmed computer to perform generic computer
functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice,
573 U.S. at 223–24. Furthermore, the use of a general purpose computer to
apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular
machine. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716–17; In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation
of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp.
IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or
software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer
to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice
decisions). In the instant case, using a computer to more quickly facilitate
matching jobs to user characteristics and facilitate job bidding is nothing
more than the abstract idea itself (i.e., posting relevant jobs to users which is
a fundamental economic practice and mental process).
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Appellant’s claim 1
(and claims 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 grouped therewith) invokes
generic computer components (a “memory device,” “processor,” and “user
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

21
interface”) merely as a tool in which the computer instructions apply the
judicial exception and, thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a
practical application. Because Appellant has not persuaded us the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A
is in error, and claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., the abstract idea of a
method of organizing human activity and/or mental process) that is not
integrated into a practical application, in accordance with the Guidance, we
conclude claim 1 and claims 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 grouped
therewith, are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, and the eligibility
analysis with regard to claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31
proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
Having determined claim 1 and claims 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and
27–31 grouped therewith are directed to an abstract idea that is not
integrated into a practical application, we now evaluate whether the
additional elements, whether examined alone or as an ordered combination,
add a specific limitation that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional
activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the abstract idea. See generally Guidance.
Here, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a user interface,” a
“memory device,” and “a processor” (claim 1). Considering claim 1 as a
whole, none of the additional elements applies or uses the abstract idea in a
meaningful way such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

22
Appellant’s contention that claim 1 “operate[s] within the context of
an online social networking system” (Reply Br. 2), is not persuasive. As
discussed above, the social networking system recited in limitation A of
claim 1 is extra-solution activity, e.g., data gathering. Appellant has not
identified what it is about claim 1 (or any other claims) that allegedly
amounts to more than a conventional arrangement of limitations for
performing the abstract idea identified above. In other words, Appellant
does not persuasively argue any specific limitation or combination thereof is
not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. In particular,
Appellant’s attorney arguments that the subject matter in claim 1 is an
improvement to computer functionality like the generation of user interfaces,
because the user interface of claim 1 “improves efficiency based on the
targeting feature generated by the aggregate job score” (Appeal Br. 17), are
unpersuasive, because they are not supported by competent evidence. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Meitzner v. Mindick, 549
F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1977). In addition, Appellant’s argument (see
Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 2) is, in essence, a conclusory assertion that the
claims are non-conventional, and thus a technological improvement.
The Examiner determines, and we agree, that the only elements
beyond the abstract idea are generic computer components used to perform
generic computer functions (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 7–9) — a determination
that is supported by Appellant’s Figures 1 through 4 and 10 and the
accompanying descriptions found in the Specification (see Spec. ¶¶ 16, 25,
31, 44, 90–93). Appellant’s Specification only shows (see Figs. 1–4, 10)
and describes (see e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 16, 25, 31, 44, 90–93) well-understood,
routine, conventional computer components used for facilitating event
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

23
scheduling (e.g., a computer, processor, memory, user interface, and
engines/modules) that are in a general purpose computing environment in a
manner that indicates the components and the functions they perform were
well-known in the art. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (explaining that “a patent need not
teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art”); see also
USPTO, Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to
Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
(Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF (explaining that a specification that describes additional
elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the
particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation
details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware,
or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to
retrieve the user-specific resources.”).
In particular, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 7–9) that the
activities performed in the steps of claim 1 are disclosed by Appellant to be
performed by generic general-purpose computer components. Specifically,
Appellant’s Specification states:
User devices 102 can be a personal computer, netbook,
electronic notebook, smartphone, or any electronic device
known in the art that is configured to display web pages.
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

24

Spec. ¶ 16 (emphasis added).
Appellant describes the processor components used to perform the
claimed invention as being “achieved with a general recommendation
engine” (Spec. ¶ 25) consisting of a characteristic extraction engine 300 and
a matching engine 302 (see Spec. ¶¶ 26, 41), and operating in combination
with generic interfaces to a social network server 104 such as a webserver
202 having standard functionality (see Spec. ¶¶ 30, 31, 43, 44). The
memory 1004, processor 1002, and user interface 1010 are described in
generic terms (see Spec. ¶¶ 90–93), for example:
The machine 1000 includes a processor 1002 (e.g., a
central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit
(GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific
integrated circuit (ASIC), a radio-frequency integrated circuit
(RFIC), or any suitable combination thereof), a main memory
1004, and a static memory 1006, which are configured to
communicate with each other via a bus 1008. The machine
1000 may further include a graphics display 1010 (e.g., a
plasma display panel (PDP), a light emitting diode (LED)
display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a projector, or a cathode
ray tube (CRT)). The machine 1000 may also include an
alphanumeric input device 1012 (e.g., a keyboard), a cursor
control device 1014 (e.g., a mouse, a touchpad, a trackball, a
joystick, a motion sensor, or other pointing instrument), a
storage unit 1016, a signal generation device 1018 (e.g., a
speaker), and a network interface device 1020.

Spec. ¶ 91. Further, Appellant describes the job user interface 402 in
generic terms:
The server 104 can include a job poster interface 402,
such as with a user interface coupled to the server 104 or via the
network interface 106. The user interface can include a
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

25
conventional keyboard and display configuration well known in
the art.

Spec. ¶ 44 (emphasis added). And,
The job poster interface 402 is coupled to a data
management system 404. The data management system 404 can
incorporate data management technologies well known in the
art or can incorporate proprietary data management structures.

Spec. ¶ 45 (emphasis added).
As a result, we are not persuaded that the targeted job recruiting and
posting operations recited in claim 1 are anything beyond generic computer
functions as opposed to an improvement to a fundamental economic practice
and/or method of organizing human activity. Considering the elements of
claim 1 individually and as an ordered combination, claim 1 does no more
than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a
generic computer, processor, and/or user interface. Dealertrack, Inc. v.
Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Simply adding a
‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without
more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible.”)
Additionally, as noted in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have
previously recognized that using computer processors and memories to
collect data and keep records, perform repetitive calculations, and/or
receive/send data are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions
when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of
generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)(II)(i)–(iv). See also Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (acts of
parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas); SAP Am.,
Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“merely
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

26
presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis”); Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1340 (“collecting, displaying,
and manipulating data” is an abstract idea); Smart Sys., 873 F.3d at 1372
(concluding “claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of
data are directed to an abstract idea.”).
As a result, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred with
respect to the Guidance’s Step 2B analysis. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
Step 2B.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not sufficiently shown the
Examiner erred in determining claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–
31 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter (an abstract idea), without
significantly more.

Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1,
3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 (Final Act. 5–11) and response to
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 10–16), in light of
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 20–29) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4–6) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant’s arguments.
Representative Claim 1 – Limitations D–F
With regard to representative independent claim 1, we adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5–8), and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 10–15) in response to
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

27
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We provide the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner finds (Final 5–6; Ans. 10–15), and we agree, that
Novack teaches collecting and operating on user and job characteristics in
the manner claimed. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that (i)
Novack’s “traits possessed by a candidate” (Novack ¶ 3), and candidate
profile 155 including objective information submitted by a job candidate
such as majors, degrees, test scores, and quantitative information about
competencies and skill assessments (Novack ¶ 30), teach or suggest the
recited user characteristics; and (ii) Novack’s employer profile 156 including
information about the employer, such as “qualifications and credentials that
the employer 117 seeks in a qualified candidate for a particular career
opportunity” (Novack ¶ 30), and weightings “indicat[ing] relative degrees of
importance of various behavioral and personality traits and competency area
assessments” (Novack ¶ 30) teaches or suggests the recited job
characteristics.
The Examiner finds (Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 10–15), and we agree, that
Novack teaches much of the subject matter of claim 1, including (i)
determining a relevance score based on the job and user characteristics
(Novack ¶¶ 3, 29, 30, 69, 86), as recited in limitation D; (ii) determining an
aggregate score based on the relevance score and a job bid (Novack ¶ 3, 29,
30, 63, 69, 76, 86), as recited in limitation E; and (iii) presenting a message
to a user on a user interface about the relevant and matching jobs (Novack
Fig. 3, steps 346, 348; ¶¶ 3, 68, 69, 72, 75, 86), as recited in limitation F, of
claim 1. Novack teaches prompting employers to assign “weightings to each
of the selected traits to indicate the relative importance of the traits,” where
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

28
“weightings are values ranked in order from highest to lowest and/or
selected from a range or scale (e.g., a scale of 1 to 10),” and where the range
values correspond to the “degree of importance as perceived by the
employer” (Novack ¶ 63). Novack also teaches (Novack ¶¶ 3, 69, 86) using
the quantitative assessment information (i.e., user characteristics) and
weighting values (i.e., job characteristics and relevance score) to produce a
final score (i.e., aggregate score). Lastly, Novack teaches “transducing the
score signal to an observable form” (Novack ¶ 3), and “only display[ing]
those candidates whose scores exceed a given threshold value” (Novack
¶ 86). Yahia provides the added teaching (Yahia ¶ 50) that a bid price (i.e.,
job bid) is considered along with a quality score for results (i.e., relevance
score) to produce a total score (i.e., aggregate score).
Because Appellant claims a “relevance score” that is “based on the
job characteristic and the user characteristic” (claim 1), under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “relevance score,” either or both of
Novack’s quantitative assessment information and weighting values is/are
encompassed by the claimed relevance score. In other words, the “relevance
score” recited in claim 1 reads on Novack’s quantitative assessment and/or
weighting score.
We agree with the Examiner’s response (Ans. 13–15) to Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 10–16), that Appellant argues
the references individually, and not for the specific bases they were each
relied upon for in the Final Rejection. We note that each reference cited by
the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one cannot show non-obviousness by
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

29
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references). In this light, Appellant’s arguments presented
as to the shortcomings in the teachings of Novack and Yahia individually are
not persuasive inasmuch as the Examiner relies on a properly made
combination of Novack and Yahia to support the conclusion of obviousness
of the subject matter of claim 1.
Appellant has not adequately shown that the combination of Novack
and Yahia teaches or suggests limitations D through F, as set forth in claim
1. In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s contentions (Appeal Br. 10–16) that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious over the
combination of Novack and Yahia are unpersuasive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, as
well as claims 5, 6, 9–12, 17, 18, 21–24, 29, and 30 grouped therewith, as
being unpatentable over the combination of Novack and Yahia.
Representative Dependent Claims 3 and 4
With regard to representative claims 3 and 4, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 8–9). We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We provide the following for
emphasis only.
Claim 3 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the memory device further
comprises instructions that further cause the processor to determine the
aggregate score by combining the relevance with the bid” (claim 3)
(emphases added). Claim 4 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the memory
device further comprises instructions that further cause the processor to
combine the relevance score with the bid by multiplying the relevance score
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

30
with the bid” (claim 4) (emphases added). Broadly speaking, we note that
the mathematical concept of multiplying is subsumed by the broader concept
of combining. In other words, multiplying is a type of combining.
Yahia teaches (Yahia ¶ 50) that a bid price (i.e., job bid) is considered
along with a quality score for results (i.e., relevance score) to produce a total
score (i.e., aggregate score). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that “Yahia
teaches determining an aggregate score by multiplying scores with bids”
(Final Act. 8 citing Yahia ¶ 50). We also agree with the Examiner that
Novack teaches (i) combining bid related information “with the qualitative
assessment [information] to determine an overall assessment (scores
combined with weights);” and (ii) that “weights applied to the scores are
provided by the bidding employers and this bid related data is combined
with the qualitative assessment” (Ans. 11, 12).
The Examiner finds and reasons (Final Act. 8–9), and we agree, that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, at the time of the invention, to have further modified the
system of Nova[c]k so as to have determining an aggregate
score by multiplying scores with bids, as taught by Yahia.
Nova[c]k discloses a “base” method/system in which
scores are used to match criteria data with data in a profile, as
shown above. Yahia teaches a comparable method/system in
which scores are used to match criteria data with data in an
advertisement, as shown above. Yahia also teaches an
embodiment in which aggregate scores are determined by
multiplying scores with bids, as shown above. To perform this
limitation, Yahia combines the bids with the quality scores for
the advertisements. The quality scores represent an overall
match of material in the advertisement to criteria, similar to the
matching of user data to employer criteria of Nova[c]k.
Additionally, these scores are used to orde[r] the display of
results similar to Nova[c]k. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized the adaptation of determining an
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

31
aggregate score by multiplying scores with bids to Nova[c]k
could be performed with neither undue experimentation, nor
risk of unexpected results since both systems would perform in
the same manner in combination as they would perform
separately. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)

(Final Act. 8–9). Thus, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art of
calculating scores to rank relevant jobs for appropriate job applicants would
find it useful to have as much information as possible on hand to perform the
matching process, namely using percentages, combinations, and
multiplications of the collected user and job data, as well as relevance
scores. Combining and multiplying the relevance score and job bid as
recited in claims 3 and 4 would have been obvious in order to provide more
appropriately targeted messages to user about jobs based on relevancy
determinations and employer interest (indicated by the amount of the job
bid). In other words, the collected data and calculated scoring information
could be combined in many different manners, including, predictably, the
manners recited in Appellant’s claims 3 and 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of (i)
representative claim 3, as well as claims 15 and 27 grouped therewith, as
being unpatentable over the combination of Novack and Yahia; and (ii)
representative claim 4, as well as claims 16 and 28 grouped therewith, as
being unpatentable over the combination of Novack and Yahia.
Representative Dependent Claim 7
With regard to representative claim 7, we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 15–16) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

32
findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner. We provide the
following for emphasis only.
Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the memory device further
comprises instructions that further cause the processor to determine the
relevance score based on a percentage of ones of the plurality of job
characteristics that match ones of the plurality of user characteristics”
(claim 7) (emphases added). Appellant’s argument (see Appeal Br. 29) that
Novack does not teach or suggest calculating percentages in the context of a
relevance score is not persuasive in light of (i) the Examiner’s findings (a)
that Novack determines percentages as described in paragraphs 63 and 64
(Ans. 16), and (b) the percentage of matching traits is related to the
qualitative assessment (i.e., relevance score) (Ans. 12–16); and (ii) Novack’s
teachings of (a) using “a minimum percentage of the trait criteria specified
by the employer” (Novack ¶ 63), and (b) allowing an employer to “specify
that a candidate must meet a minimum percentage of the integrity criteria
specified by the employer,” like passing 4 out of 5 specified criteria (Novack
¶ 64).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 7, as well as claims 19 and 31 grouped therewith, as
being unpatentable over the combination of Novack and Yahia.
Summary
(1) As explained above, under the USPTO’s Revised Patent Eligibility
Guidance, based on the record before us, and informed by our governing
case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, Appellant has not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 1, as well as claims 3–7, 9–13, 15–19,
21–25, and 27–31 grouped therewith, as being directed to patent-ineligible
Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

33
subject matter without significantly more, and we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(2) In addition, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–19, 21–25, and 27–31 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In view of the foregoing, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of (a) representative claim 1, as well as claims 5,
6, 9–12, 17, 18, 21–24, 29, and 30 grouped therewith; (b) representative
claim 3, as well as claims 15 and 27 grouped therewith; and (c)
representative claim 7, as well as claims 19 and 31 grouped therewith, as
being obvious over the combination of Novack and Yahia.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows:

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7,
9–13,
15–19,
21–25,
27–31
101 Eligibility 1, 3–7, 9–13,
15–19, 21–25,
27–31

1, 3–7,
9–13,
15–19,
21–25,
27–31
103(a) Novack, Yahia 1, 3–7, 9–13,
15–19, 21–25,
27–31

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9–13,
15–19, 21–25,
27–31

Appeal 2019-002362
Application 13/679,765

34

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b) (2013).

AFFIRMED