Ex Parte Perry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2018

13744119 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/744,119
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
01/17/2013
10/24/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ethan L. Perry
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.
RSW920130001 US 1 2166
EXAMINER
GILLS, KURTIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/24/2018 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ETHAN L. PERRY and ANDREW L. SCHIRMER
Appeal2017---001904
Application 13/7 44,119
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Ethan L. Perry and Andrew L. Schirmer (Appellants) seek review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) ofa final rejection of claims 8-21, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed April 1, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed November 18,
2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed September 30, 2016),
and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 16, 2015).
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
The Appellants invented a way of dynamically ordering tasks in a task
list based on the indications of importance to the user. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 8, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
8. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium
for dynamically ordering tasks in a task list,
the computer program product comprising the programming
instructions for:
[ 1] receiving a plurality of tasks;
[2] identifying indicators of importance associated with each of
said plurality of tasks,
wherein said indicators of importance are aspects of a
task used to assess an importance measure to said task;
[3] generating a score for each identified indicator of
importance
associated with each of said plurality of tasks;
and
[ 4] generating a composite score for each of said plurality of
tasks
based on said scores for said identified indicators of
importance associated with each of said plurality of tasks,
respectively.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Nelken
Gunning
US 6,408,277 Bl
US 2009/0133027 Al
2
June 18, 2002
May 21, 2009
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
Claims 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Gunning.
Claims 11 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gunning and Nelken.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the claims
recite more than abstract conceptual advice of what a computer is to provide
without implementation details.
The issues of novelty tum primarily on whether Gunning describes the
recited composite score.
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on the anticipation rejection.
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 the Prior Art
Gunning
01.Gunning is directed to prioritizing the tasks in a project. Gunning
para. 2.
3
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
02.Gunning describes determining prioritization factors for tasks in a
project. An initial list showing the order of the tasks in the project
is provided to a user who may be the employee assigned to
perform the tasks. The initial order of the tasks may be provided
in a graphical format with objects representing each of the tasks so
that the user can drag and drop the tasks into the order that they
will be performed in. The project management task prioritization
system detects the task order adjustments made by the user. The
system calculates the relative priority of the affected tasks based
on the user's adjustments to the task order. This information can
then be used to refine the prioritization factors for the tasks
affected by the task order adjustments made by the user. Gunning
para. 7.
03. Gunning describes an exemplary neural network system for a
project management task prioritization system. As a user alters
the order of their tasks, the neural network system is able to
further define the prioritization factors used in developing an
initial task prioritization order. For example, a user may be
assigned to complete the six tasks shown in of FIG. 4A in the
order from Task 1 to Task 6. However, the user may prefer to
perform Task 5 earlier in the order, moving this task up to the
position between Task 1 and Task 2, as shown in 403. The neural
network system is able to further define its prioritization factors
for these tasks based on Task 5 being moved up in the order by the
user. Gunning para. 25.
4
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
04.Gunning describes the inputs for the neural net as including a pre-
specified list of dimensions. The dimensions are variables that
affect or control the scheduling of the project tasks. Dimensions
may be anything from dependent tasks, due dates and deadlines,
costs, employee skill levels, team preferences, or any other factor
that might affect the priority of a given task. Typically, the
dimensions are the same for two tasks being compared. Gunning
para. 26.
OS.Gunning describes activities in an exemplary method for project
management task prioritization. The project information generally
includes the project schedule and deadlines, as well as a
description or specification for the project. Gunning para. 28.
ANALYSIS
Claims 8-21 rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter
Computer program product claim 8 recites a process performed by the
preamble product, and so is essentially equivalent to a method claim. Claim
8 recites receiving task data, identifying indicator of importance data,
generating score data, and generating composite score data. Thus, claim 8
recites receiving, analyzing, and modifying data. None of the limitations
recite implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite
functional results to be achieved by any and all possible means. Data
reception, analysis, and modification are all generic, conventional data
processing operations to the point they are themselves concepts awaiting
5
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
implementation details. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
modification is equally generic and conventional. The ordering of the steps
is therefore ordinary and conventional. The remaining claims merely
describe parameters for the ordering, with no implementation details.
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
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012)).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Examiner determines the
claims directed to ordering tasks, which is an idea of itself and/ or certain
methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 9.
Although the Court in Alice made a determination as to what the claims
were directed to, we find that this case's claims themselves and the
6
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
Specification provide enough information to inform one as to what they are
directed.
The preamble to claim 8 recites that it is a product for dynamically
ordering tasks in a task list. The steps in claim 8 result in generating a
composite score for each of said plurality of tasks. The Specification at
paragraph 1 recites that the invention relates to dynamically ordering tasks in
a task list based on the indications of importance to the user. Thus, all this
evidence shows that claim 8 is directed to ordering tasks, i.e. task
management. This is consistent with the Examiner's determination.
It follows from prior Supreme Court cases, and Bilski (Bilski v. Kappas,
561 U.S. 593 (2010)) in particular, that the claims at issue here are directed
to an abstract idea. The concept of task management is a fundamental
business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. The use of task
management is also a building block of ingenuity in project management.
Thus, task management, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope
of§ 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356.
As in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., we need not labor to delimit the precise
contours of the "abstract ideas" category in this case. It is enough to
recognize that there is no meaningful distinction in the level of abstraction
between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of task
management at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of "abstract
ideas" as the Court has used that term. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2357.
Further, claims involving data collection, analysis, and display, without
more, are directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830
7
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that "collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" are
"a familiar class of claims 'directed to' a patent ineligible concept"); see
also In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 8, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data retrieval, analysis,
and transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular
computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation"). As such, claim 8 is directed to the abstract idea of receiving,
analyzing, and transmitting data.
The remaining claims merely describe parameters for the ordering. We
conclude that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the analysis
at Mayo step two,
the 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 "implement[t]" an abstract
idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
8
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of "additional
feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [ abstract idea] itself."
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (citations omitted).
"[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 Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2359. 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 to receive, analyze, and modify data amounts to electronic data
query and retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of
these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom
S.A., supra. Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)("Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ..
. those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming"). 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 America Inc.
v. Investpic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
9
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants' method add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
modification is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be
abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (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 Communications,
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.
Viewed as a whole, Appellants' claims simply recite the concept of task
management as performed by a generic computer. To be sure, the claims
recite doing so by advising one to generate task composite scores for the
ordering from scores based on importance indicators. But, this is no more
than abstract conceptual advice on the parameters for such task management
and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters,
and do not recite any particular implementation.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the
computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology
or technical field. The 13 pages of Specification do not bulge with
10
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment2 and parameters
that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such
conventional processing would entail based on the concept of task
management under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, the claims at
issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the
abstract idea of task management using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2360.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from [] method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in
ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the
draftsman's art."'
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2360.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
[ c ]laims 8-21 do not simply organize information through
mathematical correlations as alleged by the Examiner. Instead,
claims 8-21 are directed to dynamically ordering tasks in a task
list without requiring the user to manually input field
2 Specification paragraphs 18 and 19 describe the system as the components
of a conventional generic computer in Figure 2. Paragraph 14 describes the
client as any computing device.
11
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
information, decide task priorities, understand field interactions
or choose from complex combinations of sort orders. See, e.g.,
paragraph [0030] of Appellant's specification. For example,
independent claims 8 and 15 recite receiving a plurality of
tasks. Receiving tasks is clearly not organizing information
through mathematical correlations. Furthermore, claims 8 and
15 recite identifying indicators of importance associated with
each of the plurality of tasks, where the indicators of
importance are aspects of a task used to assess an importance
measure to the task. Identifying indicators of importance
associated with each of the plurality of tasks, where the
indicators of importance are aspects of a task used to assess an
importance measure to the task, is not equivalent to organizing
information through mathematical correlations.
Furthermore, claims 8 and 15 recite generating a score
for each identified indicator of importance associated with each
of the plurality of tasks. What is the mathematical correlation?
Mathematical correlation involves the linking of two sets of
data. For example, a mathematical correlation is said to be
positive when the values increase together; whereas, a
mathematical correlation is said to be negative when one value
decreases as the other increases.
App. Br. 3--4. The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to
ordering tasks, supra. The Examiner goes on to determine that "the claims
organize task information through mathematical correlations of generating
scores and is not tied to specific structure or machine." Final Act. 10. This
is no more than applying the claim to the concept of ordering tasks, as the
claims organize task priority information through mathematical correlations
between tasks and priority. Although, a somewhat degenerate correlation, it
is a perfect one, as the claim assigns it as such. Appellants take the
limitations that do not assign the priority information and contend that they
have nothing to do with organizing, without admitting that the central step of
12
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
identifying indicators of importance does organize the tasks to which the
indicators are assigned. As to the correlation involved, Appellants conflate
mathematical correlation with statistical measures of correlation. Although
we agree that "mathematical correlation involves the linking of two sets of
data," the claims correlate task data with indicator data, rendering the
argument moot.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "there is no
language in the independent claims directed to gathering and combining
data, let alone combining data into a single data set." App. Br. 7. As we
find supra, the claims retrieve, analyze, and modify data and nothing more.
Claim 8 gathers task and indicator data which is analyzed to produce
intermediate scores which in tum are combined into a single data set of
composite scores. As Electric Power held, intermediate analysis as such is
part of an abstract idea.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
if the Examiner is asserting that claims 8-21 are directed to non-
statutory subject matter because they involve software
implemented on a generic computer, the assertion is in error.
Otherwise, software, in essence, could not be patented which
would greatly reduce the number of application filings in the
software arts.
Id. at 8
We agree that software may be patentable if it recites more than the
practice of an abstract idea. To do so, the claims must recite some particular
technological improvement rather than a series of functions to be achieved
by any and all possible means.
13
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
We conclude that the limitations of the '545 claims do not
transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible
subject matter because the claims simply instruct the
practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine,
conventional activity .... Adding routine additional steps such
as updating an activity log, requiring a request from the
consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use
of the Internet does not transform an otherwise abstract idea
into patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, the claimed
sequence of steps comprises only "conventional steps, specified
at a high level of generality," which is insufficient to supply an
"inventive concept."
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d at 715.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
in order to understand what constitutes an abstract idea being a
method of organizing human activity, it would appear that one
must refer to Bilski v. Kappas, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (U.S. 2010).
In Bilski, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the claimed method
of hedging risk in the field of commodities trading is not drawn
to a patent eligible "process" under 35 U.S.C. § 101, since one
claim of the patent application describes the basic concept of
hedging, and a second claim of the patent application reduces
the concept to a simple mathematical formula. Bilski, 95
U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1009-1010 (U.S. 2010).
Consequently, the key question that needs to be answered
is whether claims 8-21 in the present application are analogous
to the method of hedging risk in Bilski. As the U.S. Supreme
Court noted in Bilski, one of the claims was deemed to be an
abstract idea since it described the basic concept of hedging.
Claims 8-21 clearly do not describe a basis concept of
organizing a human activity. Claims 8-21 are directed to
providing means for dynamically ordering tasks in a task list
without requiring the user to manually input field information,
decide task priorities, understand field interactions or choose
from complex combinations of sort orders.
14
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
App. Br. 9. Appellants conflate the Bilski holding with the example it
applied to. Bilski held that a claim that "describes the basic concept" was
directed to an abstract idea. The Bilski example was hedging. Here, it is
task organization. As a task as such is an abstraction of the work it
describes, ordering of such abstractions remains an abstract idea. "Adding
one abstract idea ... to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim
non-abstract." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322,
1327 (2017). The contended "means for dynamically ordering tasks in a
task list" is again data reception, analysis, and modification, among the most
fundamental data processing operations, absent any technological
improvements.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims "are
directed to dynamically ordering tasks in a task list without requiring the
user to manually input field information, decide task priorities, understand
field interactions or choose from complex combinations of sort orders."
App. Br. 10-11. The claims do not recite the absence of requiring user
involvement, and such user involvement are within the scope of "identifying
indicators of importance associated with each of said plurality of tasks."
Claim 8. Further, just as the aphorism "a stitch in time saves nine"
dynamically maintains the status quo with a single stitch without requiring
the user to enter nine stitches, the aphorism remains one of the most widely
known abstract concepts.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "it does 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.
15
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in identifying 'indicators
of importance' related to the particular task in question." App. Br. 15-16.
Identifying indicators of importance related to the particular task is an
abstract concept if only because such indicators of importance are
themselves abstract ideas. Whether the indicators also represent physical
entities as well is not pertinent, as the claims do not call for relying on such
representation. Further, to say that such identification is not an old business
practice is to ignore all manufacture process planning since the industrial
revolution.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner has
not provided any evidence that claims 8-21are well-understood, routine and
well-known to the industry. App. Br. 18. We cite court cases holding that
the claim elements, both separately and as an ordered combination, are
ordinary, conventional, or otherwise abstract, supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "claimed invention
addresses such a problem by improving the technology of task management
systems." Reply Br. 10. A task management system, as such, is not
necessarily computer dependent, being a system of steps performed to
manage tasks. This is not a technological practice that would be improved,
but instead an organizational practice, applicable to people performing tasks.
The remaining arguments are similar to those we address, supra.
16
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
Claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as
anticipated by Gunning
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that:
There is no language in the cited passages that discloses
generating a composite score. Neither is there any language in
the cited passages that discloses generating a composite score
for each of the plurality of tasks based on the scores for the
identified indicators of importance associated with each of the
plurality of tasks, respectively. Instead, Gunning discloses
comparing the task injected into the list with the tasks that
already populate the ordered list. [0028]. Gunning further
discloses that for the comparison of each cycle, if the output is
greater than 0.5, then the first task is greater than the second
(i.e., the first task has a higher priority than the second task) and
the output is 1. [0028]. However, if the value is less than 0.5,
then the second task has a higher priority than the first task and
the output is 0. [0028]. The output of "l" and "O," which the
Examiner equates as corresponding to the claimed composite
score, is not being generated for each of the tasks. Instead, the
output is simply based on whether the first task has a higher or
lower priority in comparison to the second task being compared
as illustrated in Figure 4B of Gunning. The output value is not
a composite score, let alone a composite score that is generated
for each of the tasks based on scores for the identified
indicators of importance associated with each of the tasks,
respectively. The Examiner had previously equated the values
of the neurons discussed in paragraph [0026] of Gunning as
corresponding to the scores for the identified indicators of
importance (see Office Action (12/16/2015), page 12).
However, the output values discussed in paragraph [0028] of
Gunning and demonstrated in Figure 4 B of Gunning are clearly
not based on such values. Furthermore, the Examiner had
previously cited to the prioritization factors of Gunning as
corresponding to the claimed identified indicators of
importance. Gunning clearly does not disclose that the output
values discussed in paragraph [0028] of Gunning are generated
17
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
for each of the tasks based on scores for the prioritization
factors associated with each of the tasks, respectively.
Reply Br. 17. We note that the definition of composite as an adjective in
the claimed context is "made by combining two or more existing things." 3
Claims 11 and 18 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gunning and Nelken
These claims depend from the claims rejected under anticipation and the
Examiner makes no findings that would show N elken to make up for the
anticipation deficiencies.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 8-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter is proper.
The rejection of claims 8-10, 12-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gunning is improper.
The rejection of claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gunning and Nelken is improper.
3 American Heritage Dictionary, last visited Oct. 12, 2018,
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=composite
18
Appeal2017-001904
Application 13/744,119
DECISION
The rejection of claims 8-21 is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
19