Ex Parte Morey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 7, 201712766714 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/766,714 04/23/2010 John D. Morey 1092-077US01/2591US01 2077 124175 7590 12/11/2017 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A./Ecolab 1625 Radio Drive Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER TORRICO-LOPEZ, ALAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/11/2017 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): pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com ecolab_PAIR @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN D. MOREY, BRYAN M. ANDERSON, ERIC R. BALZ, and TIMOTHY R. SNELLEN Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 12 and 17 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ “invention relates generally to dispensation of chemical products” (Spec. 12). More particularly, “the invention relates to a Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 comprehensive and systematic approach to cleaning and sanitizing practices based on monitoring of chemical product dispensation.” (Spec, 17). Representative Claim Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reads as follows. 1. A system comprising: a server computer that receives dispenser data from a chemical product dispenser located at a cleaning site, the dispenser data including an amount of a chemical product dispensed by the chemical product dispenser; a database coupled to the server computer that stores the dispenser data in association with corporate data regarding the cleaning site and that stores cleanliness metrics associated with the cleaning site, the cleanliness metrics including cleaning scores associated with the cleaning site; wherein the corporate data includes cleaning site identification information, corporate target amounts of chemical product to be dispensed, and at least one target cleanliness metric; [L] an analysis application resident on the server computer that analyzes the dispenser data in combination with at least some of the corporate data and generates therefrom product usage data indicative of an amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site, and determines a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics; and a reporting application resident on the server computer that generates reports based on the analysis. (Contested limitation L is bracketed and emphasized in bold and italics). Rejections A. Claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter (Final Act. 3). 2 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 B. Claims 1—11, 13—16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Sanville et al. (US 2004/0162850 Al, published Aug. 19, 2004) (hereinafter “Sanville”), in view of Crevel et al. (US 2001/0039501 Al, published Nov. 8, 2001) (hereinafter “Crevel”), in further view of C. J. Griffith et al., An Evaluation of Hospital Cleaning Regimes and Standards, 45 J. Hosp. Infection 19—28 (2000), (cited by Applicants in the Information Disclosure Statement filed January 5, 2012, referred to hereinafter as “Griffith”). Final Act. 3— 19. C. Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Sanville, Crevel, and Measuring Street Cleanliness: A Comparison of New York City's Scorecard and Results from a Citizen Survey, 68 Public Administration Review 295—303 (2008) by Gregg G. Van Ryzin, Stephen Immerwahr, and Stan Altman (previously provided as reference 1-W in the Office Action mailed March 29, 2012, referred to hereinafter as Van Ryzin). Final Act. 19—21. Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the cited combination of references? 3 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Rejection A of Claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82—84 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an abstract idea. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355—57. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ 4 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). We, therefore, review on appeal: (1) whether the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, or (2), are directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner’s Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Regarding the first part of the Mayo/Alice analysis, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to the “abstract idea of cleanliness assessment.” (Final Rej. 2). Regarding the second step of the analysis, the Examiner concludes: [t]he additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (Final Act. 2) (emphasis added). Mayo/Alice Analysis — Step 1 Regarding Mayo!Alice Step 1, Appellants contend the final office action has “not met the burden of ‘providing a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and why it is considered an exception, and that identifies the additional elements in the claim (if any) 5 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 and explains why they do not amount of significantly more than the exception.’” (App. Br. 9) (emphasis added). We note Appellants’ independent claim 1 is directed, inter alia, to “analyzing] the dispenser data in combination with at least some of the corporate data and generat[ing] therefrom product usage data indicative of an amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site, and determin[ing] a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics” (claim 1). Remaining independent system claims 9 and 14 recite similar language of commensurate scope. Our reviewing court guides that fundamental economic and conventional business practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer. See, e.g., OIP Techs, v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362—63 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we conclude Appellants’ claims on appeal are each directed to an economic or business practice, such as generating product usage data “indicative of an amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site,” and determining “a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics” and “generat[ing] reports based on the analysis.” (Claim 1). Moreover, but for the recitation of a generic “server computer” (claims 1, 14), or a generic “processing apparatus” (claim 9), we conclude the functions of receiving and analyzing various data which is used to “determine[] a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics” (claim 1), could be performed as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely 6 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson’’ ). Further, “[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where ‘it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.’” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (2016) (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)). This guidance is applicable here. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s legal conclusion that all claims on appeal are “directed to the abstract idea of a cleanliness assessment.” (Final Act. 2) (emphasis added). Mayo/Alice Analysis — Step 2 Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we turn to the second part of the Mayo/Alice analysis. We analyze the claims to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Regarding A lice, Step 2, Appellants contend, inter alia: “assuming, arguendo, that the claims are directed to an ‘abstract idea,’ and that the abstract idea is properly labeled as ‘cleanliness assessment,”’ [T]he cited limitation add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, and adds unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and further that are improvements to another technology or technical field. In addition, the dependent claims include additional limitations that further recite “significantly more” than the so- 7 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 called abstract idea of “cleanliness assessment”. For example, dependent claim 8 recites that “the reporting application generates reports that characterize the effectiveness of cleaning activities at the cleaning site based on the dispenser data, the corporate data, the product usage data, and the cleanliness metrics.” As another example, dependent claim 21 recites that “the reporting application generates reports concerning recommended cleaning process improvements if the target parameters for each of the plurality of chemical products are not met.” Thus, when considered as a whole, claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-21 recite “significantly more” than a judicial exception. (App. Br. 9-11) (emphasis added). Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred, because Appellants essentially recite claim limitations without any persuasive explanation of how the limitations either individually, or as an ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept that converts the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. We find Appellants claimed data gathering, analysis, and reporting are consistent with “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass ’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). Further, “simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82. (Emphasis added). For example, we conclude the generic “database coupled to the server computer” (emphasis added), as recited Appellants’ claim 1, is distinguishable from the type of patent-eligible database claim considered by the court in Enfish, because Appellants’ claim 1 is not directed to a “self- 8 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 referential table for a computer database.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. We further conclude Appellants claims are not “directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer,” as was found by the court regarding the claims in Enfish. Id. at 1338 (emphasis added). Instead, we conclude Appellants merely claim a generic “server computer” (Claims 1 and 14), or a generic “processing apparatus” (Claim 9). Nor do we find Appellants’ claims similar to the claimed solution considered by the court in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, we conclude Appellants’ claimed solution which “determines a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics” (claim 1) is not rooted in computer technology, such that the invention on appeal overcomes a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, as was the case with the type of claim the court concluded was patent-eligible in DDR Holdings. {Id. at 1257). We note Appellants’ claims on appeal are silent regarding any mention of a computer “network.” Although Appellants’ claims are directed to a system (apparatus), we nevertheless conclude Appellants’ claims are analogous to the method claim considered by the court in Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (2016), at least to the extent that Appellants’ claims are similarly directed to “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display [which] does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.” Id. at 1355. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that “[a]t best, the generated report is an improvement to the business process, which is different than an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and does not serve 9 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 to provide ‘significantly more’ than just the abstract idea.” (Ans. 4) (emphasis added). Further regarding the use of a generic computer server, processing apparatus, and a memory, see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (holding that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”); Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea on ‘an Internet computer network’ or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea.”); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (quotation omitted) (“We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea.”) (quotations omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Rather, the claims recite both a generic computer element—a processor—and a series of generic computer ‘components’ that merely restate their individual functions .... That is to say, they merely describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply not enough under step two.”) Applying the aforementioned guidance of our reviewing courts here, we conclude Appellants’ claims are not directed to an improvement to the recited server computer, processing apparatus, or database functionality. (Claims 1, 9, 14). Therefore, we conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed “both individually and as an ordered combination,” amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566 10 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 U.S. at 79). For at least the aforementioned reasons, and on this record, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection A of claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.1 Rejections B and C under § 103(a) Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of all claims which stand rejected under rejection B based upon representative claim 1. We address remaining dependent claim 19, rejected under rejection C, infra. See n. 1 infra. Rejection B of Claims 1—11, 13—16, 18, 20, and 21 under § 103(a) Issue: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by finding the cited combination of Sanville, Crevel, and Griffith teaches or suggests contested limitation L: [L] an analysis application resident on the server computer that analyzes the dispenser data in combination with at least some of the corporate data and generates therefrom product usage data indicative of an amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site, and determines a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics[,] 1 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 11 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 within the meaning of representative claim l?2 (Emphasis added). Regarding contested limitation L of claim 1, Appellants contend: “Griffith does not teach or suggest determining any type of ‘connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics’ as recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner disagrees, and finds Griffith teaches: the evaluation of a cleaning process [that] involves a set level of chemical usage, which involves the evaluation of a relationship between the chemical usage (cleaning process) and cleanliness metrics as the chemical usage (cleaning process) is evaluated (see Griffith page 20 The aim of the present study was to evaluate cleaning standards in one hospital... page 21 ... In the present study, 85% of surfaces in the ward were considered visually clean before cleaning compared to 82% after cleaning; discusses connection between cleaning process (chemical usage) and a cleanliness metric ... Tables II and IV showing ATP levels of various sites before and after cleaning using the sanitizer as measured using microbiological assessments and routine ATP bioluminescence arrays; see Table II which shows the connection/relationship between a cleaning process (chemical usage) and cleaning metrics by displaying a measure of cleanliness metrics before and after the cleaning process (chemical usage)). (Ans. 6). 2 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see, e.g., Spec. 1 83 (“Various embodiments of the invention have been described. These and other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims.” (emphasis added)). 12 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 The Examiner additionally notes that Sanville was cited to teach: determining a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics (Sanville paragraph 10 In an embodiment, the user ID[]s of the authorized service representatives accessing the chemical dispense systems, the names of the chemical products dispensed and the volume of these chemical products are collected and transmitted by the host computers of each chemical dispense system to the central server. Either prior to being transferred to the central server, or alternatively, once received by the central server, the above-noted information associated with each instance that a chemical product is dispensed to a service representative is linked together and associated with a time reference relative to a point in time corresponding to each instance, i.e., when the chemical product is dispensed to the service representative. The central server analyzes this information as well as the corresponding time references to render an evaluation related to chemical product usage by one or more of the service representatives over a given period of time, paragraph 48 (id.) (emphasis omitted).3 We note in the statement of the rejection for claim 1, the Examiner further finds Crevel teaches: collecting process or operating parameter data to be reported against reference parameter data where key performance indicators are reported against targets (i.e., a target cleanliness metric), norms, or averages [paragraph 27]. Crevel et al. also teaches providing hygiene reports with details on parameters of the industrial cleaning machine (i.e., cleanliness metrics associated with the cleaning site), such as water temperatures, 3 In the Final Action (6) the Examiner finds Sanville “determines a connection between the amount of chemical product usage at the cleaning site and the cleanliness metrics,” as claimed, citing to paragraph 57 of Sanville. 13 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 detergent concentration and time intervals (i.e., analysis of cleanliness metrics) [paragraph 29]. (Final Act. 7). Although Appellants urge in the Appeal Brief (14) that “[t]he invention as claimed leads to several advantages not obtainable by the combination of Sanville, Crevel and Griffith” (and refer to the Specification in support),4 we find Appellants fail to substantively traverse the Examiner’s specific findings regarding contested limitation L. (Final Act. 3—9). We emphasize the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and underlying factual findings, are based on the combined teachings and suggestions of Sanville, Crevel, and Griffith. We find Appellants’ singular attack on Griffith in the Appeal Brief (11—16) is unavailing.5 Further, we find Appellants’ new arguments addressing Sanville in the Reply Brief (6—7) are: (1) untimely,6 and (2) merely reproduce portions of Sanville, and assert the claim limitation is not taught or suggested by Sanville.7 4 “[NJeither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the [Appellants] controls” in an obviousness analysis. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). 5 See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.). 6 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)(“arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in the appeal brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the examiner’s answer will not be considered except for good cause.”). 1 See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive 14 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 Moreover, ‘“the question under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see also MPEP §2123. For at least the aforementioned reasons, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain rejection B under § 103 of independent claim 1. Independent Claims 9 and 14 — not argued separately (rejection B) Appellants further recite the similar contested language of commensurate scope, and urge that “independent claims 9 and 14 are patentable over the references cited for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.” (App. Br. 15). We find Appellants’ contentions unavailing for the same reasons discussed above regarding rejection B of independent claim 1. Dependent Claims rejected under rejection B — not argued separately Appellants further submit “[t]he dependent claims incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims, and are likewise submitted to be patentable for at least the same reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.” (Id.). 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.”). 15 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we find the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain Rejection B of all claims 1—11, 13—16, 18, 20, and 21 rejected thereunder. Rejection C of Dependent Claim 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claim 19 recites: “The system of claim 1 wherein the cleaning scores are obtained from one or more of comment cards, online surveys, online forum reviews, verbal communications.” Although Appellants urge “there would have been no apparent reason that would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the applied references to arrive at the claimed features” (App. Br. 16), Appellants fail to provide any substantive argument (or evidence) to support the conclusory allegation.8 Appellants submit “[cjlaim 19 depends from independent claim 1, and is therefore respectfully submitted to be patentable for at least the same reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.” Id. 8 We afford such conclusory attorney argument little weight. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen- Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). 16 Appeal 2016-005375 Application 12/766,714 However, we find no deficiencies regarding the Examiner’s rejection B of independent claim 1, for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s rejection C of dependent claim 19, which depends directly from claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain rejection C under § 103 of claim 19. Reply Brief To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18—21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—11, 13—16, and 18-21. 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(f). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation