Robert William. Carthcart et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2019

13372054 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
13/372,054 02/13/2012 Robert William Carthcart 26295-19522/US 6600
87851 7590 12/17/2019
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
EXAMINER
MCCORMICK, GABRIELLE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2019 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):
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
ptoc@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT WILLIAM CARTHCART,
JONATHAN A. COENS,
MARK MCDUFF,
and JACQUELINE CERRETANI FRANK
____________

Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Robert William Carthcart, Jonathan A. Coens, Mark McDuff, and
Jacqueline Cerretani Frank (Appellant2) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
of a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–29, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of suggesting relationship
modifications to users of a social networking system. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
[1] receiving,
from a viewing user of an online social networking
system,
a request for users for relationship modification in the
online social networking system,
the users connected to the viewing user in the online
social networking system;
[2] determining a plurality of users of the online social
networking system connected to the viewing user in the online
social networking system;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 20, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 2,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 30, 2018), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 10, 2017).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Facebook, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

3

[3] ranking, by a processor, the determined plurality of users;
[4] selecting one or more of the ranked plurality of users as
candidate users for relationship modification responsive to the
received request
based on one or more predetermined thresholds,
each predetermined threshold corresponding to a
different type of relationship modification;
[5] generating a user interface
for the viewing user
for selecting relationship modifications
to relationships between the viewing user and the
users connected to the viewing user in the online
social networking system;
[6] providing,
by the processor,
to the viewing user
the user interface,
the user interface comprising
a selection of one or more candidate users as
suggested candidates for relationship modification
and
a list of options for the different types of
relationship modification,
the list of options comprising removing the
candidate user as a connection to the
viewing user in the online social networking
system;
and
[7] in response to receiving selection of a relationship
modification type from the list of options for a selected of the
suggested candidates for relationship modification displayed in
the user interface,
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

4

applying the selected relationship modification to a
relationship between the selected candidate and the
viewing user.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Dom US 2004/0122803 A1 June 24, 2004
Lu US 2007/0106659 A1 May 10, 2007
Puthenkulam US 2009/0013386 A1 Jan. 8, 2009
Grandison US 2010/0257577 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Amy-Mae Elliott, How to Spring Clean Your Twitter Account,
Mashable (2010) (accessed July 12, 2016) https://web.archive.org/web/
20110112175159/http://mashable.com/2010/04/26/twitter-organize/
(“Mashable”).
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable and Puthenkulam.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mashable, Puthenkulam, and Official Notice.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mashable, Puthenkulam, and Grandison.
Claims 9–12, 14–17, 25–27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, and Lu.
Claims 13 and 18–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Official Notice.
Claims 22–24 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Puthenkulam.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

5

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the limitations or the limitations are otherwise predictable to one of ordinary
skill.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Appellant’s Disclosure
01. The social networking system may provide a user interface in
which a viewing user may be provided with suggested
relationship modifications for connected users. Spec. para. 14.
02. The relationship presentation module 118 may include a user
interface to be provided for display on the viewing user device
102 in which the user may select one or more suggestions to
modify the relationship between the suggestions and the viewing
user. Spec. para. 19.
03. The relationship modification module 116 may apply these
changes received from the viewing user device 102 through the
user interface provided by the relationship presentation module
118 by modifying edge objects 110 associated with the viewing
user and selected connected users according to the changes
received. Spec. para. 20.
04. The relationship presentation module 118 may include a user
interface to be provided for display on the viewing user device
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

6

102 in which the user may select one or more suggestions to
modify the relationship between the suggestions and the viewing
user. Spec. para. 19.
05. A relationship presentation module 118 provides a user
interface for users of the social networking system 100 to select
relationship modifications for a listing of candidate users. Spec.
para. 30.
06. The one or more candidate users are provided 410 in a user
interface on a web browser operating on a user device associated
with the viewing user. In the user interface provided 410 to the
viewing user, the viewing user may indicate that his or her
relationship with the provided candidate users should be
modified. Spec. para. 52.
07. The relationship modification module 116 may apply these
changes received from the viewing user device 102 through the
user interface provided by the relationship presentation module
118 by modifying edge objects 110 associated with the viewing
user and selected connected users according to the changes
received. Spec. para. 20.
08. Edge objects 110 store information about users’ connections
to other nodes on a social networking system 100. Spec. para.
17.
09. Nodes include users and objects of the social networking
system, such as web pages embodying concepts and entities, and
edges connect the nodes. Edges represent a particular
interaction between two nodes. Spec. para. 12.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

7

10. Users join the social networking system and add connections
to a number of other users to whom they desire to be connected.
Spec. para. 11.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Mashable
11. Mashable is directed to tips to organize and declutter a
Twitter social media account. Mashable 1.
12. Mashable describes UnTweeps as one really simple free
service that helps identify inactive users you're currently
following. It will show you who hasn't tweeted of late, and give
you the option to unfollow them. You can choose to see who’s
not sent a tweet over certain time periods. 90 days seems a
reasonable span to consider an account abandoned (although
Twitter’s official guidelines give you 6 month’s grace). You can
also view 60 or 30 day options if you plan to be more aggressive
in cleaning your follow list. Mashable 1.
Puthenkulam
13. Puthenkulam is directed to network connection management.
Puthenkulam para. 2.
14. Puthenkulam describes an automatic networking response
mechanism that intercepts the networking request and generates
a response automatically based on a dynamic social network
model. The response may comprise one or more data
transmissions, in response to the networking request with one or
more data transmissions. A dynamic social network model may
describe the user’s social circle based on the communication
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

8

information collected while the user interacts with various
contacts. For example, if a user has frequent email exchanges
with a particular contact, the high frequency of the interaction
may be recorded and used to infer that the user is close to the
contact. When such characterization for each contact is
available, it may be used to determine whether to accept a
particular networking request from a contact. For instance, the
closer the user is to a contact, the more likely a networking
request from the contact is to be accepted. Puthenkulam para.
21.
15. Puthenkulam describes how each dynamic social network
model built with respect to a single user (or generically a single
entity, representing either a user of a group of users)
characterizes the networking pattern of the user. A dynamic
social network model may contain a list of contacts, each of
which may be individually modeled. For example, each contact
may be classified into some category (i.e., family friend, co-
worker) and the relationship between the user and the contact
may be rated (e.g., close friend, or casual encounter).
Puthenkulam para. 29.
16. Puthenkulam describes the relationship between the user and
a contact as being characterized in terms of how close the
relationship is. For example, a contact that communicates with
the user on a daily basis may have a closer relationship to the
user than a contact that connects with the user every several
months. Based on this criterion and the recorded
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

9

communication frequency, the relationship description generator
440 may rank the relationship between the user and each
contact. Puthenkulam para. 49.
Dom
17. Dom is directed to use of databases to detect and qualify
relationships between people and find the best path through the
resulting social network. Dom para. 2.
18. Dom describes social network analysis of looking at how
people interact. By being able to understand the interaction
patterns between data stored in databases, it becomes possible to
more quickly find who might be able to answer questions,
understand the impact of organizational change initiatives, and
find who serves as bridges between different parts of an
organization. Dom para. 6.
19. Dom describes a social network dynamically built based on
the interactions of individuals extracted from the records of their
daily lives. These records primarily include data sources
commonly found in and/or associated with Personal Information
Management (PIM) systems, as well as phone logs, and
proximity reports. These PIM data sources include a calendar, a
to-do list, a journal, an address book, and e-mail. They are
valuable sources of information because people use them to
record their activities, tasks, and impressions, to organize their
contacts, and to correspond. Interactions based on these
activities and correspondence can be identified. Phone logs
provide the phone number of the caller and the caller, and thus
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

10

reveal possible interactions between the individuals associated
with these phone numbers. For individuals who are tracked and
choose to be tracked, the proximity records contain the
encounters of those individuals detected to be within close
proximity of each other. Dom para. 7.
20. Dom describes how it extracts the raw data from these daily-
life sources to detect interactions among people (e.g., how often
they meet, the last time they exchanged correspondence). It then
makes inferences to detect as well as to qualify relationships
between them. A relationship is qualified by assigning a value
to it, based on the following attributes that this invention defines
for a relationship; longevity (how long have they been
connected); currency (have they connected recently); frequency
(how often do they connect); exclusivity (how exclusive is the
connection (e.g., one-to-one vs. one-to-many, secure content));
complexity (is the connection on many levels and on specific
contexts); and reciprocity (is the connection mutual or just one-
way). Dom para. 9.
21. Dom builds a social network from these discovered
relationships. Dom calculates the shortest and best paths
through the social network, given the quality of the
relationships. An application of this system is to detect people
in common, i.e, finding intermediary people to mediate a
connection to an expert. Discovering the best path through the
people in common allows good connections/relationships. Note
that the best path between two people can actually be longer
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

11

than the shortest path if the quality of the direct relationships
comprising the path is superior. Dom para. 10.
22. Dom calculates a relationship value for all relationship
attributes. The end of the loop for each relationship and person
is shown as items. These relationship attributes can also be
weighted to indicate greater importance, etc. Therefore, the total
relationship value is the sum of these weighted values. Dom
para. 58.
23. Dom uses overall attribute information of all the relationships
of a given user to create a user’s social network map represented
as a graph. The graph can be used to make useful inferences
such as the shortest path or the best path from the user to a
particular person in their social network map. The user’s social
network is that subgraph of the organization’s social network
that contains all nodes and edges that are on any path that
includes the user’s node. Furthermore, the best path could be
classified as a specific type of path. The resulting social
network graph could have directed or undirected edges. If
external data, for instance organizational chart data, is available,
then directed edges can be constructed that follow hierarchical
constraints. Dom para. 59.
Lu
24. Lu is directed to searching the Internet in a way that applies
feedback from people who use the search application to improve
the quality of search results. Lu para. 2.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

12

25. Lu describes predicting the relevance of documents to a
search query, thereby returning more relevant results to a user
performing the search. In a preferred embodiment, a method in
accordance with the present invention uses a formula to predict
the relevance of multiple documents to a search query, ranks the
documents based on the relevance of each, and returns the
ranked list to a user in response to a search query. Preferably,
user inputs are used to tune the parameters of the formula to
increase the likelihood that the returned documents are relevant
to the search query. Lu para. 9.
Grandison
26. Grandison is directed to managing privacy settings for a
social network. Grandison para. 5.
27. Grandison determines privacy indices related to a triggering
event. Privacy indices are normalized from a summation of
privacy scores of a user or target. In embodiments, a high
privacy index is indicative of a more secure privacy setting.
Likewise, in embodiments, a low privacy index is indicative of a
weaker privacy setting. Grandison calculates recommended
privacy settings. Recommended privacy settings are based on
privacy indices that are determined in a previous step. In
embodiments, a more secure privacy setting is calculated from a
high privacy index. Likewise, in embodiments, a weaker
privacy setting is calculated from a low privacy index.
Grandison para. 25.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

13

28. Grandison describes how a user may change current privacy
settings. Grandison para. 27.
ANALYSIS
We initially construe the limitations “generating a user interface” and
“providing . . . the user interface.” These are not lexicographically defined.
Appellant cites Specification paragraphs 5, 14, 19, 20, 30, and 52 for the full
limitations these phrases appear in. App. Br. 2–3. Paragraph 5 does not
describe an interface. Uncited paragraph 22 also describes providing the
interface. All descriptions of generating and providing the interface describe
the system as doing so generically, without any description of how the
interface is generated or provided. There is no description of any unusual
structural or technological features of the interface. The interface is instead
described in terms of the content it accepts and displays. Thus we construe
generating and providing the recited interface as conventional generation
and display of an interface screen for data entry.
We next construe “connection.” This is not lexicographically defined.
The Specification states that “users join the social networking system and
add connections to a number of other users to whom they desire to be
connected.” FF 10. By its nature as representing some relations between
users, a connection represents all the users so represented, even if only one
user requested the connection. We construe a connection as data
representing some relationship between users. Nothing in the claims or
Specification limits this representation to a two-way representation.
We next construe “applying the selected relationship modification to a
relationship.” There is no lexicographic definition for this. The
Specification describes that this may be done by modifying edge objects,
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

14

and edge objects store information about connections. Edges connect nodes,
which are entities and concepts. FF 07–09. As edges and nodes are
conceptual entities of a graph, also a conceptual entity, an edge object is no
more than data identifying a relationship. Thus we construe “applying the
selected relationship modification to a relationship” as storing data
representing a modification to data representing a relationship.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question,
. . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and
“as an ordered combination” to determine whether the
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a
patent-eligible application. [The Court] described step two of
this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

15

that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine
what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the
claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial
exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited
judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites receiving a request, determining, ranking and selecting users,
generating and providing an interface for data entry, and applying a
modification to a relationship. Determining, ranking and selecting are
rudimentary forms of data analysis. As we construe supra, generating and
providing an interface is conventional display of an interface, which is a
combination of rudimentary analysis and display. As we construe supra,
applying a modification to a relationship is storing data representing a
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

16

modification to data representing a relationship. Thus, claim 1 recites
receiving, analyzing, displaying, and storing data. None of the limitations
recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but
instead recites only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent-ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Like
those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of managing relationships
between users. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily
take place in advising one to modify user relationship data for users and
options selected from candidates ranked and compared to a threshold. The

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp.
of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

17

advice to modify user relationship data for users and options selected from
candidates ranked and compared to a threshold involves modifying
relationships, which is a social act, and selecting those for users to modify,
which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of modifying behavior
between individuals. For example, claim 1 recites “applying the selected
relationship modification to a relationship between the selected candidate
and the viewing user,” which is an activity that would take place whenever
one is modifying a relationship between individuals in social networking.
Similarly, claim 1 recites “receiving selection of a relationship modification
type from the list of options for a selected of the suggested candidates,”
which is also characteristic of managing relationships between individuals.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to determining
users connected to a viewing user and selecting one or more of the ranked
plurality of users as the requested candidate users for relationship
modification based on one or more predetermined thresholds, each
predetermined threshold corresponding to a different type of relationship
modification. Final Act. 2.
The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in applying a relationship modification to a
relationship absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional
computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitation 1 recites data reception.
Limitations 2–4 and 7 recite conventional analyzing and storing of user and
relationship data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
results. Limitations 5 and 6 recite conventional interface display. The
limitations thus recite advice for modifying user relationship data for users
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

18

and options selected from candidates ranked and compared to a threshold.
To advocate modifying user relationship data for users and options selected
from candidates ranked and compared to a threshold is conceptual advice for
results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
suggesting relationship modifications to users of a social networking system.
Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites managing
relationships between users. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
This in turn is an example of managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of
organizing human activity because managing relationships between users is
one of the enumerated examples of organizing human activity. The concept
of managing relationships between users by modifying user relationship data
for users and options selected from candidates ranked and compared to a
threshold is one idea for how to articulate the process. The steps recited in
claim 1 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL,
Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Managing control over content
usage).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
managing relationships between users by modifying user relationship data
for users and options selected from candidates ranked and compared to a
threshold, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

19

interactions between people, one of certain methods of organizing human
activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g]
block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted, alterations in original).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Step 1 is a pure data gathering step.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2–4 and
7 are generic, conventional activity, such as storing, transmitting, or
displaying the results. Steps 5 and 6 recite generic computer processing
expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so
present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

20

reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how
the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the
processing technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing relationships between users by modifying user relationship data
for users and options selected from candidates ranked and compared to a
threshold as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 27 pages of Specification spell out
different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of managing relationships between users by modifying
user relationship data for users and options selected from candidates ranked
and compared to a threshold under different scenarios. They do not describe
any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,
claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply managing relationships between users by modifying user relationship
data for users and options selected from candidates ranked and compared to
a threshold using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our

8 The Specification describes a conventional computer system executing, for
example, a Microsoft Windows compatible operating system (OS), Apple
OS X, and/or a Linux distribution. Spec. para. 22.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

21

precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
managing relationships between users by advising one to modify user
relationship data for users and options selected from candidates ranked and
compared to a threshold, as distinguished from a technological improvement
for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which fall within
certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas.
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

22

The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea
“on ... a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
featur[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted, alterations in original).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, displaying, and storing data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

23

of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can
be achieved by any general purpose computer without special
programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional
manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not
contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no
more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer
functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and
analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular
‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than
abstract.” SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d at 1168.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-display-
storage is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc., 772
F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display,
allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display,
and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

24

REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claims 9,
25, and 27 are substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The
remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude
that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept
itself, and not to the practical application of that concept.
There are no structural claims. As a corollary, the claims are not
directed to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of
managing relationships between users by modifying user relationship data
for users and options selected from candidates ranked and compared to a
threshold, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–5 and Answer 4–6 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the examiner's
analysis impermissibly omits consideration of much of the claim language
that provides context to the claimed elements.” Reply Br. 5. The Examiner
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

25

analyzed the operations performed as we do supra. Again, data content and
source cannot confer eligibility. See SAP supra. Neither can context. “The
Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely
limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing
technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.”
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
misunderstands the invention by not considering the volume of data a social
networking system generates and the interface. Reply Br. 5–8. The claims
do not recite any level of data volume, and so very low volumes amenable to
paper and pencil are within the scope of the claims. An interface is a generic
and conventional computer component. Simply reciting the interface for its
intended use and properties cannot confer eligibility.
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the
claims must include an “inventive concept” in order to be
patent-eligible. No such inventive concept is present here.
Instead, the claims “add” only generic computer components
such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database.” These
generic computer components do not satisfy the inventive
concept requirement.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–
1325 (2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
analysis is untethered from the language of the claims. Reply Br. 8. This is
a conclusory argument with no supporting evidence or analysis.
Appellant also attempts to analogize the claims to those involved in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

26

Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 8 . In McRO, the court held that, although the
processes were previously performed by humans, “the traditional process
and newly claimed method . . . produced . . . results in fundamentally
different ways.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (differentiating the claims at issue from those in McRO).
In McRO, “[i]t [ was] the incorporation of the claimed rules not the use of
the computer, that improved the existing technology process,” because
the prior process performed by humans “was driven by subjective
determinations rather than specific, limited mathematical rules.” 837 F.3d
at 1314 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). In contrast, the
claims of the instant application merely implement an old practice of using
decision criteria in making decisions in a new environment. Appellant has
not argued that the claimed processes of selecting users apply rules of
selection in a manner technologically different from those which humans
used, albeit with less efficiency, before the invention was claimed. Merely
pigeon holing the objects of decision making in tiers to aid decision making
is both old and itself abstract.
The claims in McRO were not directed to “a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of
rules of a particular type.” We explained that “the claimed
improvement [was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate
and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
animated characters’ that previously could only be produced by
human animators.” The claimed rules in McRO transformed a
traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into
a mathematically automated process executed on computers.
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
merely stated disagreement with Appellant’s arguments that the claimed
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

27

invention similarly recites a specific, structured user interface that is
paired with multiple functionalities related to the interface structure.
Reply Br. 9, referring to Appeal Br. 14. Appellant cites to Trading
Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). First, this case is non-precedential and two related
precedential cases with user interfaces had the claims held ineligible.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Second, the claim does not recite and the Specification does not describe
structure associated with the interface, only data content. In Trading
Technologies, in response to a similar argument that the claims “provide a
particular graphical user interface that improves usability, visualization, and
efficiency,” the Court determined that “the claims are focused on providing
information to traders in a way that helps them process information more
quickly, not on improving computers or technology. . . . The ‘tool for
presentation’ here is simply a generic computer.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.
v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1384–85 (citations omitted). Similarly here the
claims are not focused on an interface, but on providing information to users
in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on
improving computers or technology and the tool for presentation is a generic
computer.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims contain
an inventive concept that is also found in the specific ordered combination
of the limitations, similar to the Federal Circuit’s findings in BASCOM
(BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Reply Br. 12. Initially, we remind Appellant that
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

28

BASCOM did not find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the
Appellees did not provide sufficient evidence to support a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss in which facts are presumed in the non-movant’s favor.
The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in
“installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-
users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This
design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer
and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350.
The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “an analysis must
be made of whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and
conventional, which goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art.”
Reply Br. 12. Such analysis is presented supra under Step 2B.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner did
not address the content of the dependent claims. Reply Br. 13. The
Examiner addressed all the claims in the Final Action, albeit in summary
fashion. Appellant does not argue the dependent claims individually and so
there are no arguments for us to respond to.
Claims 1, 4, and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Mashable and Puthenkulam
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Mashable’s
‘following back’ of a user they are not currently following on Twitter (but
who is following them) is not a ‘relationship modification,’ as recited in
claims 1, 9, 25, and 27.” Appeal Br. 20–21 (emphasis omitted). Mashable
describes Twitter’s “follow” feature. The Examiner cites this as an example
of the recited connection. Final Act. 7. Appellant contends Mashable is
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

29

describing a connection from another user to the user in question and not
vice versa. We agree. Appellant then contends that a connection must be
two-way. Id. We disagree. As construed supra, there is no requirement for
a connection to be two-way.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Mashable does
not describe a ‘predetermined threshold’ for the alleged ‘following back’
modification,’ as recited in claims 1 and 27.” App. Br. 21–23. Mashable
describes using 30, 60, and 90 day thresholds for making decisions.
Examiner cites this as an example of a threshold and further determines that
as this is simply an example of using thresholds, it shows one of ordinary
skill knew to use thresholds in decision making. Final Act. 7. Appellant
contends Mashable is describing only a date threshold and such a date
threshold would be nonsensical in creating follow relationships. App. Br.
21–23. The limitation at issue is “selecting . . . users as candidate users for
relationship modification responsive to the received request based on one or
more predetermined thresholds, each predetermined threshold corresponding
to a different type of relationship modification.” Claim 1, limitation 4.
First, there is nothing nonsensical about using similar 30, 60, and 90 day
thresholds for making decisions to follow. A user might very well decide
that after another user followed him for one of those periods, he would look
into creating a reciprocal follow. More to the point, as the Examiner
determined, Mashable shows one of ordinary skill would find it predictable
to apply thresholds of other characteristics as well. Although Mashable
describes the connection of being a follower, users have many other
characteristics and so using thresholds to select users for relationship
modification would be predictable.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

30

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Mashable and
Puthakulam do not disclose or suggest [limitations 5–7] . . . as recited in
claim[s] 1[,] . . . 9 and 27.” App. Br. 23–25. Mashable describes showing
users who have or haven’t tweeted and providing the option to follow or stop
following. Examiner cites this as an example of an interface generated and
displayed to select relationship modifications and apply them. Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends Mashable only describes presenting raw data and not an
interface. App. Br. 23–25. As we construe supra, generating and providing
the recited interface is conventional generation and display of an interface
screen for data entry. This is necessarily present in Mashable for a user to
be able to enter modifications.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mashable,
Puthenkulam, and Official Notice
This rejection is not separately argued.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mashable,
Puthenkulam, and Grandison
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Mashable, Puthakulam, and Grandison do not disclose or
suggest “wherein the list of options for the different types of
relationship modification comprises the viewing user lessening
relationship statuses between the viewing user and the one or
more candidate users using the user interface,” as recited in
dependent claim 7 (depends from claim 1).
Appeal Br. 33–34 (emphasis omitted). Grandison describes lessening
privacy settings. Grandison describes a user doing so, implying an interface
for the user to enter the change through.

Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

31

Claims 9–12, 14–17, 25–27, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, and Lu
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[t]he
‘determining’ and ‘modifying’ elements of claim 9 were not addressed in
full in the prior Office Action.” Appeal Br. 25–27 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant only recites and parses the claim limitations and provides no
argument and analysis comparing those elements to the art. This is
insufficient to act as a separate argument under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37. As our
reviewing court held,
we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed Cir 2011).
As to Appellant’s contention that the rejection is a new ground and
should not have been made final, relief is by way of Petition to the Director,
as this is not an appealable issue. See MPEP § 1207.03.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Mashable, Dom, and Lu do not disclose or suggest
“determining, by a processor, a prediction score for the target
user based on the information about the target user and the
source user applied to the plurality of factors in the retrieved
prediction model for suggesting different types of relationship
modification to the source user, the different types comprising
removing the target user as a connection to the source user in
the online social networking system,” as recited in claim 9. This
argument also applies to claim 27.
App. Br. 27–28 (emphasis omitted). Lu describes predicting the relevance
of documents to a search query, ranking the relevance. This implies a score
upon which to rank. Dom describes performing a shortest path search on a
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

32

social network graph. The shortest path is based on a variety of factors
regarding quality of relationships, not just physical distance. Dom weights
each relationship, which is a graph edge. Thus, it was predictable to apply a
prediction score for ranking the various paths of weighted edges in a social
network graph. As each weight applies to an edge, the weight must be
stored in association with its respective edge. Mashable describes the
purpose of removing a target user as in the earlier rejection.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Mashable, Dom,
and Lu do not disclose or suggest ‘modifying the social graph by storing the
prediction score and different types of relationship modifications for the
target user in the edge object associated with the target user and the source
user,’ as recited in claim 9.” App. Br. 28–29 (emphasis omitted). Dom
assigns weights to each relationship, which is a graph edge. As each weight
applies to an edge, the weight must be stored in association with its
respective edge.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Mashable, Dom, and Lu do not disclose or suggest “selecting a
first plurality of weights for the selected plurality of factors in
the prediction model” nor “determining, by the processor, a
second plurality of weights for the subset of the plurality of
factors in the prediction model based on the received user
feedback,” as recited in claim 25.
App. Br. 29–31 (emphasis omitted). Dom explicitly assigns weights. It was
at least predictable to use data entered through a generic interface to assign
or affect such weights.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Mashable, Dom, and Lu do not disclose or suggest “retrieving a
prediction model for predicting engagement with user content,
the prediction model having a plurality of factors” nor
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

33

“determining, by a processor, a prediction score for each of the
plurality of target users based on information about the target
user and the viewing user applied to the plurality of factors in
the retrieved prediction model for predicting engagement with
user content,” as recited in claim 27.
Appeal Br. 31–32 (emphasis omitted). Dom describes a prediction model
for engaging other users based on a plurality of factors. It was at least
predictable to also apply the prediction model to engaging with content.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Mashable, Dom,
and Lu do not disclose or suggest ‘wherein a factor of the prediction model
comprises a count of other users in the online social networking system
connected to the [source and/or target] user,’ as recited in dependent claims
14-16.” App. Br. 34–35 (emphasis omitted, alteration in original). A count
of other users in the online social networking system connected to the source
and/or target user is a predictable factor in computing Dom’s relevance
weights.
Claims 13 and 18–21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Official Notice
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Official Notice do not disclose or
suggest “wherein a factor of the prediction model comprises a
period of time elapsed since the target user last updated a user
profile on the online social networking system associated with
the target user,” as recited in claim 20 (depends from claim 9).
Appeal Br. 35. This is at least a predictable criterion upon which to trigger
the operations Mashable describes.
Claims 22–24 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Puthenkulam
This is not separately argued.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

34

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable and Puthenkulam is proper.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mashable, Puthenkulam, and Official Notice is proper.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mashable, Puthenkulam, and Grandison is proper.
The rejection of claims 9–12, 14–17, 25–27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, and Lu is proper.
The rejection of claims 13 and 18–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Official Notice is proper.
The rejection of claims 22–24 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mashable, Dom, Lu, and Puthenkulam is proper.
Appeal 2018-007128
Application 13/372,054

35

CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7–29 are affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 7–29 101 Eligibility 1, 3, 4, 7–29
1, 4, 8 103(a) Mashable, Puthenkulam 1, 4, 8
3 103(a) Mashable, Puthenkulam,
Official Notice
3
7 103(a) Mashable, Puthenkulam,
Grandison
7
9–12, 14–17,
25–27, 29
103(a) Mashable, Dom, Lu 9–12, 14–17,
25–27, 29

13, 18–21 103(a) Mashable, Dom, Lu,
Official Notice
13, 18–21
22–24, 28 103(a) Mashable, Dom, Lu,
Puthenkulam
22–24, 28
Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 7–29

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED