Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

13361886 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/361,886 01/30/2012
22918 7590 06/28/2018
PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Hamilton Miller
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
076388-8001.USOl 3646
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2018 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HAMILTON MILLER, LISA ANN MILLER,
JAMES CHIA-MING LIU, and ALEXANDER GEORGE PARAKILAS
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886 1
Technology Center 3600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ferucia LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "systems and
methods for optimizing acquisition of goods in e-commerce applications."
Spec. i12. 2
Claim 1, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer implemented method for recommending a
target item, the method comprising:
receiving an identification information for the target item;
locating the target item in an item database using the
identification information, the item database containing metadata
of the target item;
representing the target item using a generic representation
of an item with a similar set of metadata, in the event that the
target item is not located in the item database;
comparing the metadata of the target item to metadata of a
profile, the profile comprising metadata of a plurality of items
located in the item database;
calculating a confidence measurement, the confidence
measurement quantizing an overlap between the metadata of the
target item and the metadata of the profile; and
contacting a user associated with the profile about the
target item to present the confidence measurement and a fit
suggestion to the user, if the confidence measurement exceeds a
pre-determined value, wherein the confidence measurement is an
objective measurement oflikelihood of success or satisfaction of
the target item for the user;
2 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 30, 2012 ("Spec."); Non-Final
Office Action mailed Jan. 22, 2016 ("Non-Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed
June 27, 2016 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 25, 2016
("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 26, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
wherein the confidence measurement indicates a level of
relevancy between the target item and the plurality of items
associated with the profile.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Chan et al. US 2008/0243638 Al Oct. 2, 2008
(hereinafter "Chan")
Eggink et al. US 2009/0013002 Al Jan. 8,2009
(hereinafter "Eggink")
Tran et al. US 2010/0191578 Al July 29, 2010
(hereinafter "Tran")
Cho et al. US 2010/0191770 Al July 29, 2010
(hereinafter "Cho")
Boehle US 2012/0084122 Al Apr. 5, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention. Non-Final Act. 3.
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more. Non-Final Act. 4.
Claims 1-22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tran, Chan, Eggink, and Cho. Non-Final Act. 11-12.
4
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tran, Chan, Eggink, Cho, and Boehle. Non-Final Act. 30.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Section 112 Re} ection
Appellants do not address the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 23 for being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
applicant regards as the invention. See MPEP § 1205.02 (2017) ("If a
ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's
brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the
Board may summarily sustain it."); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BP AI 2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection -the Board will
not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.").
Section 101 Re} ection
The Alice/Mayo Framework Governing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in§ 101 of the Patent Act,
which recites: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
5
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
and requirements of this title."
There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70-71 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is patent-
ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must 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." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). The claim must contain
elements or a combination of elements that are "sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[abstract idea] itself." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Supreme Court set forth a two-part "framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Id. at
2355.
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [Mayo,] 132
S. Ct., at 1296-1297. If so, we then ask, "[w]hat else is there in
the claims before us?" Id., at--, 132 S. Ct., at 1297. To
answer that question, we 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. Id., at--, 132 S.
Ct., at 1298, 1297. We have described step two of this analysis
6
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
Id.
as a search for an "'inventive concept"'-i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id., at--, 132 S. Ct., at
1294.
"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. 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 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an
"abstract idea." Rather, the Federal Circuit has explained that "both [it] and
the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to
those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous
cases." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1334; see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, in
determining whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, "the decisional
mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar
or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided").
Under the second step of the Alice/Mayo framework, we examine the
claim limitations "more microscopically," Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at 1354, to
determine whether they contain "additional features" sufficient to
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). "Mere
recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent
7
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must
involve more than performance of 'well-understood, routine, conventional
activit[ies] previously known to the industry."' In re TL! Commc'ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2359).
Abstract Idea
The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to using categories to
store information and comparing new information with stored information
and mathematically representing the comparison of new and stored
information. Non-Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner further determines the
claims are similar to those found to be abstract in Cyberfone Systems, LLC v.
CNN Interactive Group., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and
SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 Fed. App'x
950 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Ans. 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner has oversimplified the claims, which
are directed to a practical application and not an abstract idea. App. Br. 8;
see Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants argue that the claims are directed
to "more than just 'recommending products to customers,"' but rather to a
"very specific method" providing "users with information and the ability to
make informed goods acquisition decisions." App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants further argue the claimed invention, similar to Enfzsh, is an
"improvement to computer functionality" because it improves the way a
computer provides an "instant objective measurement indicating a level of
relevancy between the target item and the items associated with the user's
online profile." App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants argue this claimed
invention improves an existing technical field of online merchandise
8
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
recommendations by organizing goods information and generating objective
measurements. Reply Br. 4. Appellants further contend the claimed
invention addresses the "Internet-centric challenge of providing an instant
objective measurement indicating a level of relevancy between the target
item and the items associated with the user's online profile." App. Br. 10;
see Reply Br. 6-7. According to Appellants, similar to Enfzsh and DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the
claimed elements are meaningful limitations that add more than generally
linking the abstract idea to the Internet, and their solution to the software arts
problem is necessarily rooted in computer technology. App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. The Examiner identifies the abstract idea as recommending particular
products to customers based on customer profiles by using categories to
organize and transmit information, similar to the claims in Cyberfone. See
Non-Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4. As identified by the Examiner, claim 1 's steps
can be identified as using categories to organize information (i.e., claimed
receiving and using identification information). See Non-Final Act. 4. A
method of "using categories to organize, store, and transmit information is
well-established ... the idea of collecting information in classified form,
then separating and transmitting that information according to its
classification, is an abstract idea that is not patent-eligible." Cyberfone, 558
F. App'x at 992.
The Examiner further determines the claims are similar to those found
to be abstract in SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA,
555 Fed. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Non-Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4. As
identified by the Examiner, claim 1 's steps can be identified as collecting
9
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
and comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify
options (i.e., claimed using the received identification information to locate
the target item in the item database, representing the target item using
generic representation with similar set of metadata, comparing metadata of
the target item to metadata of profile, calculating a confidence measurement
indicating relevancy by quantizing the overlap of metadata). Non-Final Act.
4--5. A mental process comprising the "mental steps of comparing new and
stored information and using rules to identify[] options" is not patent-
eligible. SmartGene, 555 Fed. App'x at 955.
Moreover, we disagree with Appellants that the claims in this case are
directed to a computer-centric problem or necessarily rooted in computer
technology like the claims in Enfzsh and DDR.
In Enfzsh, the patent was "directed to a specific improvement to
computer functionality," embodied in a self-referential database table, and
recited technical details for a software component that distinguished from
the prior art, thus improving how the computer was configured. Enfzsh, 822
F.3d at 1338-1339. We agree with the Examiner that, unlike in Enfish,
Appellants' claims "recite no limitations which differ from conventional
database structures, nor do they recite limitations which differ from the
organization, comparison, and presentation of data to a user through
conventional computing functions." Ans. 3.
In DDR, the Court found that the claims "do not merely recite the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world
along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the
claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
10
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Unlike the claims in DDR, we agree with and adopt
the Examiner's determination that the problem here "existed in the pre-
Intemet era in the form of to whom to target advertising for particular
goods/services based on user characteristics." Ans. 5. We further agree
with the Examiner's determination that the claimed invention could be
"implemented directly by a human performing analogous functions by hand
and/or with the assistance of a general purpose computer applied to facilitate
the functions at a high level of generality or with the assistance of additional
elements performing well-known, conventional functions." Ans. 6. Here,
the claimed invention does not improve computers as tools but rather
improves independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
Furthermore, the claimed computer device is defined by the functions
it performs rather than how it performs its functions, and does not define
specific machines performing specific functions. For example, the computer
is described in Appellants' Specification as "a general purpose or special
purpose computing system[] or configuration[]," including "personal
computers, server computers, handheld or laptop devices, cellular/mobile
telephones, tablet devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based
systems, set-top boxes, network capable television, game console,
programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers,
mainframe computers, distributed computing environments." Spec. i-f 24.
As such, the claimed computer device and computing system describe
generic computer components that perform generic computer functions.
Appellants further argue, for the first time in the Reply Brief, that the
claimed steps "do not preempt all possible approaches for or improperly
monopolize the alleged abstract idea." Reply Br. 5. Appellants' contention
11
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
in the Reply Brief is untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012) ("Any
argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief
... will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal,
unless good cause is shown."). However, even if Appellants' argument was
considered timely, we are not persuaded by Appellants' preemption
argument.
Although the extent of preemption is a consideration, the absence of
complete preemption is not dispositive. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption
may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."); Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[T]he Supreme Court
has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it
still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token
pre- or post-solution activity- such as identifying a relevant audience, a
category of use, field of use, or technological environment.") (citations
omitted), vacated and remanded, WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC,
134 S. Ct. 2870 (2014) (remanding for consideration in light of Alice, 134 S.
Ct. 2347). Therefore, even if the claims do not preempt the abstract idea,
that alone is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed
to an abstract idea.
Significantly More
The Examiner determines that the claims do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
12
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
exception because the claimed invention uses generic computers performing
conventional computing functions, and the claimed contacting a user to
present the measurement is an insignificant post-solution activity. Non-
Final Act. 5. The Examiner further determines the claimed abstract idea is
implemented on a generic computer using "only conventional computing
functions (i.e., receiving, processing, and storing data; performing
mathematical calculations, etc.)." Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue the claimed limitations, taken together as an ordered
combination, provide unconventional steps confining the abstract idea to a
particular useful application. Reply Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants contend
the claimed invention is "directed to a specific implementation of a solution
for providing an instant objective measurement indicating a level of
relevancy between the target item and the items associated with the user's
online profile." App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred. As discussed above, we disagree with Appellants that the claims in
this case are directed to a computer-centric problem. We find the claimed
invention does not improve computers as tools but rather improves
independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. As also discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner's determination that the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea that is implemented on a generic
computer using conventional computing functions and conventional
database structures. See Ans. 3--4. The claimed computer device and
computing system, in light of Appellants' Specification, describe generic
computer components that perform generic computer functions. See Spec.
ii 24.
13
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, as well as commensurate
independent claims 15, 17, and 24, and dependent claims 2-14, 16, and 18-
23, not separately argued.
Section 103 Rejection
Claim 1 recites
present[ing] the confidence measurement and a fit suggestion to
the user, if the confidence measurement exceeds a pre-
determined value, wherein the confidence measurement is an
objective measurement of likelihood of success or satisfaction
of the target item for the user; wherein the confidence
measurement indicates a level of relevancy between the target
item and the plurality of items associated with the profile
(emphasis added).
Appellants contend Eggink' s indication of a level of confidence
whether a user will like a recommendation does not teach the claimed
indication of a level of relevancy between the target item and the items
associated with the profile. App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue Eggink's
content recommendation based on a user profile does not teach the claimed
confidence measurement based on a user profile. Id. According to
Appellants, Eggink's user profile does not include any content items and is
not associated with any content items. Reply Br. 9.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Eggink's confidence
measurement that indicates whether a user will like a recommendation based
on a user profile that is based on observation of what types of content the
user has previously accessed "at least indicates a level of relevancy between
the target item and the plurality of items associated with the profile as
14
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
required by the claim." Ans. 7 (citing Eggink i-f 16); see Non-Final Act. 14
(citing Eggink i-fi-1 62, 66).
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 7; Non-Final Act. 14), Eggink
discloses "determining a content recommendation from a database of content
items based on a user profile .... The user profile may be ... based on an
observation of what kind of content items the user has previously accessed,
e.g. via downloading or streaming." Eggink i-f 16. Eggink further discloses
"device 200 of FIG. 2 displays that the confidence for the currently played
song 'Sorry' is 80%," meaning "that the system is rather sure (with a
probability of 80%) that the user will like the song 'Sorry."' Eggink i-f 66.
In other words, Eggink teaches recommending items based on a user profile
that is based on items accessed by the user and providing a confidence
measurement for the recommendation.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
claimed confidence measurement indicating a level of relevancy between the
target item and the items associated with the profile precludes Eggink's
confidence measurement indicating the relevancy of a target item (i.e.,
confidence of satisfaction with a recommended item) based on the items
associated with the user profile (i.e., items accessed by the user and acting as
the basis for the user profile).
Claim 1 also recites "representing the target item using a generic
representation of an item with a similar set of metadata, in the event that the
target item is not located in the item database."
Appellants contend Tran's identifying merchandise attributes from
images and merchandise descriptions and comparing merchandise using
these attributes does not teach the claimed representing the target item using
15
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
a generic representation when the target item is not located in the item
database. App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue "Tran does not
disclose that the image of the fashion item is taken when the item is not
located in the item database." Id. Appellants also argue Tran's merchandise
is represented by the "images of the exact merchandise," which does not
teach the claimed "representing the target item using a generic
representation of an item with a similar set of metadata." Reply Br. 8; see
App. Br. 14.
Claim 1 does not recite representing the target item using a generic
representation of an item with a similar set of metadata only in the event that
the target item is not located in the item database. Claim 1 does not preclude
always representing the target item using a generic representation of an item
with a similar set of metadata, both when the target item is not located in the
item database and when the target item is located in the item database.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Tran's image of the
fashion item teaches a generic representation of an item with a similar set of
metadata to the item photographed, which is "the item not in the database."
Ans. 9; see Non-Final Act. 12 (citing Tran i-fi-140-41).
As cited by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 12), Tran discloses:
In some embodiments, the integrated application of the
electronic device can receive information from fashion providers
including metadata associated with fashion items.. . In some
embodiments, in addition to or instead of receiving metadata,
the integrated application can identify attributes of merchandise
from available images and descriptions of the merchandise. For
example, an image of a fashion item can be taken with a camera
of the electronic device. The integrated application may then
analyze the image to identifj; attributes of the fashion item.
16
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
Using the fashion item attributes (e.g., attributes received
through metadata, attributes identified by the integrated
application, or both), the integrated application can compare
merchandise ...
Tran i-f 40-41 (emphasis added). In other words, Tran teaches taking images
and analyzing them to identify attributes in addition to receiving metadata
associated with the items, and the identified attributes and attributes from the
metadata are used to compare merchandise.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
claimed representing a target item using a generic representation with a
similar set of metadata, encompassing always representing the target item
using a generic representation, precludes Tran's taking an image of an item
and analyzing it to identify attributes in addition to receiving metadata
associated with the items. 3
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, along with the rejections of commensurate independent claims 15,
17, and 24, and dependent claims 2-14, 16, and 18-23, not separately
argued.
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
the claimed "representing the target item using a generic representation of an
item with a similar set of metadata, in the event that the target item is not
located in the item database" and "contacting a user associated with the
profile about the target item to present the confidence measurement and a fit
suggestion to the user, if the confidence measurement exceeds a pre-
determined value" are conditional limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser,
Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016); see MPEP § 2111.04(II)
(2017) ("The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process)
claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be
performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed
because the condition( s) precedent are not met.").
17
Appeal2017-003238
Application 13/361,886
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
18