Aleksandra Falkowska et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2019

14330196 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2019)

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.
14/330,196 07/14/2014 Aleksandra Falkowska PT1223US00 6201
132326 7590 08/27/2019
Thompson Hine LLP
10050 Innovation Drive
Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45342-4934
EXAMINER
WALSH, EMMETT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2019 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):
ipdocket@thompsonhine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ALEKSANDRA FALKOWSKA, AMAL HJIJE,
CAROLINA RAMON, SEBASTIEN BARDIN, and CELINE DESPOIX1
_____________

Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for a business method re-pricing
of low cost carrier travel itineraries in connection with itinerary changes in a
manner that is compatible with systems and/or workflows utilized for

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is, Amadeus S.A.S.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

2

standard carriers. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
A method for re-pricing a low cost carrier travel
itinerary in a manner that is compatible with standard
carrier systems, the method comprising:
accessing a pricing engine of a low cost carrier
system to retrieve pricing information for at least one
changed element in the low cost carrier travel itinerary,
the retrieved pricing information in a non-standard
pricing format that is unsupported by the standard carrier
systems;
converting the retrieved pricing information into a
standard pricing format that is supported by the standard
carrier systems, the converted pricing information
including a standard element not present in the retrieved
pricing information; and
generating at least one pricing record and
populating a passenger name record associated with the
low cost carrier travel itinerary to include the standard
element using the converted pricing information.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–23.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 11, and 14 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Amadeus Quick Card:
Booking Low Cost Carriers through Amadeus Ticketless Access (July 2008,
Available at: http//www.amadeus.com/web/binaries/blobs/
454/33/Booking+LCCs+through+ Amadeus+ Ticketless+Access+QUICK

2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed February 13,
2018 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief, filed May 29, 2018 (“Reply Br.”) the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 4, 2018 (“Answer”), and the Final Office
Action, mailed September 18, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

3

+CARD_ 25July2008.pdf hereinafter "Amadeus") and Melet (US
2011/0167051 A1). Final Act. 7–14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Amadeus, Melet and Daouk (US
2012/0265562 A1). Final Act 14–15.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the
Patent Act, which recites:
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.

There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101: “[l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012).
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

4

In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75–77
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what
concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their
face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated
settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’
application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against
risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

5

products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation 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 PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Memorandum”). Under that guidance, we
first look to whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception because:
(1) the claim recites a judicial exception, including certain groupings
of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

6

organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice,
or mental processes); and
(2) the claim as a whole fails to recite additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. 2018).
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 are not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.

ANALYSIS
Abstract Idea.
The Examiner finds that the claims are not patent eligible as they are
directed to a judicial exception without reciting significantly more. Final
Act. 3–7. Specifically, the Examiner provides an analysis of Appellants’
claims finding that they recite limitations directed to collecting and
gathering information and analyzing it, concluding they recite an abstract
idea. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as showing that claims that recite collecting
information and analyzing have been held recite abstract ideas).
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

7

Appellants argue the Examiner overgeneralized the claims and has not
adequately analyzed what the claims are directed to and that when
considered as a whole the claims are directed to a patent eligible process.
App Br. 7–8 (citing Enfish, LLC v Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245
(Fed. Cir. 2014)). Specifically Appellants argue that claim 1 recites:
upon conversion from the non-standard format to the standard
format supported by standard carrier systems, “the converted
pricing information includ[es] a standard element not present in
the retrieved pricing information.” Claim 1 further requires
“generating at least one pricing record and populating a
passenger name record associated with the low cost travel
itinerary to include the standard element using the converted
pricing information.” Appellant respectfully submits that this is
not the same as “merely collecting information, analyzing the
information, and communicating results of an analysis,” as
stated by the Examiner. No aspect of analyzing collected
information and communicating results of that analysis relates
to populating a passenger name record associated with a low
cost travel itinerary to include a standard element not present in
retrieved pricing information. In this regard, the Examiner fails
to consider the language of claim 1 pertaining to populating a
passenger name record associated with a low cost travel
itinerary. This failure to fully consider the language of claim 1
is improper because “describing the claims at such a high level
of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims
all but ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the rule.”
Enfish, 822 F. 3d at 1337.

App Br. 8. Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s claim
interpretation equating the step of “populating” data with displaying data is
in error. As such Appellants assert the Examiner’s reliance on Electric
Power Group and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

8

850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is improper as the claims in Electric
Power Group were directed to collecting, analyzing and displaying data,
whereas the current claims include populating data which when construed in
light of the Specification relates to storing data. Reply Br. 2-5.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 3 through 9 of the Answer. We have reviewed the
Examiner’s rejection, and response to Appellants’ arguments and we concur
with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea. We concur with the Examiner that representative claim 1 recites
collecting/gathering information and analyzing it (a mental process). Claim
1 recites “accessing a pricing engine of a low cost carrier system to retrieve
pricing information for at least one changed element in the low cost carrier
travel itinerary” (a data gathering or observation element), “converting the
retrieved pricing information into a standard pricing format that is supported
by the standard carrier systems,” (a data analysis or evaluation element), and
“generating at least one pricing record and populating a passenger name
record associated with the low cost carrier travel itinerary” (a step which the
Examiner interpreters as displaying and Appellants assert relates to storing
data). These limitations, under either the Examiner’s or Appellants’
interpretation of the “populate” limitation, recite an abstract mental process.
The claims at issue in Electric Power Group recite several steps of
receiving data from various sources, detecting and analyzing the data and
displaying the data. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52. The court
identified “we have treated collecting information, including when limited to
particular content (which does not change its character as information), as
within the realm of abstract ideas.” Id. at 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further,
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

9

the court stated “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.” Id. at 1354 (citing Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2014; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014)). We note that regardless whether the “populating” limitation is
interpreted as displaying or storing, the limitation is nonetheless directed to
an abstract concept. While the clams in Electric Power Group recite
displaying data, the claims in Content Extraction, cited in support of the
decision in Electric Power Group, dealt with a step of storing and identified
it to be abstract mental process. “The concept of data collection,
recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed humans have
always performed these functions.” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347;
see also Internet Patents Corp v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“the character of the claimed invention is an abstract idea: the
idea of retaining information in the navigation of online forms”). Thus,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
the claims recite an abstract idea.

Practical Application/Significantly more than Abstract Idea
The Examiner finds that the additional claimed elements do not
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 5–6. The
Examiner states:
While a “pricing engine” adds an additional element to the
abstract idea, the additional element does not present
improvements to another technological field, nor does it
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

10

improve the functioning of a computer. The generic computing
elements (a pricing engine, processing units, computer readable
media, and program code) are known and conventional, and
besides performing the abstract idea itself, it only serves to
perform well-understood computer functions such as storing,
receiving, analyzing, and presenting data. None of the hardware
in the claims “offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally
linking ‘the use of the [method] to a particular technological
environment’ that is, implementation via computers.” Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610,
611 (U.S. 2010)). In addition, the non-generic computing
elements of the claim are nothing more than an extra solution
activity (e.g. processing and storing data, performing repetitive
calculations, receiving data over a network, etc.). Looking at
the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is
not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of
elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves
any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide
conventional computer implementation. As outlined in the
description of Fig. 1, in paragraphs [0023-28], the specification
details any combination of a generic computer system program
to perform the method.
Final Act 5–6.
Appellants argue that the “claims are focused on a specific solution to
a particular problem faced by existing computer-implemented travel
reservation systems” App Br. 8. Appellants assert:
Similar to the patent eligible claims in DDR, Appellant's claims
do not generically recite computing technology to perform a
business practice. Instead, Appellant's claims recite a specific
way to re-price a low cost carrier travel itinerary in a manner
that is compatible with standard carrier systems in order to
solve a problem faced by existing computer-implemented travel
reservation systems.

App. Br. 9. Further, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s analysis is
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

11

in error as the Examiner “partitioned each of the claims into two
subsets of claim elements when evaluating whether that claim
constitutes patent eligible subject matter.” App. Br. 10. As such,
Appellants’ the Examiner has not considered the claims as an ordered
combination of elements to determine whether the additional elements
transform the nature of the claim into patent eligible subject matter.
App. Br. 12 (citing BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

The Examiner in response states:
In Examiner's Step 2A analysis, Examiner noted that the claims
as a whole are directed to an abstract idea. Final Action at 4.
Furthermore, the examiner identified which recited elements in
the claims make up the abstract idea and separated them from
those elements which recite generic computer components used
as a tool for implementing the abstract idea. This does not
indicate that the examiner did not view the claims as a whole.
Rather, for the sake of clarity, examiner, after viewing the
claims as a whole, identified the limitations which recite the
abstract idea.

Answer 9. Further, the Examiner states:

Thus, the problem solved by the claimed invention does not
“specifically arise in the realm of computer technology.”
Furthermore, the claimed solution is not “necessarily rooted in
computer technology.” Notwithstanding the fact that the
claimed invention recites generic computer components, the
claimed invention could be performed by a human using their
mind and a pen and paper.
Answer 10.

Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

12

With respect to whether representative claim 1 is directed to a
practical application of the above-identified abstract idea, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection by these arguments. While
the Examiner’s analysis evaluates portions of the claim as reciting an
abstract idea and the remainder of the claims as being the additional
elements, the Examiner has considered the claim as a whole as the
Examiner’s analysis discusses the interaction between the recited abstract
idea and the additional elements. Further, we are not persuaded that the
claims are rooted in computer technology or represent a technological
improvement. As the Examiner identifies, the claimed method could be
performed by a human using their mind and a pen and paper. The claim
does not recite a particular machine or computer to implement the method of
repricing the travel itinerary. The Examiner has found, and Appellants have
not contested, that the recited “pricing engine” interpreted in light of the
specification is a generic computing element. Further, we note in the
context of the representative claim 1 it is merely a source of information and
not an element, which implements or is improved by the claimed method.
Thus, we concur with the Examiner that the claim does not recite a practical
application or significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
In summary, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea;
of collecting/gathering information and analyzing it (a mental process(es)).
Further, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in finding that the claims are not: directed to an improvement in the
functioning of the computer or to other technology or other technical field;
directed to a particular machine; directed to performing or affecting a
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

13

transformation of an article to a different state or thing; directed to using a
judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond linking the exception to a
particular technological environment such that the claim as a whole is more
than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claims 1 and claims 2 through 21 grouped with claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.

Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of representative
independent claim 1 is in error as the Examiner did not show the
combination of the references teaches generating a passenger name record to
include a standardized element and the Examiner has not provided a
sufficient rationale to combine the references. App. Br. 14–17. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner finds that Amadeus does not teach the
passenger name record includes a standardized element. App Br. 15.
Further, Appellants argue that Melet teaches converting data from a reverse
pricing engine to a standardized record shown as item 418. App Br. 15.
Appellants argue that this standardized record is used to provide
recommendations for end-users searching for travel fares prior to booking
and as such does not meet the claimed passenger name record, which is
generated after the itinerary is booked. App. Br. 16, Reply Br. 7–8. With
respect to the rationale to combine, Appellants argue:
Examiner fails to explain why and how a person of
ordinary skill would have combined the elements from the cited
references to arrive at Appellant's claimed invention. Instead,
the Examiner merely cites additional references that
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

14

purportedly teach elements of the claimed invention that are not
found in the Amadeus NPL for the express purpose of the
resulting combination having the missing feature….
At best, the Examiner's articulated reason for combining
the cited references amounts to circular reasoning that describes
the results of combining those references instead of reasoning
with some rational underpinning/or combining those references
…. As the end-user in Melet has not booked an itinerary prior
to receiving the pricing information from the search engine, that
pricing information lacks any disclosure relating to changed
elements of a booked travel itinerary. Consequently, Melet
cannot teach or suggest the claimed features related to re-
pricing a low cost carrier travel itinerary. Therefore, the
Examiner's articulated reason fails to explain why one skilled in
the art would have modified the Amadeus NPL with unrelated
elements disclosed by Melet.

App. Br. 17.
The Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments states:
The Amadeus NPL, as outlined on page 10 of the Final Action,
already teaches the population of a passenger name record with
one or more standard elements after re-pricing a fare.
(Amadeus: col. 3 “PNR re-pricing” showing a PNR being
repriced and col. 3 “End of Transaction” showing a PNR which
has been populated with one or more data elements after the
fare has been repriced). Thus, all that is missing from this claim
limitation is that the standard elements included in the PNR, as
taught by Amadeus, are standard elements which have been
converted from a non-standard format to a standard format.
Melet, in paragraph [0031] and further shown in Fig. 4, clearly
teaches that one or more records may be populated to include
standard elements using converted pricing information
(“fares”). Thus, Amadeus teaches, in the context of re-pricing a
fare, the population of a PNR with one or more standard
elements and Melet teaches that one or more records may be
populated with standardized elements which have been
converted from a non-standard format into a standard format.

Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

15

Answer 11–12. Further, with respect to Appellants’ arguments concerning
the rationale to combine the references, the Examiner states that the
combination the references provides the end user with a comprehensive and
user-friendly interface and increases the offers provided to the user by
providing the user with travel fares travel providers irrespective of the data
format and searching method used. Answer 12. The Examiner cites to
Melet paragraph 14 as providing support for this conclusion.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection, response to arguments
and the teachings of Amadeus and Metz and we concur with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of error.
The Examiner has found and we concur that Amadeus teaches repricing an
itinerary that includes a low cost itinerary, and as such teaches generating a
pricing record and populating the passenger name record as recited in
representative claim 1. The Examiner has shown that Melet teaches
converting retrieved pricing information into a standard format including an
element not present in the pricing information. Appellants’ argument that
Melet does this in conjunction with generating the options to be presented to
a user, before a passenger name record is created, instead as part of a re-
pricing an itinerary, is not persuasive of error. The Examiner is merely
using Melet to teach a manner to gather the data from low cost carriers, and
using it in Amadeus’s pre-pricing function.
With regard to Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s rationale to
combine is improper we are not persuaded of error. In KSR, the Supreme
Court stated that the determination of obviousness could be supported with
an “articulated reasoning with [a] rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

16

418 (2007). Here the Examiner has provide a reasoned rationale based upon
the teaching of the references. We have reviewed this rationale and the
evidence cited to support and consider the Examiner to have provide an
adequate rationale. Additionally, we note that Appellants’ arguments
concerning Metz’s teachings being directed to booking an itinerary and not
re-pricing an inventory, are not persuasive. The Examiner is relying upon
Melet for the manner of converting data not the use of the data.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and claims 4 through 10, 11, and 14 through 21 similarly
rejected over Amadeus and Melet.
Appellants have not provided arguments directed to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 over Amadeus, Melet and
Daouk. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection for the same reasons as claim
1.

Appeal 2018-006285
Application 14/330,196

17

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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