STATOIL GULF SERVICES LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2020

14607974 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
14/607,974 01/28/2015 Giuseppe DE PRISCO 6530-0104PUS1 1840
2292 7590 01/13/2020
BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
DINH, LYNDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2020 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GIUSEPPE DE PRISCO, IVAR BREVIK, and
ALEJANDRO BELLO PALACIOS
____________________

Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, AVELYN M. ROSS, and
JANE E. INGLESE Administrative Patent Judges.

ROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1–30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed January 28, 2015
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action appealed from dated February 8, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 11, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer dated September 19, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Statoil Gulf Services LLC is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to systems and methods for
predicting pore pressure and providing “a warning if a high overpressure
regions is being drilled.” Spec. 1. According to the Specification,
[w]hen a sediment is buried or compacted at a relatively high
depositional rate, fluid may become trapped in pores within the
resulting structure. Typically, compaction and dewatering of
silts or clays is much faster than compaction of sand lithology.
The compaction of silts or clays lowers the permeability of these
sediments and, in turn, delays further the dewatering of sand
layers that may be present below the clays. Fluid trapped in a
sand formation in this manner exerts pressure (defined as pore
pressure) on the surrounding formation. Formations in which
pore pressure exceeds hydrostatic pressure at a given depth are
referred to as overpressured.
Id. And, when drilling in an overpressured formation, if the mud weight is
not high enough, the pore pressure can move formation fluids into the bore
hole or cause borehole collapse. Id. at 2. Therefore, according to Appellant,
to ensure safe and cost effective drilling, it is advantageous to predict jumps
in pore pressure ahead of the drill bit. Id. (explaining that “knowledge of
accurate pore pressure is crucial when drilling a well in order to ensure
success of the drilling operation.”).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for predicting jumps in pore pressure of a
subsurface, comprising:
obtaining a porosity and a resistivity log value while
drilling;
dividing, using a processor, a cross plot of the porosity and
the resistivity log values into two regions where a split of the two
regions is based on the following (I):
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

3

wherein R is the resistivity log value and Ø is the porosity log
value;
averaging the obtained porosity and resistivity log values
in the subsurface within a set interval to obtain a representative
value of resistivity and porosity for the subsurface within the set
interval;
rejecting intervals where the subsurface is a sand
formation that is not water saturated and
rejecting porosity values that are larger than a specified
threshold; and
giving a first warning of a high overpressure region if the
representative value of resistivity at the representative value of
porosity is lower than
Claims Appendix 1 (“Claims App.”). Claims 11 and 21, the remaining
independent claims, are directed to a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium having instructions for performing the method and a
downhole tool including a processor and memory for performing the
method, respectively. Id. at 3, 5.
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 8.3
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 21 and does not separately
argue independent claim 11 or the dependent claims. See generally Appeal
Br. We, therefore, limit our discussion to claims 1 and 21 and the remaining
claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016).

3 The Examiner withdraws the remaining rejections to claims 1–30 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 112 (a) and (b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection and do so for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following.
Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However,
the Supreme Court has long recognized certain exceptions to this section
including “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To determine whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice, guides
us. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we
first determine what concept the claim is “directed to” and whether that
concept is directed to an abstract idea. 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
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

5
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 methods for 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)). However,
not every claim that recites a mathematical formula is patent ineligible.
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 176 (1981).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we then 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.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. See Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance,
we determine whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four
statutory categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter. Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is two-pronged, under which we look
to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

6
(1) any judicial exception, 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 2019 Guidance 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 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));
(4) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Guidance at 56.
Step 1 (statutory category)
As an initial matter, the claims must recite at least one of four
recognized statutory categories, namely, machine, process, article of
manufacture, or composition of matter. MPEP § 2106(I); see 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Claim 1 recites a method. Claims App. 1. Furthermore, there is no
dispute that claim 1 falls within a statutory category. See Final Act. 8
(“Claims 1–30 all pertain to statutory category.”).
Step 2A, Prong 1 (recites a judicial exception)
According to Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance, we first consider whether
the Examiner erred in determining that the claim recites a judicial exception.
The Examiner determines that claims 1–30 are each directed to an abstract
idea. Final Act. 8. In particular, the Examiner identifies “dividing, using a
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

7
processor, a cross plot of the porosity and the resistivity log values into two
regions . . . ,” “averaging the obtained porosity and resistivity log values . . .
within a set interval to obtain a representative value of resistivity and
porosity,” and “rejecting intervals where the subsurface is a sand formation
that is not water saturated and rejecting porosity values that are larger than a
specified threshold” as abstract. Id. The Examiner explains that the
identified concepts have been determined to be abstract ideas by the courts
and refer to limitations that “are similar to collecting information, analyzing,
and provid[ing] the result after analyzing it or performing mathematical
correlations.” Id. at 8–9.
Appellant contends that the claims are not directed to a judicial
exception, but instead “recite a specific and concrete technological
implementation to solve a technological problem, and realizes a technical
improvement.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that in Electric Power
Group, cited by the Examiner, “the claims were directed to collecting and
analyzing data at a high degree of generality without any specific
implementations of those steps” whereas here, “the claimed invention solves
a problem by raising an alarm during the drilling based on a very specific
solution of how the data is analyzed.” Id.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and instead agree with
the Examiner that the claims recite abstract ideas, for the reasons that follow.
Applying the construct set forth in the 2019 Guidance, we first determine
whether claim 1 recites a judicial exception to patent eligibility. 2019
Guidance at 54. The 2019 Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted
groupings:
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

8
(a) mathematical concepts including “mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations”; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity,
such as “fundamental economic principles or practices,”
“commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people”; and
(c) mental processes including “observation, evaluation,
judgment, [and] opinion.”
Id. at 52.
Based on existing Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, the
2019 Guidance has identified “mental processes” as including “concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion).” Id. at 53. The “mental processes” judicial exception
also includes concepts that can be performed by a human with a pen and
paper as well as those that can be performed entirely in the mind. See
October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“2019 Update”) at 9 (“a
claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the
aid of a pen and paper recites a mental process”); Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding
claims to be patent ineligible because “with the exception of generic
computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that
foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and
paper.”). And “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.” Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing cases including Parker v. Flook,
437 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 2522 (1978), and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

9
93 S.Ct. 253 (1972)). The claims here recite abstract ideas according to these
principles.
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “dividing . . . a cross plot of
the porosity and the resistivity log values . . . based on” an equation,
“averaging the obtained porosity and resistivity log values . . . within a set
interval,” and “rejecting intervals where the subsurface is a sand formation
that is not water saturated and rejecting porosity values that are larger than a
specified threshold,” each of which involve mental processes or
mathematical concepts, i.e., abstract ideas. Claims App. 1.
By way of example, the Specification explains that the “dividing” step
involves dividing a cross plot of porosity and resistivity log values into two
regions based on the following mathematical relationship:

where R is the resistivity log value and is the porosity log value. Spec. 3.
In the “averaging” step, the resistivity and porosity log values are then
averaged based on an identified interval (e.g., distance) in order to obtain a
representative value for that interval. Id. According to the “discarding”
step, when the sand is not properly saturated and where the porosity exceeds
a certain threshold, that interval is discarded. Id. at 3–4. Thus, the
Specification makes clear that these limitations recite mental processes
because they analyze measured values to produce additional data and select
portions of that data to form conclusions, which are concepts that can be
performed by a human with a pen and paper as well as those that can be
performed entirely in the mind. 2019 Update 7 (citing Electric Power
Group, 850 F.3d at 1355); see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

10
Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“an invention directed to
collection, manipulation and display of data was an abstract process”); see
also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir.
2018)(“We have explained that claims focused on ‘collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ are
directed to an abstract idea”).
In view of the foregoing, we do not discern a reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that the claims recite abstract subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (integration into a practical application)
Having determined that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea, our analysis under the guidance turns to whether the claims
include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. 2019 Guidance at 54. In other words, we must now determine
whether the claims are directed to the abstract idea itself or whether it is
instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or
improvement to, the abstract idea such that there is a meaningful limit
imposed on the judicial exception. See id. at 54–55; see also, e.g., Alice, 573
U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
The Examiner finds that the additional elements “are not sufficient to
make the claim as a whole amount to significantly more that the abstract
idea itself.” Final Act. 9. For example, the Examiner finds that the step of
obtaining a porosity and resistivity log value and giving a warning of high
over pressure is well-understood and routine and is simply manipulating the
data. Id.
Appellant argues that “the independent claims provide a method,
CRM [computer readable memory], or downhole tool to give a warning
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

11
of increased pore pressure during a drilling operation” and “does not
monopolize the general idea of analyzing pore pressure data and does not
preempt other alternatives.” Appeal Br. 15–16.
On this record, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Here,
the additional elements beyond the identified abstract mental processes
include: “obtaining a porosity and resistivity log value while drilling,” a
processor, and “giving a first warning of a high overpressure region.” See
Claims App. 1. The “obtaining” and “giving a warning” steps amount to
insignificant extra-solution activity that merely collects the data and then
displays, through a warning, the result of the abstract idea recited in
Appellant’s claims. 2019 Guidance (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79
(concluding that additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug
administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity, which was
insufficient to confer patent eligibility) and Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (step of
adjusting an alarm limit based on the output of a mathematical formula was
“post-solution activity” and did not render method patent eligible).
Therefore, neither step integrates the abstract idea into a practical
application.
The last limitation of claim 1, i.e., a processor, similarly does not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Our guidance
instructs that when “an additional element . . . merely includes instructions
to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a
tool to perform an abstract idea,” such implementation does not integrate the
exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance 55.
Appellant additionally asserts that claim 21, directed to a downhole
tool, is not an abstract idea because it “does not tie up the use of the
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

12
mathematical relationships generally.” Appeal Br. 16. According to
Appellant, the instant claim is similar to the “robotic arm assembly”
described in the 2014 Interim Examination Guidelines and is clearly not an
abstract idea. Id.
On this record, we disagree. Claim 21 applies the abstract idea to “a
downhole tool” by virtue of the preamble. Claims App. 5–6. In particular,
Claim 21 recites:
21. A downhole tool configured to perform a method of
predicting jumps in pore pressure of a subsurface the
downhole tool:
a processor;
a memory comprising software instructions for
enabling the downhole tool under control of the processor
to:
obtain a porosity and a resistivity log value while
drilling;
divide a cross plot of the porosity and the resistivity
log values into two regions where a split of the two regions
is based on the following (I):

wherein R is the resistivity log value and 0 is the porosity
log value;
average the obtained porosity and resistivity log
values in the subsurface within a set interval to obtain a
representative value of resistivity and porosity for the
subsurface within the set interval;
reject intervals where the subsurface is a sand
formation that is not water saturated and
reject porosity values that are larger than a specified
threshold; and
give a first warning of a high overpressure region if
the representative value of resistivity at the representative
value of porosity is lower than
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

13
Id. Our guidance explains that “the claimed invention may integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it
improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an
improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. 2019
Update 12–13. Here, however, the recited “downhole tool” is nothing more
than a processor and instructions that perform the recited judicial exception
and does not reflect an improvement to the processor’s functioning. Thus,
claim 21 “merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a
computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,”
which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 2019
Guidance 55.
In evaluating these additional elements, we conclude that the claims
as a whole do not integrate the recited mental process steps into a practical
application.
Step 2B (inventive concept)
Consistent with the 2019 Guidance, “[i]t is possible that a claim that
does not ‘integrate’ a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent
eligible.” 2019 Guidance 56. In step 2B, we consider the elements of the
claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, to assess whether
the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible
subject matter. Id.; see Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “An inventive concept
that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention 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
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

14
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In this context, we consider whether the additional
elements simply append “well-understood, routine, and conventional”
elements, particularly at a high level of generality to the judicial exception.
2019 Guidance 56. “Whether something is well-understood, routine, and
conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual
determination.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2018).
Here, we determine that the claims do not recite “significantly more”
than an abstract idea. The Examiner finds that “obtaining a porosity and a
resistivity log value while drilling is well-understood, generic and routine in
the art (i.e., using a conventional tool to collect data while drilling) and
giving a first warning of a high overpressure region . . . is the result after
manipulating the data (i.e., output the data).” Final Act. 4; see also id. at 9
(determining the claims use well-understood, generic, and routine
techniques). The Specification does not describe the combination of
gathering information, processing that information, and then outputting
information in the form of a warning as anything other than obtaining in a
conventional manner and utilizing generic equipment to process and output
the data. See generally Spec.; see also id. at 6, 7 (describing generic use of
“instructions” or a “processor” to perform the recited steps). Further, as the
Examiner finds, the prior art of record describes obtaining porosity and
resistivity log data as indicative of the pore pressure in a subsurface (Final
Act. 10–12 (citing Nguyen4 ¶¶ 5–6, 14–16 and Dunham5, col. 4, ll. 19–45

4 Ha Dinh Nguyen, US 2015/0267527 A1, published September 24, 2015
(“Nguyen”).
5 Lanny L. Dunham, US 5,992,228, issued November 30, 1999 (“Dunham”).
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

15
and col. 3, ll. 5–20)) and outputting a warning of a high overpressure region.
Final Act. 12 (citing DeBree6 ¶¶ 26, 45, 48–49, 56). Finally, Appellant does
not direct our attention to any record evidence that would show the
additional method steps or structural elements are more than
well-understood, routine, and conventional. See generally Appeal Br.
We acknowledge Appellant’s assertion that “the claimed invention
constitutes a measurement process of a real world parameter[, that is,] . . .
[it] gives a warning of a jump in pore pressure during a drilling operation . . .
[and therefore,] is not an abstract idea but involves a real-world
implementation.” Appeal Br. 13. But, the Examiner additionally finds that
“a downhole tool giving a warning of a jump in pore pressure during drilling
operation is well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in the prior
art of record.” Ans. 5; see also DeBree ¶¶ 26 (describing the method as
useful for obtaining “an early warning during a drilling operation of a
sudden abnormality in the pore fluid pressure in the region that is about to be
drilled”), 56 (explaining that an abrupt increase in stress rate “can be
interpreted as a warning for the upcoming pressure boundary”). Appellant
does not challenge the Examiner’s additional factual findings.7 We
therefore adopt these findings as fact. Cf. In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424,
425 n.3 (CCPA 1964) (a finding not shown by the Appellant to be erroneous
may be accepted as fact).
Furthermore, the abstract subject matter itself—i.e., the mental
process of measuring a parameter—cannot supply the inventive concept

6 DeBree, et al., US 2007/0083332 A1, published April 12, 2007
(“DeBree”).
7 We observe that no reply brief was filed by Appellant.
Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

16
under Step 2B. See BSG Tech. LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F .3d 1281,
1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than
that ineligible concept.”); Berkheimer, 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(Moore, J., concurring) (“Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous
cases from [the Federal Circuit] which have held claims ineligible because
the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.”). Therefore, after
considering the elements both individually and as an ordered combination.
we conclude that the elements do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself and is patent ineligible.
For the reasons discussed above and those the Examiner provides, we
do not find that the Examiner reversibly erred and, therefore, sustain the
rejection of claims 1–30.
CONCLUSION
Appellant failed to identify a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C § 101 as directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–30 is
affirmed as follows:
Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–30 § 101
Eligibility
1–30

Appeal 2019-002871
Application 14/607,974

17
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED