Rick A. Hamilton et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

12186266 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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