Ex Parte TEMARES et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13104461 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/104,461 05/10/2011 Mark E. TEMARES
75127 7590 08/02/2018
DENTONS US LLP (CITI CUSTOMER NUMBER)
ATTN: Eric Sophir
P.O. BOX 061080
CHICAGO, IL 60606-1080
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.
CITI0276-US-CON2 1263
EXAMINER
GARG, YOGESH C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
eric.sophir@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
#sg.citi-docket@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKE. TEMARES, ALAN B. NEWMAN, and
NOOR A. MENAI 1
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Citicorp Credit
Services. See App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to purchase-based segmentation of potential
customers. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed
language highlighted in italics, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for purchased-based
segmentation of customers, comprising:
receiving, by a computer having a processor and
memory, machine-readable empirical data comprising
purchasing behavior of a group of customers transmitted from
one or more data warehouses storing the empirical data,
wherein the empirical data further comprises purchase
information associated with the purchasing behavior of the
group of customers;
responsive to receiving the empirical data from the one or
more data warehouses:
automatically identifying, by the computer, at least
three different sets of segments or clusters of customers for the
group of customers associated with the empirical data based on
at least one purchasing behavior datum in the empirical data;
automatically identifying, by the computer, a first
subset of customers associated with a first segment or cluster in
a first set of segments or clusters of customers in the group of
customers of the empirical data based upon the purchasing
2 We refer to the Specification, filed May 10, 2011 ("Spec."); the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed Sept. 4, 2015 ("Non-Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed
May 3, 2016 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed Dec. 2, 2016
"Ans."), and the Reply Brief, filed Feb. 2, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
behavior of the customers in the at least three sets of segments
or clusters of customers in the empirical data;
generating, by the computer, an output of
purchasing behavior of a customer in the first subset of
customers;
calculating, by the computer, a likelihood that the
purchasing behavior in the output for the customer of the first
subset of customers correlates with each segment or cluster of a
first set of segments or clusters received from a first data feed
from a first cluster server;
calculating, by the computer, a likelihood that the
purchasing behavior in the output for the customer of the first
subset of customers correlates with each segment or cluster of a
second set of segments or clusters received from a second data
feed from a second cluster server;
determining, by the computer, at least one
attribute associated with the segment or cluster of the first set
of segments or clusters having the highest likelihood of
correlation and at least one attribute associated with the
segment or cluster of the second set of segments or clusters
having the highest likelihood of correlation; and
automatically identifying, by the computer, one or
more potential customers from the group of customers having
the at least one attribute associated with the segment or cluster
of the first set of segments or clusters having the highest
likelihood of correlation and the at least one attribute
associated with the segment or cluster of the second set of
segments or clusters having the highest likelihood of
correlation.
REJECTIONS and OBJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejections and objection:
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
3
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) as
introducing new matter.
ANALYSIS
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 2-11); and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-12) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Patent eligibility is a question of law that is reviewable de nova.
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Patentable subject matter is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101, as follows:
[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirernents of this title.
In interpreting this statute, the Supreme Court emphasizes that patent
protection should not preempt "the basic tools of scientific and technological
work." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012); Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). The rationale is that
4
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
patents directed to basic building blocks of technology would not "promote
the [p ]rogress of [ s ]cience" under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 8, but instead would impede it. Accordingly, laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas, are not patent-eligible subject matter. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. US., 850 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Alice, 134
S.Ct. at 2354).
The Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for subject matter
eligibility in Alice (134 S.Ct. at 2355). The first step is to determine whether
the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. (citing Mayo, 566
U.S. at 76-77). If so, then the eligibility analysis proceeds to the second
step of the Alice/Mayo test in which we "examine the elements of the claim
to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to
'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 79). The "inventive
concept" may be embodied in one or more of the individual claim
limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Id. at 2355. The
"inventive concept" must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself,
and cannot be simply an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea
on a computer. Id. at 2358. "'[W]ell-understood, routine, [and]
conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the industry" are insufficient
"to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at 2359-
60 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).
Alice/Mayo Step 1: Abstract Idea
The Examiner finds "claim 1 recites the steps of receiving data,
analyzing data, organizing data, comparing data, filtering data, identifying
data per rules, and outputting of data per rules directed to segmenting
5
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
customers." Non-Final Act. 6. According to the Examiner, these steps can
be performed mentally and manually using pen and paper and statistical
techniques. Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds "[t]hese steps are similar to
other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as
using categories to organize, store and transmit information in Cyberfone, [3J
or comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options
in SmartGene,[4]" concluding claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Id.
Appellants do not contest this finding under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo
framework, instead contending error under Step 2, arguing "the claims are
patent-eligible because they satisfy the 'significantly more' requirement, as
explained below." App. Br. 5. Accordingly, the Examiner's findings under
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework are undisputed.
Alice/Mayo Step 2: Inventive Concept
The Examiner finds the claims recite the additional element of a
computer at a high level of generality that does not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner reaches
the same conclusion when considering the limitations as an ordered
combination. Id. The Examiner further supports this conclusion with
reference to the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,
3 Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. App'x
988, 991-92 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential) (Claims drawn to abstract
idea of collecting data, recognizing certain data in the set, and storing
recognized data in memory.).
4 SmartGene v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, S.A., 555 Fed. App'x
950, 954--56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims drawn to abstract idea of comparing
new and stored information and using rules to identify options.).
6
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
79 Fed. Reg. 74618-74633 (December 16, 2014) ("2014 Guidelines"). 5
Non-Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner finds
the claim does not ... purport to improve the functioning of the
computer itself, or effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field or apply the judicial exception
with, or by use of, a particular machine, or effecting a
transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different
state or thing, or adding a specific limitation other than what is
well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or
adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a
particular useful application, or other meaningful limitations
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment.
Non-Final Act. 9. The Examiner concludes the recitation of a generic
computer performing generic computer functions is insufficient to transform
the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id.
Appellants contend "[ c ]laims 1-25 recite features that amount to
'significantly more' than a mere description of the abstract idea of
comparing and organizing data, because the claimed computing features
recite a technical solution to a technical problem that did not exist in the
'pre-Internet world."' App. Br. 5 (citing to Example 21 of the July 2015
Update Appendix 1 of the 2014 Interim Guidance Matter Eligibility
(hereinafter "Example 21 ") and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Appellants argue, similar to claim 2 of Example
21, the pending claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea as
5 The 2014 Guidelines (or "Guidance") explain(s) that the examples of
"concepts courts have found to be" laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas "are intended to be illustrative and not limiting." 79 Fed. Reg.
at 74622. The 2015 Update provides additional "illustrative" examples to
"assist [E]xaminers and the public in applying the principles" in the 2014
Guidance. (2014 Guidelines (2015 Update) 1.
7
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
including "computing hardware address[ing] a complication in the art that
did not arise in the 'pre-Internet world."' App. Br. 6. According to
Appellants, prior to the availability of data collection devices and the
Internet providing "Big Data" analytics, the lack of information availability
"prevented [marketers] from collecting and/or generating certain types of
information, and thus they could not generate certain data sets, fill gaps in
knowledge, or produce certain types of new knowledge." Id (citing Spec.
,r 8). Appellants argue "before the claimed hardware features, existing
technology did not gather and manipulate actual purchase transaction data
and the third-party commercial data, and therefore could not provide the
various results described in the Specification." App. Br. 7. According to
Appellants "several limitations in the prior art arose, not only from the
known algorithmic functions, but also from the unavailability of actual
purchase data, which hampered the capabilities of the prior art solutions."
Id.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error. In
particular, Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence that, rather than use
routine, well-known computer functions and communications connectivity
provided by the Internet, the invention improves the underlying technology.
The only apparent improvement is to the abstract idea of segmenting
customers based on their collected purchase behavior by using the enhanced
communications and processing capabilities provided by the Internet and
generic computing devices.
To the extent that the recited steps or acts may be performed faster or
more efficiently using a computer, our reviewing court provides applicable
guidance:
8
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
While the claimed system and method certainly purport to
accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
computer, rather than the patented method itself See Bancorp
Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (US.), 687
F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.").
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphasis added). See also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), to the extent that Appellants' claims
similarly collect information, analyze it in some fashion, and present or
communicate the result. The Court in Elec. Power guides: "we have treated
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (internal
citations omitted). "Generally, a claim that merely describes an 'effect or
result dissociated from any method by which [it] is accomplished' is not
directed to patent-eligible subject matter." Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1244
(quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Applying this reasoning to Appellants' claims on appeal, we similarly
find any purported faster or more efficient performance of the claimed steps
or acts merely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer
and/ or computer related elements, rather than from Appellants' claimed
steps or functions. Similarly, the enhanced availability of empirical
customer purchasing behavior data resulting from electronic
communications facilities, such as the Internet, which renders the claimed
9
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
techniques more commercially practical than if performed manually, does
not make the invention Internet-centric as in DDR Holdings. See App. Br. 8.
The claims in DDR Holdings were directed to a "challenge particular to the
Internet," and did not "broadly and generically claim 'use of the Internet' to
perform an abstract business practice (with insignificant added activity)."
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257, 1258.
Moreover, regarding Appellants' argument that the subject matter of
the claims is similar to claims found patentable that are "necessarily rooted
in computer technology," Appellants' reliance on DDR Holdings (App. Br.
8) is misplaced. For example, in DDR Holdings, the claims at issue
involved, inter alia, "web pages displays [with] at least one active link
associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a
selected one of a plurality of merchants" (claim 1, US 7,818,399). There is
no such web page with an active link, or anything meaningfully analogous,
in the claims here before us. As discussed supra, the Specification supports
the view that the computer related elements of the claims are generic and do
not constitute an inventive concept.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that, similar to
Example 21 of the July 2015 Update, the claims recite significantly more
than the abstract idea. See App. Br. 5.
First, claim 2 of Example 21 is a hypothetical claim, not an actual
claim present in US 7,035,914 Bl that was at issue in Google Inc. v.
Simpleair, Inc., Covered Business Method Case No. CBM 2014-00170 (Jan.
22, 2015), the Board decision on which hypothetical Example 21 is based.
Second, the Board did not hold a claim like claim 2 of Example 21, or
any claim in US 7,035,914 Bl for that matter, patent-eligible as a matter of
10
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
law. Rather, the Board found that the Petitioner had not "shown sufficiently
that claims 1-3, 7, and 22-24 [of US 7,035,914 Bl] are more likely than not
unpatentable as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101." Id. at 16. ("Petitioner's generalized arguments, not directed
to the specific language of the challenged claims, are insufficient to show
that the claims more likely than not are directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract idea.")
Third, be that as it may, claim 2 of Example 21 is not comparable to
what is claimed in the instant appeal. Claim 2 of Example 21 includes the
limitation "[an] alert [which] activates [a] stock viewer application to cause
the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber computer and to
enable connection via the URL to the data source over the Internet when the
wireless device is locally connected to the remote subscriber computer and
the remote subscriber computer comes online." Appellants have not
explained how claim 1 here on appeal contains any comparable limitation.
We are further unpersuaded that the abstract idea could not otherwise
be performed mentally using pencil (or pen) and paper. See App. Br. 6; Non-
Final Act. 4. Although the manual collection and processing of data may
have been cumbersome and/ or commercially impractical, Appellants fail to
persuade us that the recited processing can only be performed using a
computer or the Internet, much less that the invention does any more than
utilize conventional and generic computer and communication resources to
automate a manual process. Our prior cases have made clear that mere
automation of manual processes using generic computers of the Internet
does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In
those cases, "the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in
11
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
computers as tools." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Svcs., 859 F.3d
1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354).
For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error in connection with the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
and we sustain that rejection of the claims.
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
Written Description
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. App. Br. 8-9.
Instead, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner's response to Appellants'
argument as set forth at pages 10-11 of the Answer.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method
for purchased-based segmentation of customers and recites that the method
comprises, inter alia, "identifying ... a first set of customers," "generating
purchasing behavior of a customer," "calculating ... a likelihood that the
purchasing behavior ... correlates with each segment or cluster of first [ and
second] set[s] of segments or clusters," "determining [an] attribute
associated with the segment or cluster of the first set," and "identifying ...
customers ... having the highest likelihood of correlation and the at least
one attribute associated with the segment or cluster of the second set of
segments or clusters having the highest." Independent claim 13 is directed
to a corresponding system for purchased-based segmentation of customers.
12
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
In rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
Examiner finds that Appellants' Specification fails to describe the claimed
invention in sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would reasonably conclude that Appellants had possession of the claimed
subject matter at the time the application was filed (Non-Final Act. 11).
More particularly, the Examiner finds the computer of claim 1 is
recited at a high level of generality and its broadest reasonable
interpretation comprises only a processor, and memory to
simply [use] the generic computer to perform generic functions
of collecting data, processing information/data, filtering data,
comparing data, identifying options per rules and outputting
data per rules but the disclosure does not reveal the manner in
which the above cited limitations related to identifying,
calculating and determining steps are executed by a computer
based on segments or clusters received from first and second
feeds from first and second cluster servers.
Id. The Examiner concludes that Appellants' "failure to disclose any
meaningful structure/algorithm as to how the ... identifying, calculating and
determining steps are executed by a specific computer raises questions
whether Applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing."
Id.
Appellants contend
there is no obligation for the Specification to recite the
underlying mathematics or calculations ... because this
application is not directed to an abstract idea, but instead
addresses the shortcomings in the technological
intercommunications and data manipulation from disparate
systems, the mathematics are not per se the underlying features
needed for one having skill in the art to reasonably conclude
that the Applicant had possession of the claimed features.
13
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
App. Br. 8-9. That is, according to Appellants, "[b ]ecause the particulars of
the mathematics are not necessary for one having ordinary skill in the art to
reasonably conclude that Applicant possessed the claimed features, and
because the claimed features are described in the Specification, the [ written
description] rejection is improper." App. Br. 9.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. As the Examiner observes, the
issue is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would know how to
program the processor to perform the recited steps. Ans. 10. Instead, the
issue is whether the Specification describes the claimed invention in
sufficient detail that a person skilled in the art could reasonably conclude
that Appellants had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
date, see Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562---63 (Fed. Cir.
1991), i.e., that Appellants possessed the invention, including how to
program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed functions, at the
time the present application was filed.
We agree with the Examiner that although the claims refer to using a
computer to accomplish the claimed steps (claims 1-12 and 24) or as part of
a system for performing certain functions ( claims 13-23 and 25), the
Specification discloses, at most, a generic computer. Final Act. 11. Thus,
for example, although the claims recite "calculating ... a likelihood that the
purchasing behavior in the output for the customer of the first subset of
customers correlates with each segment or cluster of a first set of segments
or clusters received from a first data feed from a first cluster server," there is
no explanation of exactly what the step involves. 6
6 Appellants' "Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter" (App. Br. 2) is
based on an earlier version of the claims and was not updated to reflect the
amended claims appearing in the revised Claims Appendix filed Sept. 26,
14
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
The Federal Circuit has held that the written description requirement
may be satisfied when the particular steps, i.e., an algorithm, necessary to
perform the claimed function, are "described in the [S]pecification." See,
e.g., In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F .2d
1527, 1533-34 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Federal Circuit also has acknowledged
that the level of detail required for the written description requirement to be
met is case-specific. Id.
Appellants' Specification does not disclose an algorithm ( whether in
the form of a mathematical formula, in prose, as a flow chart, or in any other
manner) for performing the claimed functions, as called for in claims 1-25. 7
Nor does the Specification otherwise describe the claimed invention in
sufficient detail that a person skilled in the art could reasonably conclude
that Appellants possessed the invention, including how to program the
disclosed computer to perform the claimed functions, at the time the
application was filed.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
Objection to the Specification
The Examiner objects to the Specification under 35 U.S.C. 132(a)
because the amendment, filed May 26, 2015, is deemed to introduce new
matter into the disclosure. Non-Final Act. 11-12. Appellants contend the
2016. Presumably the referenced calculating step corresponds to the earlier
recited step of "automatically identifying ... a first subset of customers" the
support for which Appellants cite to Spec. ,r,r 27, 29, 30, and 31.
7 Figure 2 is a flowchart which, at best, shows a general, non-specific listing
of broad steps without description of how the disputed steps are effected.
15
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
objection should be withdrawn, arguing "the Specification supports all of the
elements recited by the claims." App. Br. 9. The Examiner responds, noting
"issues related to Objection to Specification are considered by making
petition to the Director," not normally by way of appeal, and, in any case, is
appropriate for the reasons given in connection with the written description
rejection. Ans. 12.
Ordinarily an objection is petitionable to the Director and a rejection
is appealable to the Board. When the issue of new matter presented is the
subject of both an objection and a rejection, the issue is appealable. Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2163 .06(II). Review
of New Matter Objections and/or Rejections (9th Ed. Rev. 7, Nov. 2015));
see also MPEP § 608.04(c); 35 U.S.C. § 134(a); 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)(l).
Because we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement, we likewise sustain the disputed objection to the Specification.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's objection to the Specification under 35
U.S.C. § 132(a).
16
Appeal2017-004903
Application 13/104,461
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
17