Ex Parte Andersson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2018

14000431 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/000,431 08/20/2013 Karl Andersson
52082 7590 09/11/2018
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
251069-3 3001
EXAMINER
BORIN, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARL ANDERSSON
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
Technology Center 1600
Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
RICHARD J. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal 1,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a
method of screening a plurality of fluid samples for the presence of analytes
capable of specifically binding to a ligand immobilized on a sensing surface
of a sensor. The Examiner rejected the claims as directed to non-statutory
subject matter and as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the non-statutory subject matter rejection but reverse the
obviousness rejections.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as GE Healthcare Bio-
Sciences AB (App. Br. 2).
2 We have considered and herein refer to the Specification of Aug. 20, 2013
("Spec."); Final Office Action of July 8, 2016 ("Final Action"); Appeal
Brief of Nov. 28, 2016 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer of Feb. 10, 2017
("Answer") and Reply Brief of Apr. 10, 2017 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
Statement of the Case
Background
"Optical biosensors based on surface plasmon resonance (SPR) are
today widely used for analyzing a wide range of biological and chemical
interactions. SPR biosensors allow the determination of the affinity and
kinetics of molecular interactions in real time without the need for a
molecular tag or label" (Spec. ,r 2). SPR binding data are typically "first
subjected to a number of signal correction adjustments, including at least
some of molecular weight adjustment to compensate response values for
different analyte sizes, bulk refractive index surface errors, adjustment for
decreasing activity of the immobilized ligand (protein), and capture level
adjustment when different ligands are used" (Spec. ,r 4). "A binding level
against cycle number (i.e. sample no.) is plotted and a binding level limit (or
sometimes more than one limit) is then selected by the user" (id.). All
"samples ( analytes) exhibiting a binding level above the selected limit" are
"considered as more or less strong binders" (id.). "While this procedure is
simple and in several respects gives comprehensible results, the user risks
missing true binders which for some reason do not reach the correct level"
(Spec. ,r 5). "A more sophisticated screening evaluation method which
identifies all true binders would therefore be desired" (Spec. ,r 6). "The
above-mentioned object as well as other objects and advantages are achieved
by an evaluation method based on a multiparametric analysis of the response
curves, or binding curves, rather than merely measurement of binding levels
therefrom" (Spec. ,r 7).
2
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
The Claims
Claims 1-11 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as
follows:
1. A method of screening a plurality of fluid samples for the
presence of analytes capable of specifically binding to a ligand
immobilized on a sensing surface of a sensor, the method
compnsmg:
passing a plurality of fluid samples having an analyte
over a biosensor sensing surface, wherein the analyte of each
fluid sample interacts with a ligand immobilized on the
biosensor sensing surface;
producing response curves representing the progress of
each interaction over time;
subjecting a set of the response curves to a
multiparametric evaluation procedure, the evaluation procedure
compnsmg:
determining for each response curve a binder
classification based on at least two binding-related
features of the response curve,
identifying response curves for which the binder
classification deviates significantly from that of the
remaining response curves as a group, and
classifying these deviating response curves as
representing sample analytes which are binding partners
to the ligand; and
identifying to a user the sample analytes which are
binding partners to the ligand.
3
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
The Re} ections
A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to non-statutory subject matter (Ans. 2--4).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being obvious over Andersson3 in view ofFowler4 and Karlsson5 (Ans. 5-
9).
C. The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
obvious over Andersson in view of Fowler, Karlsson, and Steinthal6 (Ans.
10).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 1 OJ
The Examiner finds that the claims on appeal are directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the claims are
directed to "an abstract idea" (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds that the claims
"are directed to ... processing information, converting one form of
numerical representation into another, and comparing information. All of
these concepts relate to organization and processing information
(comparison of data) which can be performed mentally and is an idea of
itself' (Ans. 3).
3 Andersson et al., US 8,155,906 B2, published Apr. 10, 2012.
4 Fowler et al., In Vitro Evaluation of Reversible and Irreversible
Cytochrome P450 Inhibition: Current Status on Methodologies and their
Utility for Predicting Drug-Drug Interactions, 10(2) AAPS J., 410-
24(1992).
5 Karlsson et al., US 8,321,152 B2, published Nov. 27, 2012.
6 Steinthal et al., US 7,171,312, published January 30, 2007.
4
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
The Examiner also finds that although the claim recites "the additional
limitation of passing fluid samples having analyte over a biosensor sensing
surface", this step is well understood, routine, and conventional (Ans. 3).
The Examiner reached these conclusions by applying the test set out
in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S.
66 (2012) (Ans. 2--4) based on the two-step Alice framework. Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
Appellant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea,
that the claims do not preempt all uses of the abstract idea, and that the
claims include additional elements or something more that transforms the
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application (App. Br. 4--13).
Analysis
To determine whether a claim is invalid under § 101, we employ the
two-step Alice framework. In Alice step one, we ask whether the claims are
directed to a patent ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea or law of
nature. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355; Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77; Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
While method claims are generally eligible subject matter, method claims
that are directed only to abstract ideas and/or natural phenomena are directed
to patent ineligible concepts. Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1376. In Alice step two,
we examine the elements of the claims to determine whether they contain an
inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed naturally occurring
phenomena into a patent-eligible application. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-72
( quoting Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355).
5
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
of
Alice Step One
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the recited steps
producing response curves representing the progress of each
interaction over time; subjecting a set of the response curves to
a multiparametric evaluation procedure, the evaluation
procedure comprising: determining for each response curve a
binder classification based on at least two binding-related
features of the response curve, identifying response curves for
which the binder classification deviates significantly from that
of the remaining response curves as a group, and classifying
these deviating response curves as representing sample analytes
which are binding partners to the ligand; and identifying to a
user the sample analytes which are binding partners to the
ligand
all involve categorizing and/or analyzing information.
Information as such is an intangible .... Accordingly, 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 .... In a
similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted)). Additionally, the Federal Circuit in
Electric Power Group stated that the "advance they purport to make is a
process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then
displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology
for performing those functions" (id. at 1354). Here, Appellant admits the
6
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
advancement is the process of analyzing information. Specifically,
Appellant admits:
Appellant discovered a particular solution to this problem-
using multiparametric analysis of binding curves that includes
determining at least two binding-related features of each
response curve and, assuming that the majority of screened
analytes are non-binders or bad binders, identifying outliers (i.e.
binding curves whose binder classification deviates the most
from the average binder classification of all the curves) as true
binders-and the claims set forth the specific series of steps
that implement this solution.
(App. Br. 8).
In Digitech, the Federal Circuit stated that"[ w ]ithout additional
limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate
existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.
'If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a
mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the
claimed method is nonstatutory'" Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v.
Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here,
the process employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information and therefore is not patent
eligible.
Moreover, the producing and selecting steps are the type of work that
can be performed mentally and therefore are abstract ideas. As the Federal
Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are
the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas--the
'basic tools of scientific and technological work' that are open to all"'
7
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371, (Fed. Cir.
2011) (citing Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).
This case is distinguishable, for example, from cases like Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), because in Diehr, an algorithm was used to
control the change in state of rubber in a curing process. In re Diehr, 602
F .2d 982, 983-84 (CCP A 1979). The algorithm calculated the Arrhenius
equation for the reaction time during the cure to determine when the
compound was cured and to automatically open the press when the cured
state was achieved. Id. In the rejected claims, the recited algorithm is not
used to determine when a change of state is complete as it was in Diehr.
Rather, in the rejected claims, the algorithm is utilized to analyze data
obtained by a fluid samples, but no final physical step analogous to opening
the press after curing is present. Instead, the final "identifying" clauses in
the instant claims "tell the relevant audience about the laws while trusting
them to use those laws appropriately where they are relevant to their
decisionmaking." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. Thus, the algorithm does not tell
when the change of state is complete and to perform a manipulative step
based on it as in Diehr.
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we tum to the
second step of the Alice framework.
Alice Step Two
In Alice step two, we examine the elements of the claims to determine
whether they contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Mayo, 566 U.S. at
71-72 (quoting Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355). We must consider the elements of
the claims both individually and as an ordered combination to determine
8
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claims into a
patent-eligible concept. Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1375.
The Specification acknowledges that "[ o ]ptical biosensors based on
surface plasmon resonance (SPR) are today widely used for analyzing a
wide range of biological and chemical interactions" (Spec. ,r 2). The
Specification also acknowledges that
A typical screening procedure, wherein a plurality of fluid
samples are tested for the presence of species capable of
specifically binding to a desired receptor or ligand
comprises contacting each sample with a sensing surface
supporting the receptor or ligand and usually also a
reference surface without immobilized receptor or ligand,
measuring the responses at the surfaces, and evaluating the
measurement data including subtracting the response at the
reference surface from that at the sensing surface.
Typically, the binding data obtained are first subjected to a
number of signal correction adjustments, including at least
some of molecular weight adjustment to compensate response
values for different analyte sizes, bulk refractive index surface
errors, adjustment for decreasing activity of the immobilized
ligand (protein), and capture level adjustment when different
ligands are used. A binding level against cycle number (i.e.
sample no.) is plotted and a binding level limit ( or sometimes
more than one limit) is then selected by the user, all samples
(analytes) exhibiting a binding level above the selected limit
being considered as more or less strong binders
(Spec. i-fi-f3--4) ( emphasis added).
Thus, the Specification acknowledges that SPR is routine and
conventional ("widely used") and that the step of passing a plurality of fluid
samples having an analyte over a biosensor sensing surface, wherein the
analyte of each fluid sample interacts with a ligand immobilized on the
biosensor sensing surface is also routine and conventional. Moreover,
9
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
Karlsson teaches "biosensors and affinity analysis are known per se in the
art" (Karlsson 3: 17-18). Karlsson also teaches the step of passing a plurality
of fluid samples having an analyte over a biosensor sensing surface, wherein
the analyte of each fluid sample interacts with a ligand immobilized on the
biosensor sensing surface, thereby indicating that such steps are routine and
conventional (Karlsson 4:27-55). Similarly, Andersson teaches that surface
plasmon resonance devices were commercially available in the prior art,
teaching a "representative biosensor system is the Biacore® instrumentation
sold by Biacore AB (Uppsala, Sweden) which uses surface plasmon
resonance (SPR) for detecting interactions between molecules in a sample
and molecular structures immobilized on a sensing surface" (Andersson
1:30-34).
In sum, the evidence of record supports the Examiner's position that
the claims do not add something "significantly more" to the abstract idea.
Instead, the evidence shows that the additional elements in the claims (e.g.,
passing a plurality of fluid samples having an analyte over a biosensor
sensing surface, wherein the analyte of each fluid sample interacts with a
ligand immobilized on the biosensor sensing surface) are conventional,
routine, and well-known. We conclude that the method claim does not result
in an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea described above into
a patentable invention.
Appellant contends that the "Examiner's determination that the claims
are directed to 'processing information, converting one form of numerical
representation into another, and comparing information' is divorced from the
claim language itself and violates the Federal Circuit's express instructions
to avoid oversimplifying the claims" and "eviscerates numerous, specific
10
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
limitations throughout the claims" (App. Br. 6). Appellant further argues the
"overbreadth of the Examiner's characterization is readily apparent from the
myriad of activities that could be described as processing information,
converting numbers, and comparing information but which are plainly not
captured by Appellant's claims" (App. Br. 7). Appellant contends the
"focus of the claims, when read in light of the specification, is on a specific
method of screening a pool of molecular species to determine their
capability of binding to a desired receptor or ligand" (App. Br. 7).
We find these arguments unpersuasive because the producing and
subjecting steps are directed to an abstract mathematical approach to data
analysis that is applied to the particular known test format of analytical
biosensor systems, not to any improvement in the analytical biosensor itself.
"'If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a
mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the
claimed method is nonstatutory. "' Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v.
Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Similar to the claims in Electric Power Group, these steps are directed
to data analysis and mathematical calculations, because they transform the
data to another form without applying the resulting data further to the
method to alter anything other than data. That is, the analysis of the
response curves of the biosensor does not change anything about how the
biosensor itself operates, nor is anything physical in the biosensor altered by
the claimed method. Rather the instant claims focus on particular
mathematical operations for analysis of the biosensor data, whether
multiparametric evaluation or the more specific analysis of response curves,
"is on selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical
11
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all
abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 2018 WL
3656048 *5 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellant contends "prior to Appellant's work, there was a need for a
more sophisticated screening evaluation method that identifies more or all
true binding analytes. Appellant discovered a particular solution to this
problem-using a multiparametric analysis of binding curves that includes
determining at least two binding-related features of each response curve"
(App. Br. 8).
We do not dispute that the use of mathematical operations in this case
may be "a positive and valuable contribution to science. But even such
valuable contributions can fall short of statutory patentable subject matter, as
it does here." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,
1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We note that even the limitation to the particular
biosensor environment does not rescue the claim from being abstract
because "limitation of the claims to a particular field of information ... does
not move the claims out of the realm of abstract ideas." SAP, 2018 WL
3656048 *6.
Appellant argues that the claims do not preempt processing
information, converting numbers and comparing information (App. Br. 9-
10). While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it
is not a stand-alone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, (Fed. Cir. 2016). "[W]e have
consistently held that claims that are otherwise directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter cannot be saved by arguing the absence of complete
12
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
preemption." Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 868 F.3d
1350, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appellant contends "even if the claims were directed to a judicial
exception, which they are not, they certainly claim an inventive concept that
amounts to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception" (App. Br.
10). Appellant contends the "inventive concept rests on conducting a
multiparametric analysis of binding curves that includes determining at least
two binding-related features of each response curve, and subsequently
identifying outliers as true binders." (App. Br. 11). Appellant contends the
"Examiner has failed to establish that the claimed subject matter does not
amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception" (App. Br.
12).
We find these arguments unpersuasive because, as Appellant
acknowledges even in the argument, the inventive concept is drawn to the
mathematical analysis by "multiparametric evaluation" (see App. Br. 8) and
not to something sufficient to transform this abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application. We find Appellant's reliance on Amdocs (Israel)
Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) unavailing
(see App. Br. 11 ). The claims in Amdocs were drawn to improvements in
the operation of a computer itself at a task, rather than applying a computer
and mathematical equation to analyze data from known assays. See Amdocs,
841 F.3d at 1301. Indeed, Amdocs notes prior ineligible claims were "not
tied to any particularized structure, broadly preempted related technologies,
and merely involved combining data in an ordinary manner without any
inventive concept." Id. That is the current case, where instant claim 1 is not
tied to any novel or unobvious structure for a biosensor as evidenced by
13
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
Karlsson and Andersson as discussed above. Instead, claim 1 uses standard
biosensors and biosensor data with a multiparametric evaluation algorithm
that does not improve operation of the biosensor itself, but rather improves
analysis of data generated by the biosensor.
We also find Appellant's reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) unavailing (see App.
Br. 12-13). The claims in McRO were drawn to improvements in the
operation of a computer itself at a task of lip reading, rather than applying a
computer to perform known tasks. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Here,
Appellant has not demonstrated an improvement in the operation of the
computer itself, but at best suggests an improvement in the application of a
multiparametric analysis algorithm for characterization of biosensor data.
Therefore, neither Amdocs nor McRO persuades us that Appellant's
claims relying on multiparametric evaluation using known biosensor
components as discussed above are patentable subject matter that provide
something "significantly more."
We therefore conclude that all of the claims on appeal are directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
B. andC. 35 U.S.C.103(a)
Because both of these rejections rely upon the combination of
Andersson, Fowler, and Karlsson, we will consider them together.
The Examiner finds Andersson teaches screening of fluid samples as
required by claim 1 but "does not teach that a binder classification that
deviates from the group represents presence of a binding analyte" (Ans. 7).
14
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
The Examiner relies on Fowler to teach "that curves viewed as
'outliers' reflect different character of binding such as binding to more
regions of active site" (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds it obvious "to select, as
a result-oriented variable, the descriptors that reflect binding, and to expect
that carrying out the analysis using binding-related descriptors will be as
successful as using quality-related descriptors in Andersson" (Final Act. 9).
Findings of Fact
1. Andersson teaches:
A method of analysis, comprising
A) detecting molecular binding interactions between analytes in
a sample and molecular structures immobilized on one or
more sensing surface areas of a biosensor;
B) producing a plurality of binding response curves to form a
resulting set, each response curve representing a binding
interaction of an analyte with a molecular structure over
time, each response curve comprising an analyte association
part and an analyte dissociation part;
C) subjecting the resulting set of response curves to a data-
processing procedure for assessment of a quality of each of
the response curves with respect to a presence of oddities in
the response curves the subjecting operation comprising the
substeps of:
1) selecting at least two quality-related parameters for the
response curves, each of the parameters defining a quality
descriptor;
2) computing for each response curve, values for the quality
descriptors, which represent the quality of the response
curve;
3) based on the values for the quality descriptors, classifying
the response curves by computing for each response curve
a quality classification which indicates a deviation of the
quality descriptors of the corresponding response curve
from the quality descriptors of the other response curves
in the resulting set produced in the producing operation;
15
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
4) selecting a predetermined number of the response curves
having quality classifications corresponding to the largest
deviations, and defining the predetermined number of
response curves as odd quality response curves;
5) displaying the odd quality response curves to a user of the
biosensor for visual inspection thereof to thereby decide if
an odd quality response curve should be used in the
analysis or be rejected;
6) removing odd quality response curves rejected by the
user;
7) repeating steps 3) to 6) until no more of the odd quality
curves are rejected; and
8) determining from the remaining response curves at least
one of molecular surface concentrations and kinetic
parameters.
(Andersson 14:43 to 15:57, claim 1).
2. Karlsson teaches passing a plurality of fluid samples having an
analyte over a biosensor sensing surface, wherein the analyte of each fluid
sample interacts with a ligand immobilized on the biosensor sensing surface;
(Karlsson 4:27-60).
3. Fowler teaches that diferent binding sites have different characteristics
(Fowler 420-421 ).
Principles of Law
The test for analogous art is "(1) whether the art is from the same field
of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is
not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is
involved." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
16
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
Analysis
Appellant contends that Fowler is not analogous art, because "Fowler
is in a different field of endeavor as the current invention and relates to a
problem different from the one faced by the inventors of the current
invention" (Reply Br. 4 ).
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not established that
Fowler is in the same field of endeavor as the current invention or is
reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Moreover, the
Examiner has not established that one would look to Fowler in order to
distinguish ligand binding through analyzing binding curves. Thus, the
Examiner has not established that Fowler is properly analogous art pertinent
to the problems with which the inventor would have been concerned.
We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner did not provide
persuasive reasoning based on "Andersson and/or Karlsson that would have
led one of ordinary skill to modify or to combine Fowler with Andersson
and/or Karlsson to arrive at the claimed invention" (Reply Br. 6).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner's conclusion
that the combination of Andersson, Fowler, and Karlsson renders the claims
obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2-11 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter as these claims were not argued separately.
17
Appeal2017-007312
Application 14/000,431
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Andersson, Fowler, and Karlsson.
We reverse the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
obvious over Andersson, Fowler, Karlsson, and Steinthal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
18