HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2020

13772014 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2020)

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.
13/772,014 02/20/2013 Richard Ling H0037462 (002.1418) 6569
89955 7590 03/16/2020
HONEYWELL/LKGLOBAL
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
RASTOVSKI, CATHERINE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2020 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):
DL-PMT-SM-IP@Honeywell.com
honeywell@lkglobal.com
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD LING, KEVIN MOECKLY, and LARRY YEE

Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–17, and 19.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42—namely, Honeywell International, Inc. (Application Data
Sheet filed February 20, 2013 at 4), which is also identified as the real party
in interest (Appeal Brief filed August 22, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2).
2 See Appeal Br. 14–26; Reply Brief filed February 20, 2019 (“Reply Br.”)
at 4–13; Final Office Action entered June 1, 2018 (“Final Act.”) at 2–18;
Examiner’s Answer entered December 21, 2018 (“Ans.”) at 3–29.
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

2
The subject matter on appeal relates to “a system and method of
conducting a continuous performance analysis for systems that exhibit
variable performance characteristics at different operating conditions”
(Specification filed February 20, 2013 (“Spec.”) ¶ 1). Representative claim
1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, as follows:
1. A method of operating a system, the method comprising
the steps of:
continuously, and in real-time throughout operation of the
system:
sensing, at a current system condition, a first system
performance parameter and a second system performance
parameter, the first and second system performance
parameters corresponding to a measured performance
characteristic value of the system;
retrieving, from a memory, a first reference
performance curve associated with the first and second
system performance parameters at the current system
condition;
evaluating, in a processor, the first reference
performance curve at the measured performance
characteristic value of the system to retrieve a first
reference performance datum therefrom;
retrieving, from the memory, a second reference
performance curve associated with the first and second
system performance parameters at a selected reference
system condition;
evaluating, in the processor, the second reference
performance curve at the measured performance
characteristic value of the system to retrieve a second
reference performance datum therefrom;
calculating, in the processor, a difference between
the first reference performance datum and the second
reference performance datum, to thereby generate a
translation value;
translating, in the processor, the measured
performance characteristic value of the system an
amount equal to the translation value, to thereby
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

3
generate a corrected performance characteristic value of
the system at the selected reference system condition;
for the corrected performance characteristic
value, calculating an estimate of the first system
performance parameter at a predetermined value of the
second system performance parameter using two
previously stored performance characteristic curves
representative of the steady state relationship between
the first and second system performance parameters; and
operating the system based at least in part on the
estimate of the first system performance parameter.
(Appeal Br. 27–28 (emphases added)).
II. REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more (Ans. 3–29;
Final Act. 2–18).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Grouping of Claims
Referring to independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 19, collectively, the
Appellant relies on the same arguments for all claims on appeal (Appeal Br.
14–26). Therefore, we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1, which we
designate as representative pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims
2, 4–10, 12–17, and 19 stand or fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

4
2. The Examiner’s Position
The Examiner finds that the evaluating, calculating, and translating
limitations in reproduced claim 1 above constitute abstract idea limitations
whereas the remaining limitations are not (Ans. 3–5; Final Act. 2–3). The
Examiner explains that the evaluating, calculating, and translating (adding)
steps are mathematical operations, which have been identified by the courts
as abstract ideas (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds further that the claim does
not include additional elements that add to the claim significantly more than
the judicial exception (id.). In this regard, the Examiner emphasizes “that
there is no specific practical application which is recited by the claim: the
system is not identified, the performance parameters are not identified, and
the manner in which the system is operated in the last limitation of the claim
is not identified” (id.). The Examiner concludes that, therefore, “[t]he claim
would preempt the abstract idea it recites over a broad range of applications”
(id.). According to the Examiner, the retrieving steps “merely describe
generic computer structures (i.e. memory) and performing generic computer
functions (i.e. retrieving from memory) that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities known in the art” (id. at 6). Further, the
Examiner states that the operating step “is considered insignificant extra-
solution activity using conventional equipment since there is no positive
recitation that basing the ‘operating’ at least in part on the first system
performance parameter improves or even affects the operation of the
system” (id.). The Examiner states that “[l]ooking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking
at the elements taken individually” and that “[t]here is no indication that the
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

5
combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or
improves any other technology” (id. at 6–7).
3. The Appellant’s Contentions
Relying on Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 193 n.15 (1981), the
Appellant contends:
The independent claims each provide the technological
benefit of accurately and efficiently translating system/engine
performance characteristics of a variable geometry
system/engine from various system/flight operating conditions to
the rating point condition as system/flight operating conditions
change throughout operation/flight. This overcomes a
technological problem of limiting the operations of such
systems/engines at less than maximum operating conditions, and
the problems associated with requiring daily, pre-
operational/pre-flight power assurance tests, and is accurate
regardless of geometry.
(Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis added)). According to the Appellant,
“independent claims 1, 9, 16, and 19 relate to the automated updating
and control of a variable geometry system/engine” and, therefore, are not
directed to an abstract idea (id. at 20). In the Appellant’s view, the
“[E]xaminer overgeneralizes the independent claims” in determining
whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea—i.e., describes claim 1
“at too high a level of abstraction and ignores considering the claim as a
whole” (id.). In addition, the Appellant argues that the “claims each recites
features that are non-conventional, non-routine, and not well-understood in
the industry, thereby constituting an inventive concept for purposes of
Section 101” (id. at 21). The Appellant argues that the “claimed subject
matter is non-conventional as evidenced by none of the cited references
disclosing such subject matter” and that the Examiner’s statements to the
contrary are not in accordance with the April 19, 2018 Memorandum to the
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

6
Patent Examining Corps, entitled “Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (id.). Furthermore, the Appellant argues
that SiRF Technology v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) is
controlling (id. at 22–23). Lastly, the Appellant argues that under the
machine-or-transformation test, the claims satisfy this test because the
claimed subject matter is both tied to a particular machine and transforms
data representative of physical object or substances into a different state or
thing (id. at 23–24).
4. Opinion
The Appellant’s arguments fail to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As a preliminary matter, we observe that the Examiner’s Answer,
Final Action, and the Appeal Brief were filed prior to the USPTO’s 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Revised Guidance”),
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), as updated in October 2019. The Appellant
does, however, provide arguments under the Revised Guidance in its Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 4–12).
A. Claim Construction
We start with claim construction. MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934
F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Determining patent eligibility requires a
full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.”).
As the Examiner correctly points out, “there is no specific practical
application which is recited by the claim: the system is not identified, the
performance parameters are not identified, and the manner in which the
system is operated in the last limitation of the claim is not identified” (Ans.
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

7
5). Claim 1 recites any “system,” any “first system performance parameter,”
any “second system performance parameter,” any “first reference
performance curve,” any “second reference performance curve,” any
“translating” to “generate a corrected performance characteristic value of the
system at the selected reference system condition,” any “memory,” and any
“processor” (Appeal Br. 27–28). Indeed, claim 1 lacks any limitations
regarding any system “geometry”—let alone “variable geometry”—that
forms the basis of the Appellant’s key arguments (id. at 19–20).
Additionally, the claim does not limit the degree or nature of the correction
in the performance characteristic value. Although the Appellant relies on
paragraphs 23 and 43 of the Specification (id. at 19 n. 4), these paragraphs
relate to preferred embodiments—not definitions that positively limit claim
1’s scope to that argued by the Appellant. In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation. As this court has discussed, this methodology produces
claims with only justifiable breadth.”).
B. Principles of Law
Having construed certain key limitations recited in claim 1, we turn to
patent eligibility. An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101
to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

8
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)
and Alice. Alice at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance
with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed
to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party
to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent-eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854)));
and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v.
Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

9
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must 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, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
As indicated above, the PTO recently published revised guidance on
the application of § 101 with regard to the first step of the Alice/Mayo test
(i.e., Step 2A of the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance as
incorporated into MPEP § 2106 and as updated in October 2019). Thus,
under Step 1 of the Guidance, as revised, we determine whether the claimed
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

10
subject matter falls within the four statutory categories: process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter. Step 2A of the Guidance is two-
pronged, under which we look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then, under Step
2B, look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
C. Analysis
Guidance Step 1
We find that, under Step 1 of the Guidance, claim 1 falls within the
four statutory categories of patent subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Specifically, claim 1 recites a “method of operating a system” that
includes several steps. That, however, does not end our inquiry. Alice, 573
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

11
U.S. at 224 (“[M]any computer-implemented claims are formally addressed
to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101
inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social
sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant
concept.”).
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
Under the first prong of Step 2A, we find that claim 1 sets forth or
describes judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) by reciting mathematical
concepts. Specifically, claim 1 recites evaluating, calculating, and
translating steps. Under the Revised Guidance, concepts performed in the
human mind such as evaluation constitute mental processes that are regarded
as abstract ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n. 15 (citing, e.g., In re BRCA1 &
BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that concept of “comparing BRCA sequences
and determining the existence of alterations” is an “abstract mental
process”)). In addition, mathematical calculations (i.e., calculating or
translating) are mathematical concepts that are also regarded as abstract
ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. See also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of
mathematical calculations based on selected information” are directed to
abstract ideas). Thus, we conclude claim 1 recites judicial exceptions in the
form of abstract ideas.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Next, we address the second prong of Step 2A to determine whether
additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

12
practical application. We agree with the Examiner that the “additional
elements” in claim 1 include the sensing, retrieving, and operating steps that
add insignificant extra-solution activity. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n. 31
(explaining that, e.g., “mere data gathering such as a step of obtaining
information about credit card transactions so that the information can be
analyzed in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent”
constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity; also citing Flook, 437 U.S. at
590, to explain that a step of adjusting an alarm limit based on the output of
a mathematical formula was post-solution activity that did not render
method patent eligible).
Although the Appellant alleges that the “[t]he independent claims
each provide the technological benefit of accurately and efficiently
translating system/engine performance characteristics of a variable geometry
system” (Appeal Br. 19),3 claim 1 is not directed to any particular system—
let alone any particular type of engine operating under particular
conditions—and lacks any limitations directed to any “variable geometry” as
alleged (id. at 27–28). Here, the Appellant does not direct us to facts
establishing, e.g., an additional element that applies or uses the abstract ideas
in an improvement in a computer’s function(s) or an improvement to other
technology or technical field, particularly with respect to claim 1’s broad
scope that does not limit the “system” and/or its operational environment or
conditions. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.

3 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that “[a]n additional
element reflect[ing] an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
improvement to other technology or technical field” may be indicative of
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application).
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

13
Also, the Appellant argues that the current facts resemble those in
Diehr, which the Revised Guidance cites as exemplifying an additional
element effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a
practical application4 (id. at 19). In its Reply Brief, the Appellant urges that
data representative of physical objects and substances are transformed into a
corrected performance characteristic value of the system at a selected
reference condition (i.e., rating point) and into an estimate of the first
performance parameter at a predetermined value of the second performance
parameter to control operation (Reply Br. 8). But the Appellant does not
direct us to any facts that tie the judicial exception to any “particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim,” Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55, let alone establish that transformation occurs for every
“system” as broadly recited in claim 1. As the Examiner correctly observes,
“there is no specific practical application which is recited by the claim: the
system is not identified, the performance parameters are not identified, and
the manner in which the system is operated in the last limitation of the claim
is not identified” (Ans. 5). We do not find any language in claim 1 that even
specifies the degree of correction, the nature of the previously stored
performance characteristic curves, or the boundaries of the operation.
Therefore, as drafted, claim 1’s additional elements “merely recite[] the
words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or . . . uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55. See also Benson, 409 U.S. at 71–72 (concluding that permitting
a patent on the claimed invention “would wholly pre-empt the mathematical

4 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n. 28.
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

14
formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”).
Therefore, the Appellant’s allegation has no foundation.
Because the judicial exception recited in claim 1 merely amounts to
generic mathematical operations that fail to impart, in any meaningful way,
an effect on, or be integrated into, any practical application, we find that the
claim fails at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Guidance Step 2B
Under Step 2B, we also discern no error in the Examiner’s
determination that the additional elements, taken individually and in
combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to
significantly more than the judicial exception (Ans. 14; Final Act. 10).
Claim 1 recites conventional devices such as a “memory” to retrieve data (a
“first reference performance curve” or “second reference performance
curve”) in order to evaluate, calculate, and translate the sensed system
performance parameters in a generic “processor” taking into account
reference data to obtain a corrected performance characteristic value by
calculating an estimate of the first system performance parameter at a
predetermined value of the second system performance parameter in order to
operate the system.
The Appellant appears to disagree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans.
6) that using memory to retrieve data and performing generic computer
functions were well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the
art (Appeal Br. 21–22). Nevertheless, we do not understand the Appellant’s
argument to be that memories and processors per se for performing generic
computer functions (e.g., calculations) are new, as these tools are instantly
recognizable as conventional and well-understood devices. To the extent
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

15
that the Appellant is arguing that the abstract idea in claim 1 makes the
additional features non-conventional, non-routine, and not well-understood
(id. at 21 (“Such claimed subject matter is non-conventional as evidenced by
none of the cited references disclosing such subject matter.”), the fact that
the claim recites a more specific abstract idea or mental process that avoids a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not alter our
analysis because “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Here, the additional elements, individually and in combination, are
recited at such a high level of generality as insignificant extra-solution
activity to the judicial exception and, therefore, are indicative that an
inventive concept is not present in claim 1. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82 (“[S]imply
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.”). See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 590
(“[T]he Pythagorean theorem would not have been patentable, or partially
patentable, because a patent application contained a final step indicating that
the formula, when solved, could be usefully applied to existing surveying
techniques.”).
The Appellant’s reliance on Diehr and SiRF, cited above, are
misplaced. In Diehr, the invention applied the Arrhenius equation, without
pre-empting its use, to provide a specific improved rubber molding process
that significantly lessened the possibility of overcuring or undercuring by
constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly recalculating
the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital
Appeal 2019-002728
Application 13/772,014

16
computer, and automatically opening the mold press at the proper time.
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. SiRF involved “pseudoranges” that estimate the
distance from “[a] GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites” requiring an
estimation of “states” that are “associated with a satellite signal receiver,”
and the formation of a “dynamic model . . . to compute [the] position of the
satellite signal receiver.” SiRF, 601 F.2d at 1331–32. In SiRF, the claimed
method could not be performed without the specific use of a GPS receiver.
Id. at 1332. The key circumstances dictating the results in Diehr and SiRF
are not present in current claim 1, which broadly recite a “system” with
other broad limitations.
In view of our analysis under the steps of the PTO’s Revised
Guidance as updated in October 2019, we conclude that claim 1 is directed
to patent ineligible subject matter. For the foregoing reasons, and those
well-stated by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection as
maintained against representative claim 1, and, consequently by rule, all
claims on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10, 12–
17, 19
101  Patent
Ineligibility
1, 2, 4–10,
12–17, 19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED