Xu, Richard H.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 18, 201914151787 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/151,787 01/09/2014 Richard H. Xu 399-1001-US02 6748 77795 7590 12/18/2019 OWENS LAW FIRM, PC 4409 N. Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 EXAMINER BRINDLEY, BENJAMIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3697 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD H. XU ____________ Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and LARRY HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23. Claims 4, 9, 15–20, 22, and 24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicants” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is 7Tel Inc. See Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate “generally to systems and methods for providing mobile communication services. More specifically, the embodiments relate to dynamically switching between communication profiles on a mobile device so as to provide mobile communication services, and in particular mobile telephone services, to subscribers at a reduced cost.” Spec. ¶ 6 (emphasis added). Rejections A. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. Final Act. 2. B. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite C. Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Motorola Limited, GB 2,313,257 A (hereinafter, “Motorola”), British Telecommunications, EP 1,727,383 A1 (hereinafter, “BT”), and Kung et al., U.S. 6,775,267 B1; issued Aug. 10, 2004 (hereinafter “Kung”). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more? Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite? Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 3 Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references? ANALYSIS We reproduce infra independent claim 1 in Table One. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Subject Matter Eligibility — 2019 Revised Guidance The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). This new guidance is applied in this Opinion. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people);2 and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).3, 4 2 Referred to as “Step 2A, Prong One” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A, Prong One”). 3 Referred to as “Step 2A, Prong Two” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A, Prong Two”). 4 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 08.2017 (rev. Jan. 2018). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 4 See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52, 55. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. When the judicial exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. For example, we 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, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.5 See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Because there is no single definition of an “abstract idea” under Alice step 1, the PTO has recently synthesized, for purposes of clarity, predictability, and consistency, key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the “abstract idea” exception includes the following three groupings: 5 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 5 1. Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; 2. Mental processes— concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and 3. Certain methods of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. According to the 2019 Revised Guidance, “[c]laims that do not recite [subject] matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas,” except in rare circumstances. Even if the claims recite any one of these three groupings of abstract ideas, these claims are still not “directed to” a judicial exception (abstract idea), and thus are patent eligible, if “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.” See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. For example, limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: 1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field — see MPEP § 2106.05(a); 2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine — see MPEP § 2106.05(b); Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 6 3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing — see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and 4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(e). In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: 1. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea — see MPEP § 2106.05(f); 2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and 3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use — see MPEP § 2106.05(h). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (“Prong Two”). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 7 Rejection A under 35 U.S.C. § 101 2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One6 The Judicial Exception Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we begin our analysis by first considering whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) mental steps, and (c) certain methods of organizing human activities. We note the Examiner concludes that all claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 recite one or more abstract ideas, including: business relations relative to mobile device operations, monitoring and reporting, evaluation of data, and using categories to organize, store and transmit information (a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea)), with the abstract idea involving a fundamental economic practice, an idea ‘of itself’, and certain methods of organizing human activity (such as recording and determining applicability of accounts, identification of account terms, collecting and comparing known information (see Classen), using categories to organize, store and transmit information (see Cyberfone), and data recognition and storage (see Content Extraction) - Step 2A or part 1 Mayo test), the claimed invention lacking improvements to the function of the computer itself or technical field. Final Act. 5. In Table One below, we identify in italics any specific claim limitations that we conclude recite an abstract idea (none). We also identify in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations that are generic computer components: 6 Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 8 TABLE ONE Independent Claim 1 2019 Revised Guidance [a] A computer implemented method for dynamically receiving a local communication profile at a mobile device, the method comprising: A method (i.e., process) falls under the statutory subject matter class of a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Whoever 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 requirements of this title.”). The mobile device is an additional non-abstract limitation. [b] at a mobile device having one or more cellular communication processors, memory, and a SIM card, the SIM card configured to store a plurality of communication profiles of the same cellular communication type, including a global cellular network profile and one or more local cellular network profiles: Storing data content (i.e., a plurality of communication profiles) is an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The mobile device, the one or more cellular communication processors, memory, and the SIM card are additional non-abstract limitations. [c] determining a geographic location of the mobile device; Determining a geographic location of the mobile device is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). [d] determining whether a local cellular network profile associated with the Determining whether a local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is stored in the Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 9 Independent Claim 1 2019 Revised Guidance geographic location is stored in the memory; memory is insignificant extra- solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). [e] upon determining that a local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is not stored in the memory: Evaluating a condition precedent is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The memory is an additional non- abstract limitation. [f] selecting the global cellular network profile as an active communication profile; Selecting the local cellular network profile as the active communication profile is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). [g] moving the active communication profile into an active location on the SIM card; Moving the active communication profile into an active location on the SIM card is insignificant extra- solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The SIM card is an additional non- abstract limitation. [h] resetting the mobile device; Resetting the mobile device is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The mobile device is an additional non-abstract limitation. [i] sending a request to register with a global cellular network using the global cellular network profile; Sending a request to register with a global cellular network is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 10 Independent Claim 1 2019 Revised Guidance The global cellular network is an additional non-abstract limitation. [j] receiving registration information for the global cellular network; Receiving registration information for the global cellular network is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The global cellular network is an additional non-abstract limitation. [k] connecting to a communication management system via the global cellular network; Connecting to a communication management system is insignificant extra- solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The communication management system and the global cellular network are additional non-abstract limitations. [l] transmitting to the communication management system, via the first local cellular network, a request for a local cellular network profile, where the request includes the geographic location of the mobile device; Transmitting a request for a local cellular network profile is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The communication management system, the first local cellular network, and the mobile device are additional non-abstract limitations. [m] in response to transmitting the geographic location, and automatically without human intervention, Receiving, from the communication management system, a local cellular network profile is insignificant extra- solution activity. 2019 Revised Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 11 Independent Claim 1 2019 Revised Guidance receiving, from the communication management system, a local cellular network profile for connecting to a local cellular network of the one or more local cellular networks, where the local cellular network profile is different to the global cellular carrier profile; Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The communication management system, and the local cellular network of the one or more local cellular networks are additional non- abstract limitations. [n] selecting the local cellular network profile as the active communication profile; Selecting the local cellular network profile as the active communication profile is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). [o] moving the active communication profile into an active location on the SIM card; Moving the active communication profile into an active location on the SIM card is insignificant extra- solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The SIM card is an additional non- abstract limitation. [p] resetting the mobile device; Resetting the mobile device is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The mobile device is an additional non-abstract limitation. [q] connecting to the local cellular network using the local cellular network profile; and Connecting to the local cellular network using the local cellular network profile is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 12 Independent Claim 1 2019 Revised Guidance Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The local cellular network is an additional non-abstract limitation. [r] communicating with another device via the local cellular network as if the mobile device was a local mobile device. Communicating with another device via the local cellular network as if the mobile device was a local mobile device is insignificant post-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The “another device,” the local cellular network, the mobile device, and the local mobile device are additional non-abstract limitations. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the claims: (1) are not fundamental economic practices (Appeal Br. 25–24), (2) are not certain methods of organizing human activities, (Appeal Br. 29–30, (3) are not an “idea of itself” (Appeal Br. 30), and (4) are not mathematical relationships/formulas. (Appeal Br. 31–32). Based upon our analysis in Table One above, we agree. With respect to all claims before us on appeal, we find no claim language that recites a method of organizing human activities or a fundamental economic practice. Nor do we find claim language that recites a mathematical relationship or formula. We focus our analysis under the 2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One, on the question of whether the following recited steps “c–e” (“determining”), and steps “f” and “n” (“selecting”) could reasonably be performed alternatively as mental processes: Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 13 [c] determining a geographic location of the mobile device; Determining a geographic location of the mobile device is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). [d] determining whether a local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is stored in the memory; Determining whether a local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is stored in the memory is insignificant extra- solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). [e] upon determining that a local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is not stored in the memory: Evaluating a condition precedent is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The memory is an additional non- abstract limitation. [f] selecting the global cellular network profile as an active communication profile; Selecting the local cellular network profile as the active communication profile is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). . . . [n] selecting the local cellular network profile as the active communication profile; Selecting the local cellular network profile as the active communication profile is insignificant extra-solution activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 55 n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Considering claim 1 as a whole under the 2019 Revised Guidance, it is our view that the “method for dynamically receiving a local communication profile at a mobile device,” including the aforementioned “determining” and “selecting” steps, could not reasonably be performed Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 14 alternatively in the human mind, or with the aid of pen and paper.7 Such misinterpretation of Appellant’s claim language (particularly the recited “determining” and “selecting” steps regarding the geographic location information, the memory, and the cellular network profile ) would, if put literally into practice, slow the cellular network to a snail’s pace, effectively rendering it inoperative for its intended purpose, such that the cellular network would hypothetically lack utility under 101. As a hypothetical example, when making a 911 emergency call, would a person reasonably have to first mentally: (1) determine a geographic location of the mobile device, (2) determine whether a local cellular network profile associated with the location is stored in the memory, and, (3) upon determining that a local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is not stored in the memory, then, (4) select the global cellular network profile as an active communication profile? See Claim 1. Assuming the person could actually determine if the local cellular network profile associated with the geographic location is stored in the memory, the delay incurred by performing such mental steps would likely render the 911 emergency network useless. It is therefore our view that a cellular network that was dependent upon alternative human mental steps to perform millions of repetitive low level daily network operations would be 7 Cf. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under § 101). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 15 rendered useless. Moreover, such claim interpretation on our part would be overly broad and unreasonable. See supra, n.6. Therefore, we conclude our analysis for patent eligibility at Step 2A, Prong One, because we conclude that claim 1, and the remaining claims 2, 3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 before us on appeal, do not recite an abstract idea. Accordingly, we have applied the 2019 Revised Guidance and are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection A under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of all claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 on appeal. Rejection B of Claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 Under § 112, second paragraph8 The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 as being indefinite. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner’s rejection appears to be based essentially upon repeated findings that there is no basis in the Specification for the purported indefinite claim language. Id. For example, the Examiner finds: “‘Cellular communication processors’ does not appear in the specification” and the Examiner concludes “it remains unclear as to any distinct processing or communication qualities of such processors.” Thus, the Examiner’s conclusion that particular claim terms are indefinite appears to be grounded essentially upon the purported lack of written-description support found by the Examiner. Final Act. 3–5. However, we find the claim terms the Examiner concludes are indefinite are cellular network terms having a plain meaning. Moreover, the 8 “Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is an issue of claim construction and a question of law.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 16 Examiner has not developed the record to apply a lower threshold of indefiniteness consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation, as applied during patent examination, and as addressed by the precedential PTAB holding of Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential); see also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014).9 Therefore, after reviewing the record, we are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner erred. See Appeal Br. 10–20. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s Rejection B of all claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Rejection C of Independent Claim 1 under § 103(a) Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our analysis on the following argued limitation that we find to be dispositive regarding Rejection C of all claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23: Did the Examiner err by finding that Motorola, BT, and Kung would have collectively taught or suggested the disputed [h] and [p] (twice recited) limitation “resetting the mobile device,” within the meaning of independent claims 1 and 21? See supra, n.6. 9 “[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim . . . indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); accord McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566 at *4 (PTAB 2017) (precedential). Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 17 Appellant contends Motorola fails to disclose “resetting the mobile device” as recited in both independent claims 1 and 21. See Appeal Br. 47–48. In support, Appellant notes the Examiner relies upon Motorola, at page 9, lines 1–30, page 11, lines 1–14, and Figure 6. Appeal Br. 48. Appellant avers: “Despite a careful reading of the cited portions of Motorola, Applicants could find absolutely no support for the Examiner's position that Motorola teaches resetting the mobile device.” Id. The Examiner disagrees with Appellant, and further explains the basis for the rejection: “In response to [A]ppellant’s argument (argument — page 48) contending that Motorola does not teach resetting the mobile device, Motorola identifies communications from either resident programming or non-resident functions, subject to setting. (see page 9, lines 1–33.).” Ans. 12 (emphasis added). Appellant responds in the Reply Brief: In response to Applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief that Motorola fails to disclose “resetting the mobile device,” the Examiner states that “Motorola identifies communications from either resident programming or nonresident functions, subject to setting. (see page 9, lines 1–33.).” Examiner's Answer at pg. 12. However, the cited portions of Motorola state no such thing. For this reason alone, the Examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness. Reply Br. 44 (emphasis added). Based upon our review of Motorola (and the BT and Kung references), we find no teaching of “resetting the mobile device,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 21. There is no literal mention of a reset or a “setting” on page 9 of Motorola. Although a literal teaching is not required, we nevertheless find the Examiner’s statement that identifying Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 18 communications from either resident programming or non-resident functions is a type of “setting” missed the mark, because such “setting” or configuring does not necessarily require a reset. Therefore, we find the evidence cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 9; Ans. 12) is insufficient to show that “the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection C under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of all claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 on appeal. CONCLUSIONS Under our 2019 Revised Guidance, as governed by relevant case law, we conclude all claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. Appeal 2018-002082 Application 14/151,787 19 DECISION SUMMARY REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 101 Subject-matter eligibility 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 112, second paragraph Indefiniteness 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 103(a) Motorola, BT, Kung 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 21, 23 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation