3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2021

2021000786 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2021)

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.
14/765,040 07/31/2015 Cathy L Plunkett 71071US004 5307
32692 7590 07/16/2021
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
EXAMINER
PAULS, JOHN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2021 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CATHY L. PLUNKETT, MICHAEL S. BEE,
MARCUS T. BROWN, and KIM A. COBLER
____________

Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Cathy L Plunkett, Michael S Bee, Marcus T Brown, and Kim A
Cobler (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection
of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–15, 17, 18, 21–24, 27, and 28, the only claims pending
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of medical billing for facility and
professional services. Spec. para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method of processing medical data via one or more
computers, the method comprising:
[1] receiving,
at the one or more computers,
patient encounter textual data
describing a patient encounter with a healthcare
organization;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed July 24, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 21,
2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 21, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as 3M
Company and its affiliate 3M Innovative Properties Company (Br. 2).

Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
3

[2] determining,
via the one or more computers,
one or more facility reimbursement facts
based on natural language processing of the patient
encounter textual data;
[3] determining,
via the one or more computers,
one or more professional reimbursement facts
based on natural language processing of the patient
encounter textual data;
[4] outputting,
via the one or more computers,
a user interface
including the determined facility reimbursement
facts and the determined professional
reimbursement facts,
wherein the user interface includes an
inconsistency between the determined facility
reimbursement facts and the determined
professional reimbursement facts;
[5] receiving,
via the one or more computers
and
based upon user input,
an edit
to conform the determined facility reimbursement
facts
to be consistent with the determined professional
reimbursement facts;
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
4

[6] comparing,
via the one or more computers and after
receiving the edit,
the determined facility reimbursement facts and
the determined professional reimbursement facts
to
pre- determined rules identifying an error in the
determined facility reimbursement facts or the
determined professional reimbursement facts
and, in response,
[7] outputting
a first prompt in the user interface
indicating additional input is required
based upon the error
and
a second prompt in the user interface
indicating further edits a user should make;
[8] receiving,
via the one or more computers in response to the
first or second prompt and based upon user input,
a further edit
to the determined facility reimbursement facts or
the determined professional reimbursement facts;
and
[9] receiving,
at the one or more computers,
an indication
that the facility reimbursement facts and the
professional reimbursement facts are ready for
subsequent billing-related processing.

Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
5

Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–15, 17, 18, 21–24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us?” To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
6

that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use 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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites receiving patient data, determining reimbursement fact data,
outputting interface data, receiving edit data, comparing fact data to rules
data, outputting user interface prompts data, receiving edit data, and
receiving indication data. Determining fact data and comparing data are
rudimentary data analysis. A user interface is just data displayed on a screen
where other data can be entered or displayed. Outputting interface and
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
7

prompts data are displaying data making up the interface. Thus, claim 1
recites receiving, analyzing, and displaying data. None of the limitations
recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but
instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods of
organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or
legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
managing commercial billing. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to check billing detail data for
errors using rules and eliciting corrections. The advice to check billing
detail data for errors using rules and elicit corrections involves billing-

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
8

related processing, which is an economic act, and conform facility
reimbursement facts, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “billing-related processing,” which
is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing billing.
Similarly, claim 1 recites “conform the determined facility reimbursement
facts,” which is also characteristic of managing commercial billing.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to reviewing
patient encounter records, identifying an inconsistency, verifying and
updating reimbursement facts for billing purposes, and finalizing the
reimbursement facts, to avoid delayed payments for performed services and
equipment usage. Final Act. 6. The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a
method of processing medical data. The steps in claim 1 result in managing
commercial billing by checking billing detail data for errors using rules and
eliciting corrections absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1, 5, 8, and 9 recite receiving
data. Limitations 2–4, 6, and 7 recite generic and conventional analyzing
and displaying of patient billing data, which advise one to apply generic
functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for
checking billing detail data for errors using rules and eliciting corrections.
To advocate checking billing detail data for errors using rules and eliciting
corrections is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological
operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
medical billing for facility and professional services. Thus, all this intrinsic
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
9

evidence shows that claim 1 recites managing commercial billing. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial
billing is managing commercial activity among people. The concept of
managing commercial billing by checking billing detail data for errors using
rules and eliciting corrections is one idea for communicating proper
information. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might
conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Salwan v. Iancu, 825 F. App'x
862, 865 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied sub nom. Salwan v. Hirshfeld, No.
20-7519, 2021 WL 1520998 (U.S. Apr. 19, 2021) (non-precedential)
(directed to communication of patient health information).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, and
displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, and display
and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology.
See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
10

on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such,
claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, and displaying data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea. This is the
Examiner’s alternate determination. Final Act. 5.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
managing commercial billing by checking billing detail data for errors using
rules and eliciting corrections, which is a commercial and legal interaction,
one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the
Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the
“ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
11

Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1, 5, 8, and 9 are pure data
gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter
this. Steps 4 and 7 recite basic conventional data operations such as
displaying, updating, and storing data. Steps 2, 3, and 6 recite generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial billing by checking billing detail data for errors using
rules and eliciting corrections as performed by a generic computer. This is
no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the
generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does
not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different
generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on

8 The Specification describes using servers, laptop computers, desktop
computers, notebook computers, tablet computers, hand-held computers,
smart phones, and the like. Spec. para. 89.
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
12

the concept of managing commercial billing by checking billing detail data
for errors using rules and eliciting corrections under different scenarios. It
does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer
functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more
than an instruction to apply managing commercial billing by checking
billing detail data for errors using rules and eliciting corrections using some
unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to
transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses 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.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial billing by advising one to check billing detail data for
errors using rules and elicit corrections, as distinguished from a
technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This
amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
13

methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The
claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, and displaying data amounts to electronic
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
14

data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All
of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer
activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec.
Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See
also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-display
is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting,
offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment
recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
15

2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ ”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226.
As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial billing by advising one to check
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
16

billing detail data for errors using rules and elicit corrections, without
significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–10 and Answer 3–10 and
reach similar legal conclusions. As there is no Reply Brief, we note in
particular the following.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that because the
claims recite using a computer, they cannot be directed to mental steps and
because the claims recite medical document processing, they cannot be
directed to organizing human behavior. Br. 4. As determined above, the
claims are an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain
method of organizing human activity because managing commercial billing
is managing commercial activity among people. The concept of managing
commercial billing by checking billing detail data for errors using rules and
eliciting corrections is one idea for communicating proper information. The
steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, and
displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the use of a
computer to perform steps makes the claims a practical application. Br. 5.
This is a tautological argument, viz, the use of a computer is a practical
application because it uses a computer. Simply using a computer is
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
17

insufficient to confer eligibility. “When claims like the Asserted Claims are
directed to an abstract idea and merely require generic computer
implementation, they do not move into section 101 eligibility territory.”
Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1374
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “claims . . . do
more than collect and display information. They recite specific process
steps to display particular prompts, and perform computer processing in
response to the prompts, in helping a user resolve errors.” Br. 6. Displaying
data is a generic conventional computer operation. Generic computer
processing is just that, generic and conventional.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument as to dependent claims
that
displaying information in a single or multiple windows is not
necessarily well-understood, routine, and conventional in a
general sense for all situations. As explained in the Application
as identified above, displaying reimbursement facts in a single
window can be advantageous in identifying inaccuracies in some
situations, and displaying the reimbursement facts in multiple
windows can be advantageous in other situations.
Br. 7.
This is an argument for novelty and utility. Neither of these is sufficient to
confer eligibility. “A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating
§ 102 novelty.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive
concept, ‘no matter how groundbreaking the advance.’” Trading Techs.
Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Appeal 2021-000786
Application 14/765,040
18

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–15, 17, 18, 21–24, 27, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9–15, 17, 18, 21–24, 27, and 28 is
affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 6,
9–15, 17,
18, 21–24,
27, 28
101 Eligibility 1–3, 5, 6,
9–15, 17,
18, 21–24,
27, 28

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED