Ex Parte Sartipi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

12572687 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/572,687 10/02/2009
136869 7590 07/02/2018
Wilson Lue LLP/BlackBerry Files
250 University A venue, 5th Floor
Toronto, ON MSH 3E5
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Siamak Sartipi
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.
1679-2047 4414
EXAMINER
BARTLEY, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
docketing@wilsonlue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIAMAK SAR TIPI 1
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-26. Claims 3 and
12 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; App. Br. 6. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is BlackBerry Limited.
App. Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Oct. 2, 2009
(claiming benefit of US 61/117,516, filed Nov. 24, 2008); Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed Apr. 1, 2016; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Nov. 8,
2016. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final Rejection)
("Final Act.") mailed Nov. 2, 2015, and Answer ("Ans.") mailed Sept. 8,
2016.
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
We affirm.
Appellant's Invention
The invention generally relates to "electronic payment systems and,
more particularly, to the use of a mobile wireless communications device to
facilitate an electronic payment at a point-of-sale" (Spec. ,r 2). More
specifically, the invention relates to servers (apparatuses), systems, and
methods of an electronic payment system transferring funds from a
purchaser account to a merchant account. The payment process ( method)
transfers data to a server ( a purchaser transaction identification and
purchaser account access information from a mobile device and a merchant
transaction identification and transaction information from a point-of-sale
device), matches the identification data, sends the transaction information to
the mobile device, confirms receipt (receives a confirmation) of the
transaction information from the mobile device, and transfers funds from the
purchaser's account to the merchant's account (based on the confirmation
and the purchaser account access information). Spec. ,r,r 19--30, 32;
Abstract.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 21, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
21. A method of operating a payment processing server
to transfer funds from a purchaser account to a merchant account,
the method comprising:
receiving a purchaser transaction identification (ID) and
purchaser account access information from a mobile wireless
communications device comprising a device processor and
memory coupled thereto;
2
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
rece1vmg, at a point-of-sale service provider server, a
merchant transaction ID and transaction information from a
point-of-sale device;
sending the transaction information to the mobile wireless
communications device when the merchant transaction ID
matches the purchaser transaction ID;
receiving confirmation of the transaction information from
the mobile wireless communications device; and
effecting a transfer of funds from the purchaser account to
the merchant account based upon the confirmation of the
transaction information and the purchaser account access
information.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellant's contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding Appellant's claims were directed to
patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 11, 15, and 21 ( as well as
dependent claims 2, 4--10, 13, 14, 16-20, and 22-26) together as a group
with respect to the§ 101 rejection. See App. Br. 6-13. We select
independent claim 21 as representative of Appellant's arguments with
respect to claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-26. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejects the claims as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter in that "the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
3
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
exception( ... an abstract idea) without significantly more"-specifically,
"the abstract idea of a series of steps instructing how to transfer funds which
is a fundamental economic practice." Final Act. 9. Appellant contends that:
( 1) the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case of unpatentability
under§ 101 (App. Br. 6-9); (2) the abstract idea identified by the Examiner
is not an accurate characterization of Appellant's invention (App. Br. 9-11);
(3) the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract concept, "is
'necessarily rooted in computer technology"' (App. Br. 11 ), and the claims
do not monopolize or preempt the purported abstract idea because the claims
amount to "'significantly more' than the abstract idea alone" (App. Br. 12).
See App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 2---6.
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. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (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, 77-80 (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. Assuming that a claim nominally falls within one of the statutory
categories of machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the
first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are
4
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts" (id.), e.g., to an abstract
idea. For example, abstract ideas 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 an abstract idea, 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' 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 78-79). This second step is described as "a search for an "'inventive
concept"'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ' ...
significantly more than ... the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 2355
(alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look to whether the
claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Alice Step 1 Analysis
Turning to the first step of the eligibility analysis, "the first step in the
Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process
that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. "The abstract idea exception
5
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
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 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting O'Reilly v.
Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1853)). "We therefore look to whether
the claims ... focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
The Examiner finds independent claims 1, 11, 15, and 21 are directed
to the abstract idea of "transfer[ing] funds which is a fundamental economic
practice." Final Act. 9. The Examiner further finds the claims describe
"contractual relations" (similar to buySAFE) (see Ans. 6-7), financial
transactions like hedging (similar to Bilski), and mitigating risk (similar to
Alice Corp.) that are also "fundamental economic practices." See Ans. 7
(referencing Alice Corp, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2356-57 (2014); Bilski v. Kappas,
561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d
1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Conversely, the Appellant attacks the
Examiner's findings as being an inaccurate characterization and lacking
evidentiary support-that is, the Examiner fails to present evidence that the
claims are directed to an abstract idea such as a fundamental economic
practice and, thus, the Examiner's reasoning and analysis do not include
sufficient substance to rise to the level of a prima facie showing. See App.
Br. 6-11. Appellant also contends the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea. See App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2---6. We agree with the Examiner that
Appellant's claim 21 ( and the other pending claims) are directed to patent-
ineligible abstract ideas or concepts.
6
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
With respect to Appellant's prima facie case and evidentiary
contentions, Appellant misconstrues the relevant law and precedent. The
Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is merely a
procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of
production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Therefore, the USPTO
carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its
rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the
applicant of the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the
prosecution of [the] application." In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a prima facie rejection need only
set forth the statutory basis of the rejection in a sufficiently articulate and
informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of§ 132. Id.
Here, in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
the Examiner analyzed the claims using the Mayo/Alice two-step framework,
consistent with the guidance set forth in the US PTO' s "2014 Interim
Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec.
16, 2014), in effect at the time the rejection was made, i.e., on Nov. 2, 2015.
The Examiner notified Appellant of the reasons for the rejection "together
with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." 35 U.S.C. §
132. See Final Act. 2-9. And, contrary to Appellant's assertions, in doing
so, the Examiner set forth a prima facie case of unpatentability such that the
7
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
burden shifted to Appellant to demonstrate that the claims are patent-
eligible.
Appellant ostensibly argues that evidentiary support is required to
establish a prima facie case of patent-ineligibility. See App. Br. 7-8 (citing
various non-precedential Board decisions). We, however, are aware of no
controlling precedent that requires the Office to provide factual evidence to
support a finding that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. Although it
may be useful in some circumstances to compare the claims at issue with
those in earlier cases in which a similar issue of patent-eligibility has been
decided, such a comparison, contrary to Appellant's suggestion (App. Br. 7-
9), is not required for a prima facie showing, nor is it mandated by "proper"
examination procedure (id.).
With respect to Appellant's characterization contentions, claim 21
delineates a method that: transfers data to a server ( a purchaser transaction
identification (ID) and purchaser account access information from a mobile
device, as well as a merchant transaction ID and transaction information
from a point-of-sale device); determines if the identification data matches
and, if so, sends the transaction information to the mobile device; confirms
the mobile device receives the transaction information by receiving
confirmation of the transaction information from the mobile device; and
transfers funds from the purchaser's account to the merchant's account
based on the confirmation and the purchaser account access information. In
sum, as the Examiner finds, claim 21 is directed to "a series of steps
instructing how to transfer funds," which "is a fundamental economic
practice," i.e., an abstract idea. Final Act. 9. Although we could
characterize claim 21 with more detail, for example, as being directed to
8
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
communicating and manipulating or comparing data to effect a transfer of
funds, this does not change the patent-eligibility analysis. Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea
can generally be described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's
slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability
analysis.").
Utilizing the above-identified characterization, we analyze whether
claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea. Instead of using a fixed definition of
an abstract idea and analyzing how claims fit ( or do not fit) within the
definition, "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." Amdocs (Isr.)
Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). As part of this inquiry, we must "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 Texas, LLC v.
DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, Appellant's claims generally, and independent claim 21 in
particular, relate to collecting and communicating information and
analyzing/manipulating information to effect a transfer of funds (see
discussion supra). That is, Appellant's claims relate to collecting,
analyzing, manipulating, and communicating data utilizing un-recited
processes or algorithms to provide/ effect a result ( transfer of funds
corresponding to a transaction). Therefore, the claims broadly recite
collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and transferring information ( data)
9
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
relating to financial transactions. See Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 19--30. This is
consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed invention. See App.
Br. 5 (citing Spec. ,r,r 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, and 46).
Contrary to Appellant's assertions (see App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2---6), the
present claims are directed to an abstract idea, in that the instant claims are
analogous to a number of cases in which courts have identified similar
claims as encompassing abstract ideas.
Our reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering,
analyzing, and manipulating information. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354
(finding claims directed to a "combination of ... abstract-idea processes ....
of gathering and analyzing information" to be abstract). Similarly, our
reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering, analyzing, and
storing information. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns,
LLC., 874 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding claims directed to
the functional results of accumulating, converting, and monitoring records
manipulate data "but fail[] to do so in a non-abstract way" (id. at 1338));
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 'l Ass 'n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding the "claims generally recite ..
. extracting data ... [and] recognizing specific information from the
extracted data" (id. at 1345) and that the "claims are drawn to the basic
concept of data recognition" (id. at 1347)).
The Federal Circuit, as discussed by the Examiner (see Final Act. 9;
Ans. 6-7), has also held that abstract ideas include financial transactions or
other "fundamental economic practices" (Ans. 7). Credit Acceptance Corp.
v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1049--51 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the claims are
"directed to the abstract idea of processing an application for financing a
10
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
purchase" (id. at 1054 ), which is "a fundamental economic practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce" (id. (internal quotations omitted)));
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("[T]he patent claims are directed to an abstract idea: tracking
financial transactions" (id. at 1367) which amounts to "a fundamental ...
practice long prevalent in our system" (id. at 1369--70 (internal quotations
omitted))); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353-55 ("contractual relations ...
constitute[] a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of
commerce" (id. at 1354 (internal quotations omitted))).
Here, the collection, analysis, manipulation, and communication of
information (data}-in the form of collecting specific data, analyzing that
data (the matching and confirmation), and the manipulation of the data and
resulting determinations (providing the confirmation and effecting the funds
transfer}-are analogous to the abstract ideas of collecting, analyzing, and
manipulating information discussed in Elec. Power, Two-Way Media, and
Content Extraction. Further, effecting a transfer of funds is analogous to the
fundamental economic practices found to be abstract ideas in Credit
Acceptance Corp., Intellectual Ventures I, and buySAFE.
With respect to Appellant's contention that the claims are not directed
to fundamental economic practices, but instead are analogous to data
transmission like the claims in Google Inc. v. Simpleair, Inc., CBM2014-
00170, January 22, 2015 (Reply Br. 5---6), we previously explained that this
decision is not controlling precedent (supra). Further, to the extent the
claims in Simpleair are similar to the instant claims, we find (supra) that
such data communication is analogous to data communication, gathering,
and analysis found to be abstract in Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
11
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
Appellant's claims can also be distinguished from patent-eligible
claims such as those in Enfzsh ( directed to "a specific improvement to the
way computers operate." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). Appellant's claims are
directed to the results of data analysis and manipulation (the result of
effecting a funds transfer) rather than "a particular way of performing" or
"inventive technology for performing those functions" or, in other words,
"achiev[ing] these results in a non-abstract way." Two-Way Media, 874
F.3d at 1337-38 (internal quotations omitted). In other words, "the focus of
the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on
certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the
abstract ideas of collecting, analyzing, and manipulating information
utilizing a computer, resulting in a fundamental economic practice. Notably,
this characterization is consistent with Appellant's description of the claimed
invention. Spec. ,r,r 29 ( the "mobile wireless communications device 6 may
be any device capable of wireless communication"), 30 (the "POS device 9
may be a POS terminal as known to those of skill in the art . . . . Indeed, the
use of existing POS terminals 9 may be advantageous"), 32 (the "payment
processor server 7 may be a computer"). See Spec. ,r,r 29-32, 35.
Alice Step 2 Analysis
Having found Appellant's claims are directed to an abstract idea under
Alice's step 1 analysis, we next address whether the claims add significantly
more to the alleged abstract idea. As directed by our reviewing court, we
search for an "'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application."' McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
12
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). The implementation of the abstract idea involved
must be "more than performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and]
conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content
Extraction, 77 6 F .3 d at 134 7--48 ( alteration in original) ( quoting Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2359). The "inventive concept" "must be significantly more than
the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or
apply the abstract idea on a computer." BASCOM Global Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted).
Here, the Examiner determined that Appellant's claims do not add
significantly more. See Final Act. 9; Ans. 15-21. Appellant, on the other
hand, contends the claims are directed to significantly more than an abstract
idea, inter alia, "mobile devices [that] provide a technical advantage by
enabling users to replace their physical payment cards with the mobile
device itself' (App. Br. 11 ). Appellant further asserts "the solution provided
by the claimed invention, is not abstract; it is 'necessarily rooted in computer
technology', and was devised to 'overcome a problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks"' (App. Br. 11 (quoting DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014))). See App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 8.
Appellant fails to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection
with respect to the second Alice step. Here Appellant conflates the Alice
two-part analysis and does not address the Examiner's findings. To the
extent Appellant's arguments invoke DDR Holdings (see App. Br. 11-12;
Reply Br. 8}-in that the instant claims improve the operation of a computer
system (supra}--we disagree. In DDR Holdings, the court held that a claim
13
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
may amount to more than an abstract idea recited in the claims when it
addresses and solves problems only encountered with computer technology
and online transactions, e.g., by providing (serving) a composite web page
rather than adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet
hyperlink protocol. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257-59. In contrast,
claim 21 simply transfers and manipulates data using known conventional
computers and/or equipment, and effects funds transfers utilizing servers
(computers) according to an undisclosed process and/ or algorithm. See
supra; Spec. ,r,r 29-32, 35. Despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary
(analogizing their claims to those in DDR), nothing in the claim recites a
"specific improvement to the way computers operate" (supra). The
communication, analysis, and manipulation of purchaser and merchant
information, and the resulting transfer of funds by conventional means, is
not a solution to a technical problem as discussed in DDR Holdings.
Rather, effecting a funds transfer based on merchant and purchaser
information and received data (the confirmation), are all commercial
solutions to conventional financial transactions, not a technical solution to a
computer or networking problem. Indeed, the claims do not delineate how
the mobile device replaces a physical payment, the claims only recite
communicating information utilizing conventional methods and equipment.
This commercial solution may be assisted using a general purpose computer
(servers and mobile devices) to perform the data communication, collection,
analysis, and manipulation processes, but does not improve how the
computers themselves function. As we previously explained, the instant
claims are more akin to the claims for analyzing information found to be
abstract in Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353.
14
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations, separately,
or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful limitations (i.e., do
not add significantly more) to transform the abstract idea into a patent
eligible application. See e.g., Ans. 15-21. The claim merely recites
functions (processes) for communicating, analyzing, and manipulating data
using known conventional computers and/ or equipment to effect
conventional funds transfers based on the analyzed and manipulated data.
Such steps are all routine and conventional and well-understood computer
functions of a general processor. The Specification supports this view (see
supra) in discussing the processes implemented using known ( conventional)
mobile devices, networks, POS devices, and generic computers (servers) to
perform the recited data communication, manipulation, and funds transfer
steps. See Spec. ,r,r 29-32, 35. Such conventional computer and
communication processes "do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea
into patent-eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys.,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d
at 1256).
For at least the reasons above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection under§ 101 of independent claims 1, 11, 15, and 21, as
well as dependent claims 2, 4--10, 13, 14, 16-20, and 22-26, which were not
argued separately.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, 4--11, and 13-26, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
15
Appeal2017-001527
Application 12/572,687
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-26.
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).
AFFIRMED
16