Chad Jeffrey. Timm et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 1, 2019

14175075 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 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.
14/175,075 02/07/2014 Chad Jeffrey TIMM ORA140232 (O-308) 5665
51444 7590 11/01/2019
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
ZARE, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2019 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):
DDay@KragLaw.com
MPusti@KragLaw.com
PTOMail@KragLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAD JEFFREY TIMM, AMY JANE SELBY, VAIBHAV
DIKSHIT, and PANKAJ BISEN
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 10–202 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as “Oracle International Corporation.”
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–9 have been withdrawn from consideration. See id. at 37–39
(Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a system and method “that
provide an indicator that makes an item identifiable within an operational
system as either intentionally or incidentally ranged to a given location.”
Spec. ¶ 13. Independent claim 15, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
15. A computer-implemented method performed by a computing
device, where the computing device includes at least a processor
for executing instructions from a memory, the method
comprising:
identifying, by at least the processor, a transaction associated
with importing an item to a location using at least one
interface of a retail merchandising system, where the
item has an indicator that is not set based upon a range
relationship not having been established between the
item and the location, wherein the range relationship is
indicative of whether the item has been ranged to the
location;
determining, by at least the processor, that the transaction has
been labeled with a label of incidental or intentional;
responsive to determining that the transaction has been
labeled with a label of incidental, by at least the
processor, setting a value for the indicator of the item to
incidental;
responsive to determining that the transaction has been
labeled with a label of intentional, by at least the
processor, setting the value for the indicator of the item
to intentional;
storing, by at least the processor, the value in electronic
storage in association with the item;
identifying, by at least the processor, a second transaction
associated with importing the item to the location using
at least one interface of the retail merchandising system;
responsive to identifying the second transaction, by at least
the processor, identifying the value in the electronic
storage in association with the item;
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
3
determining, by at least the processor, that the range
relationship has been established between the item and
the location based upon the value identified in the
electronic storage in association with the item; and
determining, by at least the processor, that the second
transaction is incidental or intentional based upon the
range relationship, which eliminates having to analyze
a label of the second transaction to determine whether
the second transaction is incidental or intentional.
Appeal Br. 41–43 (Claims Appendix).
OPINION
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
4
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
5
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the
claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance.
The Examiner found “the claims are merely directed to a set of rules
to set [a] value,” and that “the series of steps covered by the claims could all
be performed manually by a human (see Specification, ¶¶ 0050-0052), and
without the use of a computer.” Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
6
Appellant argues:
the claims provide steps that could not be implemented as a
manual process. For example, claim 15 provides for identifying
a transaction associated with importing an item at an interface of
a retail merchandising system (e.g., a Point of Sale (POS)
interface), setting a value for an indicator of the item, storing the
value in electronic storage, identifying a second transaction
associated with importing the item at an interface of the retail
merchandising system (e.g., a second POS interface), and
determining a status of the second transaction based upon the set
value.
Appeal Br. 18–19.
We agree with the Examiner.
Independent claim 15 recites a first step of “identifying . . . a
transaction . . . where the item has an indicator that is not set based upon a
range relationship not having been established between the item and the
location,” which can be accomplished mentally by a person observing a
transaction record and evaluating it. Next, the claim recites “determining”
whether a transaction has been labeled as “incidental or intentional.” This
step also can be done mentally by a person evaluating the data.
Next in the claim, a value is set, which is an update of data, and
stored. The storage of data is an output step of recording the result of the
determination. Output steps are generally considered as insignificant extra-
solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Next, the claim calls for “identifying . . . a second transaction
associated with importing the item,”3 and “identifying the value . . . in

3 We interpret “the item” to be a second item of the same type of fungible
good as the first item, rather than a second transaction requiring the exact
same item as the item in the first transaction. See Spec. ¶ 15 (“The system
will maintain the value of the stored indicator so that the value for a
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
7
association with the item.” The identifying can be done by mentally
observing and evaluating the item record and stored values. Finally, the
claim recites “determining. . . that the range relationship has been
established between the item and the location based upon the value
identified . . . ; and determining . . . that the second transaction is incidental
or intentional based upon the range relationship.” This determining can be
done mentally by observing and evaluating the stored data values.
Thus every step in the process, except for the required “by at least the
[computer] processor,” “interface,” and “electronic storage,” can be
performed mentally, through observation, evaluation, and making
judgments. Guidance, 52. Claim 15, therefore, is directed to an abstract
mental process under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance. Id.;
see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)4.
This conclusion is consistent with the description of the method in the
Specification, which describes several manually-performed aspects of the
method. For example, the “value of the indicator may also be set manually
by a user interacting with the operational system.” Spec. ¶ 14. The stored
value “indicator reduces the necessity of manual comparison and research
that has to be conducted day to day in order to determine whether items at a
retail location belong in the retail location's assortment,” but this comparison

subsequent item is set with the same value as earlier received instances of
that item at the location.”) (emphasis added).
4 Claim 15 is also describing keeping track of data values about retail
merchandise inventory, which is part of normal sales activities, and thus a
method of organizing human activity. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Further, it is a method of tracking or organizing information as another
example of a method of organizing human activity. MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(D).
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
8
and research could be performed manually. Id. ¶ 16. “Figure 3 illustrates
another embodiment of a method that sets a value for an indicator based on a
user manually confirming or changing the indicator’s value.” Id. ¶ 26.
Further, “a user can manually change a value of the indicator.” Id. ¶ 36.
Setting aside for now the recited elements in independent system
claim 10, “a processor connected to a memory,” “logic executable by the
processor,” and electronic storage, claim 10 recites steps that are
substantially similar to claim 15. The same steps can also be performed
mentally, for the same reasons as the corresponding steps in claim 15. Thus
claim 10 is also directed to an abstract idea, for the same reasons as
claim 15.
Turning to Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance, we
determine if the claim is integrated into a practical application of the abstract
idea. Here, claim 15 recites steps that identify, determine, set, and store data
values. The method does not improve the underlying “processor,” recited as
performing the limitations of claim 15, and the only “additional element”
outside the abstract idea, because any computer can be used to execute the
claimed method. See Spec. ¶¶ 46–47. In addition, the method is directed to
“provid[ing] an indicator that makes an item identifiable within an
operational system as either intentionally or incidentally ranged to a given
location” (Spec. ¶ 13), and as such the claimed method does not improve
another technology. Guidance, 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). Because a
particular computer is not required, the claim also does not define or rely on
a “particular machine.” Id.; see also MPEP § 2106.05(b). Further, the
method does not transform matter. Id.; see also MPEP § § 2106.05(c).
Instead, the claim identifies data, makes determinations from the data, sets
data values, stores data values, and uses stored data values to make
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
9
determinations about subsequent transactions. As such, the method has no
other meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(e)), and thus merely recites
instructions to execute the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Guidance, 55.
Therefore, we determine that claim 15 does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
The analysis is the same for independent claim 10, because the
processor, electronic storage, and executable logic recited in the claim,
“additional elements” beyond the identified abstract mental process, fail to
integrate claim 10 with a practical application, for the same reasons as for
claim 15.
The dependent claims are also abstract ideas that do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application, for largely the same reasons as the
independent claims. Claims 11 and 18 prompt a user and update a data
value. Claims 12 and 20 either establish, or create, an abstract “range
relationship” in data values. Claim 13 identifies and removed data, and
performs “analysis.” Claim 14 receives a request and performs “analysis.”
Claim 16 maintains a data value under one condition. Claim 17 prompts a
user and maintains a data value when a user confirms a value. Claim 19
compares data to make a determination. All these claims recite process steps
that can be performed mentally by a human, and do not recite “additional
elements,” outside the abstract idea, that transform the system or method
into a practical application.
Thus, under Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance, none of
the claims integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the Guidance, claims are analyzed to “evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
10
determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the
additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).”
Guidance, 56. In order to accomplish this, we determine whether an
additional element or combination of elements:
• Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are
not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may not be present.
Id.
Considering the computer processor, interface, electronic storage, and
logic that we previously set aside as “additional elements” beyond the
abstract idea, we find they are general-purpose computer elements
performing basic data entry, data storage, data comparison, and data retrieval
functions that any general purpose computer can perform.
The Specification provides ample support for this conclusion. For
example, the claimed “processor 802 may be a variety of various processors
including dual microprocessor and other multi-processor architectures.”
Spec. ¶ 50. The storage “may be, for example, a magnetic disk drive, a solid
state disk drive, a floppy disk drive, a tape drive, a Zip drive, a flash memory
card, a memory stick, and so on.” Id. ¶ 51. “The computer 800 may interact
with input/output devices via the i/o interfaces 818 and the input/output
ports 810. Input/output devices may be, for example, a keyboard, a
microphone, a pointing and selection device, cameras, video cards, displays,
the disk 806, the network devices 820, and so on.” Id. ¶52. “Networks with
which the computer 800 may interact include, but are not limited to, a LAN,
a WAN, and other networks.” Id. ¶ 53. “‘Logic’, as used herein, includes a
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
11
computer or electrical hardware component(s), firmware, a non-transitory
computer storage medium that stores instructions, and/or combinations of
these components configured to perform a function(s) or an action(s), and/or
to cause a function or action from another logic, method, and/or system.” Id.
¶ 59. Further, “interfaces 401-403 are operably connected to the indicator
apparatus 410 to support computer communication between the indicator
apparatus 410 and the interfaces 401-403.” Id. ¶ 30.
The operations of storing, analyzing, receiving, and writing data are
primitive computer operations found in any computer system. See In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’
‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ discussed below, those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). Also see
Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that considering claims reciting data retrieval,
analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission as an “ordered
combination” reveals that they “amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than
an instruction to apply [an] abstract idea” using generic computer
technology).
The additional elements recited in the claims, beyond the abstract
mental processes, are thus well-understood, routine, and conventional
elements performing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the elements of
the claims “are not abstract,” because they
are directed to improving a technological process of storing, in
electronic storage, a value for an item that is imported with an
interface of a retail merchandising system, and using the stored
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
12
value to determine a relationship of another instance of the item
imported using an interface of the retail merchandising system.
Appeal Br. 12. Storing data, as claimed, uses conventional methods to
store data, and the claims thus do not improve the technological process
of storing data. The determination is a mental process.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Examiner
provided an unsupported conclusion that the present invention did not
constitute an improvement.” Appeal Br. 15. In actuality, as Appellant
notes, the Examiner finds the claims “are not directed to an ‘improvement to
computer technology,’ . . . but to the abstract idea itself.” Id. (emphasis
added).
Our analysis, above, results in the same, that general-purpose
computers are used in conventional ways to perform well-understood,
routine, and conventional functions on data, merely using the computers as
tools to implement the abstract ideas. The claims, therefore, do not represent
an improvement to computers. The improvement Appellant advances is
actually part of the abstract idea itself. Even unconventional abstract ideas
are still unpatentable. See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d
1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “What is needed is an inventive concept in the
non-abstract application realm.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellant further argues “like McR[O], the present claims are
improvements in computer-related technology, and therefore are not directed
to an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 17. We disagree with Appellant.
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
13
In McRO5, the Federal Circuit addressed claims directed to “[a]
method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial
expression of three-dimensional characters” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307. The
court reviewed the specification of the patent at issue and found that, rather
than invoking the computer merely as a tool, “[c]laim 1 of the [asserted]
patent is focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation.” Id. at 1314. The court found that the plain focus of the claim
was on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or
other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Unlike
McRO, which focused on a specific means or method that improved the
relevant technology, claims 10 and 15 here are not improving any computer
technology. Instead, the claims focus on using generic computer operations,
in which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity, for receiving,
examining, storing, comparing, and determining data about an inventory
items, using a generic graphic user interface of a general-purpose computer
system.
Appellant argues that “claims 10 and 15 do not merely use a generic
computer to perform what a person would otherwise do by hand, but instead,
use an unconventional combination of data from different data sources
similar to the patent eligible claims in Thales Visionix.” Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant’s reliance on Thales is misplaced. In Thales Visionix Inc. v.
United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) the Federal Circuit held the
claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one because the
“claims specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular

5 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (hereinafter “McRO”).
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
14
method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately
calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform.”
Id. at 1349. The claims here use data from user input, inventory
transactions, and stored data, which do not represent non-conventional
sources of data in commercial operations, and do not attempt to improve the
sensors from which data is sourced, while merely utilizing general-purpose
computers as a tool to implement an abstract mental process.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claims 10 and 15
recite “something more” than an abstract idea, because “claims 10 and 15
contain an ‘inventive concept’ in [their] ordered combination of limitations
that are not found in the prior art.” Appeal Br. 20. A novel and nonobvious
claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.
Appellant next argues “the claims use a non-conventional
combination of elements that improve a technological process similar to the
claims in Bascom and is patent-eligible.” Appeal Br. 22. Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, we disagree that the claims are patent-eligible in view
of Bascom6. In Bascom, the Federal Circuit held that “[t]he inventive
concept described and claimed in the '606 patent is the installation of a
filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with
customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Bascom, 827 F.3d
at 1350. The court explained that the remote location of a filtering tool
having customizable user-specific filtering features provides the filtering
tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a

6 Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
15
filter on the ISP server, which is a technical improvement over prior art
ways of filtering content. Id. at 1350–51.
Here, Appellant has not demonstrated any particular arrangement in
the claim as providing an inventive concept parallel to Bascom in claiming a
technology-based solution. Instead, the claimed system and method merely
identify and store a data field representing whether an item belongs in
inventory or not. That way, when another item of the same type is
encountered, especially one that does not belong in the local inventory, one
can just look up whether it belongs, without having to look through all the
inventory records to see if the new item is already there or not. This is
similar to looking up the price of an item, rather than having to set a price,
through a pricing algorithm, each time an item is sold. Thus, rather than
being a technology-based solution, the claimed system and method merely
propose to keep track of an additional element of data that can be referred to
later, to save time and effort, much as is the purpose of many business
records commonly kept on inventory items.
Appellant argues “The claimed elements as a whole recite steps that
are not ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional.’ based on the recent
Federal Circuit decision in Berkheimer v. HP, the Examiner has not supplied
the appropriate evidence to support a conclusion that the claim elements are
‘well-understood, routine, and conventional.’” Appeal Br. 23 (emphasis
omitted); see also Reply Br. 2–7.
Appellant misunderstands the application of Berkheimer, which does
not require the claim as a whole to be demonstrated, with evidence, as being
not well-understood, routine, and conventional to be considered non-
abstract. Instead, the test is whether “additional elements,” beyond the
abstract idea, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Guidance, 56.
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
16
We determined, above, that the additional elements are the “processor” and
other computer components, which are general purpose in nature and use,
and thus well-understood, routine, and conventional.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that “claims 10
and 15 are limited to a specific structure and/or process that does not
preempt other approaches.” Appeal Br. 25. This is unpersuasive, because
the “Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the
basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason,
questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.”
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (citing Alice). Yet although “preemption may signal patent ineligible
subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
patent eligibility.” Id.
The remainder of Appellant’s arguments describe each case the
Examiner cited as being similar to claims 10 and 15, and argue the claims of
each case “have no similarities to the present claims.” Appeal Br. 25–36.
These alleged case similarities and alleged lack of similarities are irrelevant,
given the analysis advanced in this Decision.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims as directed to abstract ideas. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claims 10–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2018-008712
Application 14/175,075
17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
10–20 § 101 10–20
Overall
Outcome

10–20

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).
AFFIRMED