Rick A. Hamilton et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 201912186266 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/186,266 08/05/2008 Rick A. HAMILTON II END920070269US1 1866 46583 7590 12/02/2019 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C. Intellectual Property Department P.O. Box 10064 MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064 EXAMINER SORKOWITZ, DANIEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@rmsc2.com lgallaugher@rmsc2.com secretaries@rmsc2.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICK A. HAMILTON II, BRIAN M. O’CONNELL, CLIFFORD A. PICKOVER, ANNE R. SAND, and KEITH R. WALKER Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to . . . a method and system for automatic determination of optimal advertising locations, methods and timing within virtual universes” (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method implemented in a computer infrastructure having computer executable code for displaying advertisements at particular locations and at particular times in a virtual universe (VU) comprising: receiving advertising criteria; collecting advertisement cost data by gathering information from the virtual universe (VU), wherein the VU comprises a computer-based simulated environment configured to permit users to traverse and interact using avatars; detecting VU data, wherein the VU data includes historical and real-time VU data; scanning the historical and real-time VU data to determine available advertising locations, advertising times and advertising types and to identify VU spaces that may currently be unavailable or undesirable for advertising purposes; determining optimal advertisement parameters based on the advertising criteria, the advertisement cost data and the VU data; analyzing the optimal advertisement parameters with an advertisement analysis tool to recommend automatically launching an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU, in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters; displaying the optimal advertisement parameters on a display device to initiate launching the advertisement in the particular location and at the particular time in the VU by the user in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters when the advertisement analysis tool does not recommend automatically launching the advertisement in the VU; and Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 3 performing a sensitivity analysis by running “what if” scenarios, wherein advertising parameters are varied via a criteria collection tool, and optimal advertisement methods, times and locations for optimal VU spaces for advertising are determined with the varied advertising parameters. REJECTION Claims 1–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter. OPINION Preliminary comment The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter “2019 Revised 101 Guidance,” supersedes the earlier guidance that was in effect at the time the Appeal Brief was filed (July 11, 2016). Id. at 51 (“Eligibility–related guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R–08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”) Accordingly, we will not analyze the sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection against the Office’s previous guidance. Rather, our analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Introduction 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 4 In that regard, illustrative claim 1 (above) covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is not in dispute. The three other independent claims on appeal, claim 21 to “[a] computer system for displaying advertisements at particular locations and at particular times in a virtual universe (VU)”; claim 24 to “[a] computer program product comprising a computer usable tangible medium comprised of a hardware storage device having readable program code embodied in the tangible medium”; and claim 25 to “[a] method for displaying advertisements at particular locations and at particular times in a virtual universe (VU),” are nominally directed to the “apparatus,” “manufacture,” and “process” statutory categories of invention, respectively. That is also not in dispute. However, the § 101 provision “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014); (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). In that regard, notwithstanding independent claims 1, 21, 24, and 25, are statutory subject matter (as are the claims depending from them), the Examiner has raised a question of patent–eligibility on the ground that they are directed to an abstract idea. 2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which requires determining whether a “claim is to a statutory category.” Id. at 53. See also sentence bridging pages 53 and 54 (“consider[ ] whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 . . . .”). Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 5 Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Alice step one – the “directed to” inquiry According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” (Id. at 218 (emphasis added)). The Examiner determined, inter alia, that the claims are “directed to the abstract idea of a sales and marketing behavior.” Final Act. 3. See also id. at 4: These steps describe the concept of advertising over communication networks, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, [s]uch as in Ultramercial [Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).], which offers advertising and payments over communication networks. Based on the claim language and Specification, claim 1 is directed to generating revenue, which is a basic economic practice and, thus, an abstract idea. The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those economic concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claim 1 is an abstract idea. With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends, inter alia, that The present invention represents an improvement in VU technology by coordinating where, when and what type of advertising to use in light of the historical and real-time VU information about what happened previously in the VU and what is happening in the VU at the moment. As discussed in paragraph [0017] of Appellant’s Published Application, “VUs span massive amounts of land and are very dynamic and Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 6 constantly changing environments.” As such, paragraph [0017] goes on to state “Thus, it is very difficult to determine an optimal location, timing and type of advertising in the VU.” As such, the present invention is directed to resolving this specific problem in the computer-related technology of generating and operating virtual universes. App. Br. 8. In the present instance, it is urged that the independent claim 1, when viewed overall, clearly recites an improvement to computer functionality with regard to virtual universes which can only be created using software in a computer in conjunction with displaying the resulting virtual universe with its many objects, including advertisements, on a real-world display device. In other words, independent claim 1 is directed to resolving problems found to exist in software pertaining to the location and timing of advertising in virtual universes on a display device due to the particular nature of the virtual universes themselves, which problems are created by the very nature of creating a virtual universe with computers. As such, the problems resolved by the present claimed invention, including running the “what if” scenarios by varying advertising parameters using a criteria collection tool in order to determine optimal advertisement methods, times and locations for optimal VU spaces for advertising, are of significance only in a virtual universe, which can only be created by a computer. Therefore, these improvements are particularly directed to advertising in a virtual universe, and are not directed to advertising in general. As such, the claims are not directed to mere “abstract ideas” having general relevance to the whole concept of advertising, but are, instead, targeted to being able to advertise within a virtual universe by resolving problems found to exist in such virtual universes, and not in general advertising. As such, it is urged that claim 1 clearly recites an improvement to computer-related technology in that the improvements pertain to performing unconventional steps in the generation and operation of virtual universes that can only be created by Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 7 computers, which is clearly not an abstract idea having relevance to advertising in general. Id. at 11–12. See also id. at 13 (“it is clear that the present invention represents an improvement in VU technology by coordinating where, when and what type of advertising to use in light of the historical and real-time VU information about what happened previously in the VU and what is happening in the VU at the moment,” citing paras. 17 and 52–58 of the Spec. in support thereof) and 16 (discussing the problem, the solution, and how the “the present claimed invention represents an improvement in a specific technology, i.e., virtual universes and providing an acceptable form of advertising within such a virtual universe.”). Appellant makes similar contentions with respect to claims 21, 24, and 25. App. Br. 19–28. Accordingly, there is a dispute over what the claims are directed to. Are they directed to the fundamental economic practice of “advertising” (Final Act. 3–4) or an “improvement to computer functionality with regard to virtual universes” (App. Br. 11)? Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 8 Claim Construction3 Focusing on claim 1 (the other independent claims 21, 24, and 25 are substantially similar to and parallel claim 1), we consider it as a whole4 giving it the broadest reasonable construction5 as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in light of the Specification6 at the time of filing. Claim 1 describes a method “for displaying advertisements at particular locations and at particular times in a virtual universe (VU).” This 3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.” Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that ‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). 5 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, page 52, footnote 14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .”) (Emphasis added.) 6 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. . . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part), citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), among others. Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 9 is accomplished via eight steps “implemented on a computer infrastructure having executable code”: 1. “receiving” a first type of information (“advertising criteria”); 2. “collecting” a second type of information (“advertisement cost data”) from the VU; specifically, a VU which “comprises a computer-based simulated environment configured to permit users to traverse and interact using avatars”; 3. “detecting” a third type of information (“VU data, wherein the VU data includes historical and real–time VU data”); 4. “scanning” the third type of information “to determine available advertising locations, advertising times and advertising types and to identify VU spaces that may currently be unavailable or undesirable for advertising purposes”; 5. “determining” a fourth type of information (“optimal advertisement parameters”) “based on the first type of information (“advertising criteria”), the second type of information (“the advertisement cost data”) and the third type of information (“VU data”); 6. “analyzing” the fourth type of information “with an advertisement analysis tool to recommend automatically launching an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU, in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters”; 7. “displaying” the fourth type of information “on a display device to initiate launching the advertisement in the particular location and at the particular time in the VU by the user in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters [the fourth type of information] when the Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 10 advertisement analysis tool does not recommend automatically launching the advertisement in the VU”; and, 8. “performing a sensitivity analysis by running "what if” scenarios, wherein advertising parameters [i.e., the fourth type of information] are varied [a fifth type of information] via a criteria collection tool, and optimal advertisement methods, times and locations for optimal VU spaces for advertising [a sixth type of information] are determined with the varied advertising parameters [the fifth type of information].” Broadly, the claimed method is directed to using “an advertisement analysis tool.” Specifically, according to claim 1, “an advertisement analysis tool” analyses optimal advertisement parameters (the fourth type of information) based on three types of information (see above) “to recommend automatically launching an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU, in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters.” “[W]hen the advertisement analysis tool does not recommend automatically launching the advertisement in the VU” the optimal advertisement parameters are “display[ed] … on a display device to initiate launching the advertisement in the particular location and at the particular time in the VU by the user in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters.” The Specification illustrates the advertisement analysis tool (75) as an element of a computing device (14) within a computer infrastructure (12). Figure 1 and associated disclosure at para. 19 of the Specification. Its operation is more fully described in paras. 56–64. It is also described in Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 11 relation to “DISPLAY RESULTS OR LAUNCH ADVERTISEMENT” (Paras. 65 –72); “REAL-TIME ANALYSIS” (paras. 73–76); and, “SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS” (paras. 77–78). As claimed, the computing device element “advertisement analysis tool” has certain functions: (1) to analyze optimal advertisement parameters and (2) based on that analysis, to make a recommendation as to whether to automatically launch an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU. If the “advertisement analysis tool” does not make a recommendation to automatically launch an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU, the optimal advertisement parameters are displayed so that a user can initiate launching the advertisement in the particular location and at the particular time in the VU in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters. In other words, the “advertisement analysis tool” has a third function: (3) it causes the display of optimal advertisement parameters when it does not make a recommendation to automatically launch an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU. According to the Specification, [0016] Currently, advertising methods (or types), locations and timing within a VU are determined manually. That is, users manually look at a VU location to decide if they want to place an advertisement there, what time to place the advertisement, and what type of advertisement to place. In other words, users can only take a guess of a best place, method or timing based on tacit knowledge through a manual scan of the VU. [0017] However, VUs span massive amounts of land and are very dynamic and constantly changing environments. For example, VUs have many different areas with different types of Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 12 users, activities and publicly posted events. It would be impossible for a human to manually monitor so many different locations and the changing environments within them. Thus, it is very difficult to determine an optimal location, timing and type of advertising in the VU. Better methods are required for increasing the effectiveness of VU advertisements to man[a]ge human labor and advertising costs. [0018] This invention discloses methods and systems for automatic determination of the optimum combination of location, type and timing of one or more advertisements within a VU. In embodiments, a system may determine the recommended combinations, based on: - advertising criteria; – real-time and historical VU data; and - context-sensitive data about VU environments. Moreover, the system may analyze advertisement timings, locations and methods within a single VU or across multiple VUs. These passages go to the problem (e.g., manual determination in placing an advertisement in a VU environment) and the objective being sought (e.g., “automatic determination of the optimum combination of location, type and timing of one or more advertisements within a VU”). It is apparent from reading the Specification that employing “an advertisement analysis tool” having the three functions aforementioned helps solve the problem and is a focus of the invention. The use of said tool as claimed is an advance over the prior art. (Independent claims 21, 24, and 25 are similarly limited.) Consistent with the intrinsic evidence, we reasonably broadly construe claim 1 as being directed to using “an advertisement analysis tool” as claimed; that is, (1) to analyze optimal advertisement parameters; (2) based Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 13 on that analysis, to make a recommendation as to whether to automatically launch an advertisement in a particular location and at a particular time in the VU; and, (3) if it does not make such a recommendation, displaying the optimal advertisement parameters on a display device to initiate launching the advertisement in the particular location and at the particular time in the VU by the user in accordance with the optimal advertisement parameters. The Abstract Idea7 Normally, we would identify in italics in the illustrative claim the limitations that recite an abstract idea.8 However, based on our claim construction analysis (above), it is unnecessary to do so. The subject matter to which claim 1 is directed to, i.e., using “an advertisement analysis tool” as claimed, is not a matter that falls within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas; that is “Mathematical concepts,” “Certain methods of organizing human activity,” and “Mental processes.” 9 7 See Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. 8 See Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea . . . .” Id. at 54. 9 See Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 14 Improvement in the Functioning of a Computer10 (Appellants’ Argument) The Examiner’s characterization of what the claim is directed to is inaccurate. The Examiner indicated that the claim is directed to “the abstract idea of a sales and marketing behavior.” Final Act. 3. But there is more going on than that. The claimed process may involve advertisements. It does have to do with locating advertisements. But the claimed method calls for “an advertisement analysis tool” that has specific functions which assist in automatically placing an advertisement at a particular location in a VU environment. And that is not all. The method as claimed also includes steps for gathering the needed information as well as a final step of performing a sensitivity analysis by running particular “what if” scenarios. Characterizing the claim as being directed to “the abstract idea of a sales and marketing the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the [2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” Id. at 54. 10 See Prong Two (“If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application”) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “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.” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application” (id. at 55) is if “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field” (id.). Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 15 behavior” misses a focus of the invention and, given what the Specification describes, glosses over the advance over the prior art. Rather, as our claim construction analysis shows, claim 1 is directed to using “an advertisement analysis tool” as claimed. It is the characterization the Appellant has put forward, e.g., “[I]ndependent claim 1 clearly recites an operational arrangement between an advertisement analysis tool and a display device to resolve specific problems which exist in a virtual universe situation.” (App. Br. 14), that is the more accurate characterization. “The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. As the Federal Circuit stated in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018): We examine the patent’s “‘claimed advance’ to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Computers are improved not only through changes in hardware; “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology . . . .” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see Finjan, 879 F.3d Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 16 at 1304. We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements. The Specification’s description of the problem and solution shows the advance over the prior art by the claimed invention is not in the realm of “sales and marketing behavior” (Final Act. 3) but in crafting an element of a computer device such that it functions to assist in automatically placing an advertisement at a particular location in a VU environment. The Appellant directs our attention to paras. 52–58 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 13. Those passages describe the use of “an advertisement analysis tool,” all going to explain how the claimed method resolv[es] problems which are specific to virtual universes. Specifically, in the present claims both historical and real-time VU data is required to be analyzed to coordinate the advertising with the VU environment itself. In other words, utilizing the present claimed invention provides the benefits for the users of the VU in being able to impact on the location, timing and types of advertising within the VU, while allowing advertisers to coordinate with the desires of the users of the VU in order to present their advertisements in an acceptable manner based on historical and real-time VU data. Id. In our view, the claim as a whole reflects a specific asserted improvement in technology, rooted in computer technology, over that which was available in the prior art; specifically, the claim describes the use of “an advertisement analysis tool” having particular functionalities that permit automatically placing an advertisement at a particular location in a VU environment which, according to the Specification, could heretofore only be accomplished manually and then with much difficulty. See Spec., paras. 16– Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 17 18. Accordingly, we find the Appellant’s arguments that the claimed subject matter is not directed to advertising but a technical improvement persuasive, given the present record. Specific asserted improvements, when claimed, can render claimed subject matter not directed to an abstract idea. Cf. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques.”) It should be noted that we have addressed purported specific asserted improvements in technology under step one of the Alice framework. This is consistent with the case law. See Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1347 (“We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements.”). It can be discussed under step two of the Alice framework as well. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[R]ecent Federal Circuit jurisprudence has indicated that eligible subject matter can often be identified either at the first or the second step of the Alice/Mayo [framework].” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53; see also id. n.17. In any case, there is sufficient evidence in the record before us that the claimed subject matter reflects a specific asserted improvement in technology over that which was practiced in the art and for that reason we determine that independent claim 1, and independent claims 21, 24, and 25, and the claims depending therefrom, are not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal 2018–001667 Application 12/186,266 18 Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find there is an integration into a practical application. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s determination under Alice step one is not sustainable. Consequently, we do not reach the merits of Examiner’s determination under Alice step two. The rejection is not sustained. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–27 is reversed. More specifically: The rejection of claims 1–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter is reversed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–27 101 1–27 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation