Key claim limitations broadly encompassing known practices may demonstrate that the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the purposes of establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, providing customized web page content to a user as a function of user-specific information and the user’s navigation history was found to encompass the abstract idea of information customization because it encompassed similar, long-practiced advertisement concepts in newspaper and television. “[I]t is often useful to determine the breadth of the claims in order to determine whether the claims extend to cover a ‘fundamental … practice long prevalent in our system.’” It may therefore be best ensure that key limitations in a claim are not recited so broadly as to encompass abstract concepts long-practiced in society.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here, entitled “Advanced Internet Interface Providing User Display Access of Customized Webpages,” claims methods and systems for providing customized web page content to the user as a function of user-specific information and the user’s navigation history. The claims recite “a display depicting portions of the web site visited by the user as a function of the web site navigation data” and “a display depicting portions of the web site visited by the user as a function of the user’s personal characteristics.”
Issue(s): Whether the challenged claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as constituting no more than an “abstract idea.”
Holding(s): Yes. Noting that “it is often useful to determine the breadth of the claims in order to determine whether the claims extend to cover a ‘fundamental … practice long prevalent in our system,’” the court considered examples of known practices covered by key claim limitations. “[T]ailoring content based on the viewer’s location or address would satisfy the ‘as a function of the user’s personal characteristics’ limitation. … There is no dispute that newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on information known about the customer—for example, a newspaper might advertise based on the customer’s location. Providing this minimal tailoring—e.g., providing different newspaper inserts based upon the location of the individual—is an abstract idea. … Tailoring information based on the time of day of viewing is also an abstract, overly broad concept long-practiced in our society. There can be no doubt that television commercials for decades tailored advertisements based on the time of day during which the advertisement was viewed.” In the court’s view, the remainder of the claim merely constitutes “adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process,” which “does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”