Clyde T. Eisenbeis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 28, 2019

14553362 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 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.
14/553,362 11/25/2014 Clyde T. Eisenbeis 20040/56-12659 1081
34431 7590 08/28/2019
HANLEY, FLIGHT & ZIMMERMAN, LLC
150 S. WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 2200
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
HIDALGO, FERNANDO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2827
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2019 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):
jflight@hfzlaw.com
mailroom@hfzlaw.com
mhanley@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CLYDE T. EISENBEIS, THOMAS PESEK,
and ROSS SCHADE
____________________

Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–13, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 25, 2014
(“Spec.”); the Non-Final Office Action dated October 30, 2017 (“Non-Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed March 27, 2018 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer dated May 3, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed June 28, 2018
(“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Fisher Controls International LLC, identified as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention generally relates to methods and apparatus to
diagnose failure of a valve using electric valve actuators. Spec. ¶ 1.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 21, reproduced below from the Claim
Appendix, illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. An electric valve actuator comprising:
an electric motor to actuate a valve;
rotation sensors to monitor a rotation of a drive shaft
associated with the electric motor to determine a distance
travelled by the drive shaft;
a valve position sensor to determine a measured position
of a flow control member of the valve when the valve is fully
closed at a first point in time; and
a processor to generate an alert based on a difference
between the measured position and a reference position, the
reference position corresponding to a position of the flow
control member of the valve when the valve is fully closed at a
second point in time before the first point in time, the alert
associated with a failure of the valve.
12. A method comprising:
monitoring, via rotation sensors, a distance travelled by a
drive shaft associated with an electric motor of an electric valve
actuator used to operate a valve;
determining a measured position of a flow control
member of the valve, via a valve position sensor when the valve
is fully closed at a first point in time; and
generating, by executing an instruction on a processor, an
alert based on a difference between the measured position and a
reference position, the reference position corresponding to a
position of the flow control member of the valve when the
valve is fully closed at a second point in time before the first
point in time, the alert associated with a failure of the valve.
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

3
21. A tangible machine readable storage medium comprising
instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to at least:
monitor a distance travelled by a drive shaft associated
with an electric motor of an electric valve actuator used to
operate a valve;
determine a measured position of a flow control member
of the valve, via a valve position sensor when the valve is fully
closed at a first point in time; and
generate an alert based on a difference between the
measured position and a reference position, the reference
position corresponding to a position of the flow control member
of the valve when the valve is fully closed at a second point in
time before the first point in time, the alert associated with a
failure of the valve.
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of all pending claims (claims 1–
13, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, and 24) under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception to patent-eligible subject matter, without significantly more. Non-
Final Act. 4–5.
OPINION
The Examiner finds that each of the pending claims is directed to an
abstract idea. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner determines that claims 1 and
21 and their dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea of “collection
of information, analysis thereof and displaying, conveying certain results of
the collection and analysis.” Id. at 5, 8 (referencing Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner finds also
that the claims do “not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more” than an abstract idea because the additional
elements “are recited at a high level of generality, necessaries, routine or are
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

4
conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.” Id. at 5, 8.
With respect to claim 12 (the method claim), the Examiner finds that the
claim is directed to the collection of information, analysis thereof and
displaying, conveying certain results of the collection and analysis, and/or an
algorithm/procedure for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal
condition (referencing In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Id. at 6.
Appellant argues that the claims are patent eligible. App. Br. 11–32.
Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues that the Examiner overgeneralizes the
claim by failing to consider it as a whole. Id. at 12–13. Appellant contends
that claim 1 is directed to an electric valve actuator that includes an electric
motor, rotation sensors, a valve position sensor, and a processor. Id. at 14.
Appellant contends that the Examiner focuses exclusively on what the
recited processor does, and disregards all other limitations as insignificant
additional elements. Id.
Appellant argues that method claim 12 specifies what parameters are
being measured and what devices are used to measure such parameters to
produce the outcome of generating an alert associated with a failure of a
valve. Id. at 30. Appellant contends that, unlike the claims in Grams to
which the Examiner cites, claim 12 does not cover only an algorithm, but
rather, improves the detection of failures of a valve, similar to the claims in
Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Id.
According to Appellant, when claim 21 is read as a whole, it is not
directed to an abstract idea that gives rise to concerns that a fundamental
building block of science or technology is being monopolized. App. Br. 32.
Appellant contends that the claim language of claim 21 properly read as a
whole is not routine, well understood or conventional. Id.
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

5
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, we conclude
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 that claims 1–13, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 recite
patent-eligible subject matter.
I. Principles of Law
Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
long held that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are
not patentable, are ineligible concepts that are implicit exceptions to the
statutory categories. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 70–71 (2012) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981)).
The Supreme Court articulated a two-step subject-matter eligibility
test in Mayo and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208
(2014). Alice/Mayo step one asks whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In Alice/Mayo step two, we 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.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79,
78). Step two is described as a search for an “inventive concept.” Id.
After submission of the briefing in this appeal, the USPTO published
revised guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. USPTO, 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”). The initial inquiry in the USPTO’s eligibility analysis asks
whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories
of invention. Id. at 53–54. If so, then under Step 2A, Prong One of the
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

6
Guidance, we determine if the claim recites a judicial exception, including
particular groupings of abstract ideas. Id. at 52–53. 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, 69 (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 183 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
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
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

7
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim recites a judicial exception (such as an abstract idea), we
turn to Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance (and part of the Alice and Mayo
framework), where we must examine the elements of the claim to determine
whether it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the
exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–
(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018); Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (“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].’”). “When the exception is so integrated,
then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception . . . and is eligible”
subject matter, concluding the eligibility analysis. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. Only if the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a
practical application is the claim directed to a judicial exception, requiring
us to look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or whether the claim simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
II. Analysis
The subject matter of all of the pending claims falls within the four
statutory categories of invention. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54. We
address independent claim 1 separately from independent claims 12 and 21.
A. Claim 1 and Its Dependent Claims
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

8
Claim 1 recites “a processor to generate an alert based on a difference
between the measured position and a reference position,” “the alert
associated with a failure of the valve.” App. Br. 34 (Claims App.). We turn
to Step 2A, Prong One of the Guidance, to determine if the claims recite one
or more judicial exceptions. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–53.
1. Revised Step 2A, Prong One–Recitation of a Judicial
Exception
In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner generally discusses claim 1 as
directed to “a judicial exception,” but review of the action indicates the
judicial exceptions at issue are abstract ideas. See Non-Final Act. 5–9.
Our reviewing court treats collecting and analyzing information as
mathematical concepts and a mental process. See Elec. Power Grp., 830
F.3d at 1353–54. Claim 1’s requirement of “generating an alert based on a
difference between the measured position and a reference position” recites a
mathematical concept and a mental process (determining a difference).
Mathematical concepts and mental processes are abstract ideas. Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
2. Revised Step 2A, Prong Two—Practical Application
In Prong Two, we evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If a recited judicial exception is integrated
into a practical application that 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, the claim is not directed to a judicial
exception. Id.
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

9
Although claim 1 recites a mathematical concept and a mental process
(generating an alert based on a difference between the measured position and
a reference position), the claim is not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1
recites an electric valve actuator comprising an electric motor, rotation
sensors, a valve position sensor, and a processor. App. Br. 34 (Claims
App.). Although the Examiner finds that these elements are recited at a high
level of generality, or are routine or conventional to facilitate the application
of the abstract idea, we disagree. These elements are recited with the
necessary particularity to ensure that the functional relationships between
these structures is set forth and that the intended purpose of the electric valve
actuator is achieved. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). As such, they are not recited
at such a high level of generality that their recitation adds little to the recited
abstract idea. Indeed, these elements as recited in claim 1, taken as a whole,
are directed to patent eligible subject matter that does not become ineligible
simply because it recites an abstract idea. Analogous to Diehr, claim 1 is
patent eligible under § 101 because it implements or applies the collected
information in a structure which, considered as a whole, performs a function
that the patent laws were designed to protect. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that claim 1 and its dependent
claims are not directed to a judicial exception to patent eligibility,
concluding the eligibility analysis for these claims. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54.
B. Claim 12 and Its Dependent Claims
Claim 12 recites a method comprising, inter alia, “generating, by
executing an instruction on a processor, an alert based on a difference
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

10
between the measured position and a reference position.” App. Br. 34
(Claims App.).
1. Revised Step 2A, Prong One–Recitation of a Judicial
Exception
The Examiner finds claim 12 is directed to the collection of
information, analysis thereof and displaying, conveying certain results of the
collection and analysis (citing Elec. Power Group) and an algorithm or
procedure for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition
(citing Grams) based on the claimed “monitoring” and “generating an alert”
steps. Non-Final Act. 6.
Claim 12 recites “generating . . . an alert based on a difference
between the measured position and a reference position;” thus claim 12
recites a mathematical concept and a mental process, both of which are
abstract ideas. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, we proceed to
consideration of Prong Two to determine whether the claim is directed to an
abstract idea. Id. at 54.
2. Revised Step 2A, Prong Two—Practical Application
We ask here whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited
judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, such that the
claim as a whole is not directed to an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54.
In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court found that claims to a method
for updating alarms limits, wherein the only difference from conventional
methods was a mathematical algorithm or formula for computing the
updated alarm limits, did not describe patentable subject matter. Flook, 437
U.S. at 585–86, 590. The Supreme Court noted that the process itself, not
merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful to comply with
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

11
§ 101. Id. at 590. The decision considered that both the process and the
mathematical formula were well known. Id. at 592.
We distinguish claim 12 from Parker v. Flook. The alert generated by
the method of claim 12 diagnoses failure of the valve, causing the operation
to stop. See Spec. 3, Fig. 6. At least on this basis, the claim is not directed
to an abstract idea.
We also distinguish claim 12 from the claims in Grams, which the
Examiner cites as analogous. See Non-Final Act. 6. In Grams, the Federal
Circuit noted that “the mere presence of a mathematical exercise, as a step or
steps in a process involving nonmathematical steps, should not slam the door
of the Patent and Trademark Office upon an applicant.” Grams, 888 F.2d
835, 838 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Sarkar, 588 F.2d 1330, 1333
(1978)). Grams discussed In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (CCPA 1980), which
held:
Once a mathematical algorithm has been found, the claim as a
whole must be further analyzed. If it appears that the
mathematical algorithm is implemented in a specific manner to
define structural relationships between the physical elements of
the claim (in apparatus claims) or to refine or limit claim steps
(in process claims), the claim being otherwise statutory, the
claim passes muster under § 101.
Grams, 618 F.2d 758, 767 (CCPA 1980); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54 (requiring evaluation whether the claim as a whole integrates a recited
judicial exception into a practical application of that exception).
Consistent with Walter, claim 12 implements a mathematical exercise
in a specific manner to refine or limit the steps of “monitoring . . . a distance
travelled by a drive shaft,” “determining a measured position of a flow
control member of the valve,” and “generating . . . an alert based on a
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

12
difference between the measured position and a reference position,” the alert
associated with a failure of the valve. This implementation improves the
identification of the failure of a valve, thereby demonstrating patent
eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Also, claim 12 recites integral use of
a particular machine, i.e., an electric valve actuator having an electric motor
whose drive shaft operates a valve, rotation sensors for monitoring the
distance travelled by the drive shaft, and a valve position sensor for
determining the measured position of a flow control member of the valve, to
achieve performance of the method. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(II). Therefore,
claim 12 and its dependent claims integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application, allowing the claims to pass muster under § 101.
3. Step 2B—Inventive Concept
Revised Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether
additional claim elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional
activity. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Analysis of these issues is
accomplished in Step 2B. Id.
Were we to determine that claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea, the
claim is still patent eligible under Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2018). Berkheimer holds that “whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Id. at 1368.
“Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and
conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The
mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example,
does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Id. at
1369. Instead, the Examiner should explain why the courts have recognized,
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

13
or those in the relevant field of art would recognize, those claim limitations
as being well-understood, routine, conventional activities. MPEP
§ 2106.07(a)(II). That is, the Examiner should provide a reasoned
explanation that supports that conclusion. Such explanation is entirely
missing here; the Examiner provides no evidence (e.g., citations to court
decisions, publications, the Specification, or statements by applicant in the
prosecution record) that support an addition element (or combination of
element(s)) is well-understood, routine or conventional, and fail to take
official notice of such nature of the additional element(s). Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s assertion that the components would routinely be used in
applying the abstract idea is conclusory and made without any factual basis.
App. Br. 25. Appellant also asserts that the additional elements of the
claims are not routinely used in applying the recited abstract idea. Id. at 25–
26. Moreover, claim 12’s diagnosis of the failure of the valve, causing the
operation to stop, is achieved unconventionally by determining the measured
position of a flow control member of a valve and comparing it to a particular
reference position. App. Br. 36 (Claims App.); Spec. ¶ 25.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 and its
dependent claims as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
C. Claim 21 and Its Dependent Claims
Claim 21 recites a tangible machine readable storage medium
comprising instructions that cause a machine to perform specific operations.
App. Br. 38 (Claims App.). The Examiner refers to the rejection of claim 1
as supporting rejection of claim 21. Non-Final Act. 8. Claim 1 and claim 21
both require generation of an alert based on a difference between a measured
position and a reference position. App. Br. 34, 38 (Claims App.). With
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

14
respect to claim 21, the Examiner further finds that the additional element
(tangible machine readable storage medium comprising instructions” is not
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Non-
Final Act. 8.
1. Revised Step 2A, Prong One–Recitation of a Judicial
Exception
In rejecting claim 21 under § 101, the Examiner refers the reader to
the rejection of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 8. In rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner finds that the claim is directed to a judicial exception, specifically
“collection of information, analysis thereof and displaying, conveying
certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. at 5. Claim 21 recites a
mathematical concept and a mental process: “generat[ing] an alert based on
a difference between the measured position and a reference position.” App.
Br. 38 (Claims App.). As stated in our analysis of claim 1, supra, a
requirement to collect and analyze information, without more, typically is
considered a recitation of a mathematical concept or mental process, and
mathematical concepts or mental processes are abstract ideas. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
2. Revised Step 2A, Prong Two—Practical Application
We determine whether claim 21 as a whole is directed to an abstract
idea by determining whether it integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application of the exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Our analysis of the Examiner’s § 101 rejection in relation to claim 12,
including our discussion of Parker v. Flook and Grams, apply with equal
force to claim 21. The alert generated when the instructions comprised in
the tangible machine readable storage medium are executed diagnoses
failure of the valve, causing the operation to stop. See Spec. 3, Fig. 6. Like
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

15
claim 12, claim 21 is consistent with Walter in implementing a mathematical
exercise in a specific manner to refine or limit “monitor[ing] a distance
travelled by a drive shaft,” “determin[ing] a measured position . . . via a
valve position sensor,” and “generat[ing] an alert based on a difference
between the measured position and a reference position,” the alert associated
with a failure of the valve. See Walter, 618 F.2d at 767. Claim 21 recites
instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to perform a process
substantially the same as recited in claim 12, involving the same machine
features as recited therein. Implementation of this process improves the
identification of the failure of a valve, thereby demonstrating patent
eligibility. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). In addition, claim 21 likewise recites
integral use of a particular machine, i.e., an electric valve actuator having an
electric motor whose drive shaft operates a valve, and a valve position
sensor for determining the measured position of a flow control member of
the valve, to achieve performance of the process. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(II).
Such specific application of an abstract idea means that claim 21 is not
directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, claim 21 as a whole is not directed to the abstract idea of a
mathematical concept, unlike the claim in Electric Power Group, which the
Examiner cites as applicable. See Non-Final Act. 5.
3. Step 2B—Inventive Concept
Claim 21 is also patent eligible under Berkheimer for the reasons
given supra with respect to claim 12, i.e., the Examiner fails to support that
the additional elements in claim 21 are well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field. See Berkheimer, 881
F.3d at 1368.
Appeal 2018-007300
Application 14/553,362

16
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21 and its dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13, 16–18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 is
reversed.
REVERSED