INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

2020001000 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 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.
14/453,547 08/06/2014 Michael TESTA INDE/0012USC1 4377
107456 7590 06/10/2020
Artegis Law Group, LLP
John Carey
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 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):
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL TESTA, VIKAS SRIVASTAVA, and
MICHELLE YIP CHEN
____________________

Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JASON J. CHUNG, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–16 and 27. Appellant has canceled claims 17–26. Appeal Br. 29.
We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to “an
exchange system and associated applications to facilitate FX [(foreign
exchange)] transactions in which trades are netted, executed, and distributed
in a fair manner.” Spec. ¶ 14. According to the Specification, “‘[n]etting’
refers to offsetting of buys and sells of like instruments against each other to
reduce the market amount of trades.” Spec. ¶ 70. In a disclosed
embodiment, a plurality of trade requests (which may specify a currency
pair, base currency amount, and a term currency amount) may be received
by an exchange system. Spec. ¶ 20. The received trades may be organized
by currency pair to determine trade amounts that may be processed
internally (i.e., trade netting). Spec. ¶¶ 21–22. Trades not subject to internal
processing may be executed on the market. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 26. In addition, the
exchange system may present to a user a plurality of netting plans that
account for transactional costs associated with each plan. Spec. ¶¶ 71–74.
Claims 1, 9, and 27 are independent claims. Claim 27 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(iv))
and is reproduced below:
27. A method for providing selectable trading plans to a user,
the method comprising:
generating a plurality of netting plans associated with one
or more trades, wherein each netting plan represents a different
strategy for offsetting at least one trade included in the one or
more trades organized by currency pairs against at least one other
trade included in the one or more trades organized by currency
pairs, wherein offsetting the at least one trade against the at least
one other trade comprises conducting the at least one trade and
the at least one other trade internally within an exchange system
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

3
to reduce a value of a market trade related to the one or more
trades, wherein the market trade is conducted externally by the
exchange system via one or more external parties, and at least
one netting plan in the plurality of netting plans includes a trade
cross between a first currency and a second currency via one or
more intermediate currencies and a residual trade to eliminate
residual values remaining in the one or more intermediate
currencies after the trade cross;
estimating, for each netting plan included in the plurality
of netting plans, a corresponding total cost associated with
executing the one or more trades according to the respective
netting plan,
causing the plurality of netting plans and the total cost
corresponding to each netting plan to be concurrently to be
displayed in a display region of a trading platform interface,
wherein the plurality of netting plans in the display region are
individually selectable via user interactions selecting to perform
trades according to a selected netting plan;
causing a representation of a refresh command to be
displayed in the display region of the trading platform interface
concurrently with the plurality of netting plans and the total cost
corresponding to each netting plan;
receiving a user interaction from the trading platform
interface selecting the representation of the refresh command;
and
automatically updating, for each netting plan included in
the plurality of netting plans, the corresponding total cost
displayed in the display region and associated with executing the
one or more trades according to the respective netting plan based
on a current market rate.
Appeal Br. 30–31 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–16 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 21–25.

Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

4
ANALYSIS2
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office has published revised guidance
for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically
with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office
Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)
then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially
recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. 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 Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257–58 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Per Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two prongs of
analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea),
and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application.
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application, see infra, the claim passes muster
under § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If the claim is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., recites a judicial exception and does not integrate the

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
July 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 18, 2019
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 16, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed January 31, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

5
exception into a practical application), the next step is to determine whether
any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than
the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 13–20; Reply
Br. 3–11. In particular, Appellant argues that under the Office Guidance, the
claims do not fall into any of the identified groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing
human activity). Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 3–4. Specifically, Appellant
argues that because the claims provide for computer activity that cannot be
performed by a human, the claims cannot be directed towards organizing
human activity. Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 3–4. Further, Appellant
argues that even if the claims did recite one of the recognized groupings of
abstract ideas, the claims further recite additional elements that integrate the
alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal Br. 14–19; Reply
Br. 4–9. In addition, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings that the
claims recite computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Appeal Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 9–10.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, we conclude Appellant’s claims
recite an abstract idea. More specifically, Appellant’s claims are generally
directed to generating and updating a plurality of netting plans, including an
estimated cost of execution, associated with one or more trades (i.e., foreign
exchange transactions). This is consistent with how Appellant describes the
claimed invention. See Spec. ¶¶ 14–15, 19–22, Abstract; Appeal Br. 13–15
(“the claims are directed towards techniques for generating different netting
plans, estimating a total cost associated with each netting plan, and
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

6
displaying these netting plans and total costs to a user via an interface”).
Generating and updating a plurality of netting plans, including an estimated
cost of execution, associated with one or more trades (i.e., foreign exchange
transactions) is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a
fundamental economic practice)—i.e., an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at
52; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party
to mediate settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus, an
abstract idea); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611–12 (2010) (concluding
hedging to be a fundamental economic practice and, therefore, an abstract
idea); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,
1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding the pending claims were directed to
the local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods to be
abstract).
Claim 27 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite generating and updating a plurality of netting plans,
including an estimated cost of execution, associated with one or more trades
(i.e., foreign exchange transactions), emphasized in italics:
27. A method for providing selectable trading plans to a user,
the method comprising:
generating a plurality of netting plans associated with one
or more trades, wherein each netting plan represents a different
strategy for offsetting at least one trade included in the one or
more trades organized by currency pairs against at least one other
trade included in the one or more trades organized by currency
pairs, wherein offsetting the at least one trade against the at least
one other trade comprises conducting the at least one trade and
the at least one other trade internally within an exchange system
to reduce a value of a market trade related to the one or more
trades, wherein the market trade is conducted externally by the
exchange system via one or more external parties, and at least
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

7
one netting plan in the plurality of netting plans includes a trade
cross between a first currency and a second currency via one or
more intermediate currencies and a residual trade to eliminate
residual values remaining in the one or more intermediate
currencies after the trade cross;
estimating, for each netting plan included in the plurality
of netting plans, a corresponding total cost associated with
executing the one or more trades according to the respective
netting plan,
causing the plurality of netting plans and the total cost
corresponding to each netting plan to be concurrently to be
displayed in a display region of a trading platform interface,
wherein the plurality of netting plans in the display region are
individually selectable via user interactions selecting to perform
trades according to a selected netting plan;
causing a representation of a refresh command to be
displayed in the display region of the trading platform interface
concurrently with the plurality of netting plans and the total cost
corresponding to each netting plan;
receiving a user interaction from the trading platform
interface selecting the representation of the refresh command;
and
automatically updating, for each netting plan included in
the plurality of netting plans, the corresponding total cost
displayed in the display region and associated with executing the
one or more trades according to the respective netting plan
based on a current market rate.
More particularly, the above demonstrates the concept of generating
and updating a plurality of netting plans, including an estimated cost of
execution, associated with one or more trades (i.e., foreign exchange
transactions) comprises (i) generating a plurality of netting plans associated
with one or more trades (i.e., the claimed generating step); (ii) including an
estimated cost of execution for each netting plan (i.e., the claimed estimating
step); and (iii) updating the netting plans to account for current market rates
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

8
(i.e., the claimed automatically updating step). We conclude that generating
and updating a plurality of netting plans, including an estimated cost of
execution, associated with one or more trades (i.e., foreign exchange
transactions) is a fundamental economic practice (i.e., a certain method of
organizing human activity and, therefore, an abstract idea). Compare Spec.
¶ 14 (describing participation in the foreign exchange markets and foreign
exchange transactions as part of an active hedging strategy), with Bilski, 561
U.S. at 611–12 (concluding hedging to be a fundamental economic practice).
Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there
are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application. 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017,
Jan. 2018).
Here, we find the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite
(i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or
technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a “particular machine” to
apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a
particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

9
More particularly, the additional limitations merely provide additional
detail to the generated netting plans (i.e., that at least one trade is conducted
internally, and at least one plan includes a trade cross via one or more
intermediate currencies and a residual trade). Any purported improvement,
however, relates to the abstract idea, and does not improve a computer,
technology, or a technical field. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We . . . look to whether the
claims in these patents 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.”)
(citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). Further, the additional limitations relate to displaying the generating
netting plans in a display region of a trading platform interface, displaying a
representation of a refresh command, receiving a user interaction to refresh
the netting plans using the most current market information, and again
displaying the (updated) netting plans. Receiving user input and displaying
the results of the netting plan generation step (as well as displaying a refresh
command) are extra-solutions activities that do not confer patent eligibility.
See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (explaining that “selecting information, by content or source, for
collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a
process from ordinary mental processes”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354
(recognizing “that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of
collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a
particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin.
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

10
Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that the pending
claims were directed to “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data,” and,
accordingly, patent-ineligible).
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 14–19), the
claims do not provide a technical improvement to a graphical user interface.
Rather, the claims merely use a conventional graphical user interface to
display specific information (e.g., netting plans). Further, the claims do not
provide a technical solution to a technical problem arising in the field of
trading computing systems. See Appeal Br. 19. Instead, as Appellant
explains in the Specification, the inputting of trade information may be
performed manually using techniques known in the art. Spec. ¶ 68; see also
Spec. ¶¶ 25, 28.
In addition, Appellant’s reliance (see Appeal Br. 15–17) on Core
Wireless3 is unavailing. In Core Wireless, the court concluded the claims
were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather were “directed to an
improved user interface for computing devices.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at
1362. More particularly, the court noted it was clear that the “claims are
directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly
those with small screens.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363 (emphasis
added). Here, the claims do not provide a solution to a technical limitation
of a graphical user interface, but merely use the graphical user interface to
display the generated and updated netting plans (as well as a refresh option).
The use of a refresh command to use current market rates is not an
improvement to the graphical user interface, but rather to the end user (i.e.,

3 Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

11
to use the most up-to-date market information). See also Trading Techs.
Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (distinguishing
between an alleged improvement to the way a computer operates versus an
improvement to assist the end user).
Moreover, in DDR Holdings,4 the Federal Circuit determined “the
claimed solution amount[ed] to an inventive concept for resolving [a]
particular Internet-centric problem,” i.e., a challenge unique to the Internet.
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–59; see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “[i]n DDR
Holdings, we held that claims ‘directed to systems and methods of
generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a
“host” website with content of a third-party merchant’ contained the
requisite inventive concept”). The Federal Circuit explained that the patent-
eligible claims specified “how interactions with the Internet are manipulated
to yield a desired result . . . that overrides the routine and conventional
sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258. The court reasoned that those claims recited a
technological solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology” that
addressed a “problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Here, unlike the claims at
issue in DDR Holdings, Appellant’s claims rely on a “computer network
[(i.e., exchange system)] operating in its normal, expected manner.” DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59; see also Spec. ¶¶ 53–60, 94–96.
Because we do not find the claims provide a technological
improvement as discussed above, for similar reasons, we do not find

4 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

12
Appellant’s reliance (see Appeal Br. 18) on Finjan,5 McRO,6 or Visual
Memory7 persuasive. See also Ans. 12–14.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to “significantly more” than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–
79). As stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to
determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” under step two
of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining
whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical
application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis, we
determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination of
limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at
a high level of generality. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, Appellant’s claims do not recite specific limitations (or a
combination of limitations) that are not well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Instead, the computer components (e.g., memory, processor,
reception module, trade organization module, and trade netting module) and

5 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
6 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
7 Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

13
functions (e.g., receiving information over a network, organizing data,
displaying data, and receiving user input) are recited and described at a high
level of generality. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 53–60, 94–97. As the Examiner finds
(see Ans. 17–18), the recited components and functions are well-understood,
routine, and conventional. Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum,8
we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claims merely recite generic
computer components (e.g., a computing device comprising a processor and
memory) performing generic computing functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional (e.g., receiving data, processing data, and
presenting the results of the data processing). See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v.
First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and
“database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Alice, 573
U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications
controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic
calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method
claims.”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.

8 On April 19, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy issued a memorandum entitled: Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (i.e., “the Berkheimer Memorandum”)
(discussing the Berkheimer decision) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF). Support
for a finding that an element was well-understood, routine, or conventional
may be shown by citation to one or more court decisions noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the element(s). See Berkheimer
Memorandum 3–4.
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

14
2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a
network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Further, to the extent Appellant is asserting a lack of rejection under
Sections 102 and/or 103 suggests the instant claims do not recite well
understood, routine, or conventional activities or, otherwise, recite an
inventive concept (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 9–10), we are not
persuaded. Subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a requirement
separate from other patentability inquiries. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90
(recognizing that the § 101 inquiry and other patentability inquiries “might
sometimes overlap,” but that “shift[ing] the patent-eligibility inquiry entirely
to these [other] sections risks creating significantly greater legal uncertainty,
while assuming that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to
do”); see also Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89 (“[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or
steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in
determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter”); Ass’n for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013)
(“[G]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself
satisfy the § 101 inquiry.”); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[e]ligibility and
novelty are separate inquiries”).
Additionally, to the extent Appellant contends the claims do not seek
to preempt an abstract idea (see Appeal Br. 20), we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error. “‘[W]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject
matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility.’” FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1098 (quoting Ariosa
Appeal 2020-001000
Application 14/453,547

15
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015));
see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract.”). Further, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed
only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework,
as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made
moot.” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379.
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–16 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–16 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 27 101 Patent Eligibility 1–16, 27

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED