Ex Parte Arunapuram

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2018

13207758 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/207,758 08/11/2011
74739 7590 09/17/2018
Potomac Law Group, PLLC (Oracle International)
8229 Boone Boulevard
Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
Sundar Arunapuram
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.
201 l-0165US01 6638
EXAMINER
ALLEN, AKIBA KANELLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2018 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):
patents@potomaclaw.com
bgoldsmith@potomaclaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNDAR ARUNAPURAM
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1---6, 14--19, and 22-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant indicates that Oracle International Corporation is the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
The claims are directed to vessel schedule optimization. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing
instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the
processor to perform a process, the process comprising:
creating an order bundle including a plurality of orders that
have a same origin location, a same destination location, an
overlapping pickup time window at the same source location, and
an overlapping delivery time window at the same destination
location;
creating equipment sized bundles from the order bundle
based on equipment type information including container size,
the creating including:
iteratively simulating packing of the plurality of
orders into a plurality of containers using at least two packing
methods and a multi-container mixed integer programming
(MIP) solver to create a plurality of container number estimates,
the plurality of containers having the same container size or a
mix of container sizes, the packing methods including quick
packing, single container MIP packing, enumerative packing or
three dimensional load packing,
selecting an optimal number of containers of each
container size, from the plurality of container number estimates,
based on maximum utilization, minimum container number or
minimum cost, and
dividing the order bundle into the equipment sized
bundles based on the optimal number of containers of each
container size;
for each of the equipment sized bundles, identifying
available origin ports, destination ports, and voyages based on
the origin location, destination location, pickup time, delivery
time, land leg transit time from the origin location to the origin
ports, land leg transit time from the destination ports to the
destination location, and voyage schedule information including
voyage departure times, voyage arrival times, voyage cutoff
2
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
times at the origin ports, and voyage recovery times at the
destination ports; and
building land and ocean shipments for each of the
equipment sized bundles based on the available origin ports,
destination ports and voyages.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 14, and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (Final
Act. 2).
Claims 1-6, 14--19, and 22-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law
of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more. (Ans. 4)
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not petition the Examiner's extension of the patent
eligibility rejection to all claims as set forth in the Examiner's Answer.
(Reply Br. 2-5).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
3
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
Section 101 Re} ection
Law Governing Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in§ 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 § 101: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70-71 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is patent-
ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must 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. ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 79). The claim must contain
elements or a combination of elements that are "sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[abstract idea] itself." Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 79).
The Supreme Court set forth a two-part "framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Id.
at 2355.
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [Mayo,] 132
S. Ct., at 1296-1297. If so, we then ask, "[w]hat else is there in
4
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
Id.
the claims before us?" Id., at--, 132 S. Ct., at 1297. To
answer that question, 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., at--, 132 S.
Ct., at 1298, 1297. We have 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 that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id., at--, 132 S. Ct., at
1294.
"The 'abstract idea' step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the
'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's
'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs
of Tex. v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016)); see also Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an
"abstract idea." Rather, the Federal Circuit has explained that "both [it] and
the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to
those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous
cases." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1334; see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, in
determining whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, "the decisional
mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar
or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided").
Under the second step of the Alice/Mayo framework, we examine the
claim limitations "more microscopically," Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at 1354, to
5
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
determine whether they contain "additional features" sufficient to
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). "Mere
recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent
eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must
involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, conventional
activit[ies] previously known to the industry." In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2359).
Claims 1, 14, and 22
The Examiner maintains:
Claims 1, 14, [and] 22 are directed to the abstract idea of
building land and ocean shipments for order bundles. This is a
concept involving an idea of itself relating to shipping practices.
The process of creating an order bundle, creating equipment
sized bundles from the order bundle, selecting an optimal number
of containers, dividing the order bundle into the equipment sized
bundles, and selecting an origin port, a destination port, and a
voyage, and building land and ocean shipments all describe the
abstract idea. This idea is similar to abstract ideas by the courts,
in that the limitations could "be performed in the human mind,
or by a human using pen and paper" and therefore amount to "an
idea of itself."
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional elements are simply a generic
iterative process on a computer. The claim amounts to no more
than stating building land and ocean shipments by using an
iterative process on a computer, and send it over a network.
Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the
computer components in the claims perform purely generic
computer functions. The claim as a whole does not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
6
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
With regard to the dependent claims, claims 2-6, 15-19,
and 23-27 are further directed to the abstract idea relating to the
concept involving an idea of itself, by merely narrowing the
abstract idea, and can similarly be performed on pen and paper.
(Ans. 4).
Here, the Examiner modifies the finding of the abstract idea to be
similar to encompass similar abstract ideas identified by the courts, in that
the limitations could "be performed in the human mind, or by a human using
pen and paper" and therefore amount to "an idea of itself."
Alice Step 2A
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
(Step 2A). (App. Br. 8). Appellant argues that "the claims do not recite 'a
disembodied concept of data sorting and storage' because the claims do not
recite collecting orders in classified form, and then separating and
transmitting the orders according to their classification. See, Cyberphone at
Page 7." (App. Br. 10). Appellant further argues:
Instead, the claims recite, inter alia, creating an order
bundle that includes a plurality of orders that have similar
features, creating equipment sized bundles from the order bundle
based on equipment type information, identifying available
origin ports, destination ports, and voyages based on several
factors, and building land and ocean shipments for each of the
equipment sized bundles based on the available origin ports,
destination ports and voyages. In other words, a single order
bundle is created from a plurality of orders having similar
features, then a plurality of equipment sized bundles are created
from the single order bundle, after which land and ocean
shipments are created for each equipment sized bundle.
Accordingly, the claimed concept is clearly distinct from the
alleged abstract idea, which merely sorts, separates and transmits
information based on classification.
(App. Br. 10).
7
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
We find Appellant's argument generally restates that the claim
language and generally contends that the claim is distinct from prior cases.
We find Appellant's argument unavailing.
Appellant further argues:
While the final Office Action also alleges that "using an
iterative algorithm to simulate orders into containers . . . is a
concept similar to the basic concept of manipulating information
using mathematical relationships," (Page 4; Response to
Arguments), Appellants observe that "manipulating information
using mathematical relationships" clearly does not characterize
the concept recited by the claims, nor is it related to "using
categories to organize, store, and transmit information."
(App. Br. 10). Additionally, Appellant observes "the final Office Action has
declined to follow the methodology provided by the Court, which offered
citations to textbooks and articles to establish that the identified abstract idea
was, indeed, a fundamental economic practice." (App. Br. 10). But,
Appellant does not further dispute the Examiner's finding of a fundamental
economic practice. We find Appellant's argument to be unpersuasive
because we find the language of independent claiml to be directed to an
abstract idea of building land and ocean shipments for order bundles which
is a concept involving an idea of itself relating to shipping practices.
Claims 28 and 29
Appellant further contends "at least dependent Claims 28 and 29 do
not recite an abstract idea because the claimed invention improves the
performance of the computer-related technology of database searching."
(App. Br. 11 ). Appellant repeats the claim limitations and specifically
contend "[t]he instant Specification describes the improvement in the
performance of the computer system due to the caching provided by the
8
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
voyage primary key cache and the location month cache in Paragraph 0027 ."
(App. Br. 11).
We find Appellant's argument to be unpersuasive because the
language of dependent claims 28 and 29 merely recite a label for the
unclaimed storage elements as "cache" memories which were well-known
hardware items which are merely used for their known function to increase
speed of data retrieval as their normal and well-known function. Moreover,
the recitation of the hardware type does not further limit the claimed
"process" recited in the language of independent claim 1 where the medium
merely stores the claimed process, but the cache memory would be a
hardware element which would interact with the processor, but in an
unclaimed manner.
Appellant relies upon decisions in Enfish and McRO v. Bandai
Namco, and a discussion of preemption to argue that the use of the cache
memories improve the database searching and obviate the finding of an
abstract idea and preemption. (App. Br. 12). We disagree with Appellant's
line of reasoning and find that the recitation of a cache memory does not
limit the claimed process as discussed above and would not affect
preemption of the claimed process.
Alice Step 2B
Appellant further contends the claims recite significantly more than an
abstract idea (Step 2B). (App. Br. 13).
Claims 1, 14, and 22
Appellant argues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite elements
that comprise one or more abstract ideas, Appellants submit that
at least creating equipment sized bundles from the order bundle
9
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
based on equipment type information including, inter alia,
selecting an optimal number of containers of each container size,
from the plurality of container number estimates, based on
maximum utilization, minimum container number or minimum
cost, and dividing the order bundle into the equipment sized
bundles based on the optimal number of containers of each
container size, taken in combination with identifying available
origin ports, destination ports, and voyages based on the origin
location, destination location, pickup time, delivery time, land
leg transit time from the origin location to the origin ports, land
leg transit time from the destination ports to the destination
location, and voyage schedule information including voyage
departure times, voyage arrival times, voyage cutoff times at the
origin ports, and voyage recovery times at the destination ports,
and building land and ocean shipments for each of the equipment
sized bundles based on the available origin ports, destination
ports and voyages, result in the claims as a whole amounting to
significantly more than "using categories to organize, store and
transmit information."
(App. Br. 13-14).
We find the argued claim limitations merely list various parameters,
but does not specifically identify how the items of information are used.
Consequently, Appellant's reliance upon the claim language does not
specifically recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, we
find claim 1 is recited that such a high level, that the creating the order
bundle step and creating equipment sized bundles step does not specifically
recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, Appellant contends that
Evidence that the claims as a whole amount to
significantly more can be found in the final Office Action itself,
which essentially admits that the pending independent claims
recite a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces." Specifically, the final Office
Action indicates that the claims are allowable over the prior art,
10
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
meaning all of the pending claims now recite an inventive
concept per Step 2B, as discussed in Bascom.
(App. Br. 13-14).
Appellant further contends that the Examiner's withdrawal of the
obviousness rejection and an indication of allowable subject matter over the
prior art references is evidence that the claims as a whole amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. (App. Br. 14). We find
Appellant's reliance upon the lack of an obviousness rejection to be
unavailing with regards to the patent eligibility requirement.
Appellant further contends:
With respect to the independent claims, Appellants
respectfully submit that the limitation "creating an order bundle
including a plurality of orders that have a same origin location, a
same destination location, an overlapping pickup time window
at the same source location, and an overlapping delivery time
window at the same destination location," when viewed in
combination with the other elements of the independent claims,
provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces.
Additionally, the limitation "iteratively simulating
packing of the plurality of orders into a plurality of containers
using at least two packing methods and a multi-container mixed
integer programming (MIP) solver to create a plurality of
container number estimates, and selecting an optimal number of
containers of each container size, from the plurality of container
number estimates, based on maximum utilization, minimum
container number or minimum cost," when viewed in
combination with the other elements of the independent claims,
provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces.
Furthermore, the limitation "for each of the equipment
sized bundles, identifying available origin ports, destination
ports, and voyages based on the origin location, destination
location, pickup time, delivery time, land leg transit time from
11
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
the origin location to the origin ports, land leg transit time from
the destination ports to the destination location, and voyage
schedule information, the voyage schedule information including
voyage departure times, voyage arrival times, voyage cutoff
times at the origin ports, and voyage recovery times at the
destination ports," when viewed in combination with the other
elements of the independent claims, provide a non-conventional
and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.
Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to provide a
reasonable explanation as to why the combination of these
independent claim features do not provide nonconventional and
non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.
Appellants observe that the Examiner's categorization that the
claim's "additional limitations ... such as selecting an optimal
number of containers . . . , identifying available origin ports,
destination ports ... represent insignificant pre-solution activity"
does not address whether all of the claim elements, taken in
combination, provide a non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces.
(App. Br. 14--15).
We disagree with Appellant and find that merely repeating the claim
language does not evidence that each of the claim limitations "when viewed
in combination with the other elements of the independent claims, provide a
non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces" because relative time frames, data types identified, and creating and
selecting estimates "based on maximum utilization, minimum container
number or minimum cost" do not change the underlying process recited in
claim 1. Clearly, optimizing cost in shipping is a fundamental economic
practice and an abstract idea in addition to being a long-standing economic
practice which those parties in commerce have endeavored to carry out using
a pen and paper. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner's conclusion that the claims are not directed to significantly more
12
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
than the abstract idea. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
independent claims 1, 14, and 22 are directed to patent ineligible subject
matter.
Claims 6, 19, and 22
Appellant contends:
Claims 6, 19 and 27 recite "wherein the voyage cutoff time at the
origin port is the time within which orders must be present or
arrive at the origin port to make the voyage, and the voyage
recovery time at the destination port is the time required to
release an order at the destination port after the order arrives."
The claimed voyage cutoff and recovery times, when viewed in
combination with the other elements of the independent claims,
provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces.
(App. Br. 15-16).
We find Appellant merely repeats the language of the dependent
claim 6 which further details specifics with respect to a voyage cutoff time
and a voyage recovery time. We find these limitations as to specific time
frames used in the process of shipping does not change or further limit the
underlying process which is an abstract idea nor provide significantly more
than the abstract idea.
As a result, Appellant's argument does not show error in the
Examiner's conclusion that the claims are not directed to significantly more
than the abstract idea. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
dependent claims 6, 19, and 22 are directed to patent ineligible subject
matter.
Claim 29
Appellant further contends that dependent claim 29 recites patent
eligible subject matter because "Claim 29 recites a voyage primary key
13
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
cache and a location month cache. These elements, when viewed in
combination with the other elements of the independent claims, provide a
non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces." (App. Br. 16). Appellant further contends that similar arguments
are applicable to the remaining dependent claims. (App. Br. 16). We
disagree with Appellant, as discussed above.
Reply Brief
Appellant contends that "[ f]undamentally, the Examiner has failed to
properly explain how the following claim feature could be performed
without the use of a computer, i.e., in the human mind or using pen and
paper." (Reply Br. 2). Appellant recites the claim limitations "creating
equipment sized bundles ... ; " "iteratively simulating packing ... ; " "selecting
an optimal number of containers ... ;" and "dividing the order bundle .... "
We note that Appellant has not identified why the limitations cannot be
performed using pen and paper. For example, depending upon the amount
and complexity of the goods being shipped, the shipping may be as easy as
putting one automobile in one container because that is all that fits and of the
remainder of the claim merely goes to the determining arrival times and cost
to optimize the shipping. The claim sets forth no limitations on the amount
of goods or containers or limitations as to the packing or container
estimation. Similarly, the Specification does not further limit these
methodologies beyond merely reciting/listing them in the same broad
context. Consequently, merely reiterating the limitations without
substantive argument does not evidence that humans could not carry out the
method in their mind or using pen and paper.
14
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
Appellant contends:
[T]he specification teaches that, in one embodiment, this iterative
simulation is necessarily accomplished by a "container
optimization module 213" that is executed by processor 22 of
system 10. Appellant observes that the specification fails to
teach or suggest that the functionality performed by container
optimization module 213 "could be performed in the human
mind, or by a human using pen and paper."
(Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellant further contends "the Examiner is not permitted to create an
abstract idea out of thin air and simply label it as "an idea of itself." (Reply
Br. 4 ). Appellant further argues that "the Examiner has gone beyond the
concepts that have been identified as abstract ideas by the courts because the
Examiner has failed to cite a single court decision that supports the
identification of 'building land and ocean shipments for order bundles' as an
abstract idea." (Reply Br. 4 ).
We find the last step of building the shipment orders for bundles to be
similar to a limitation "apply it." We further note that the Specification
provides no details as to how the program performs the "building" the land
and ocean shipments beyond merely repeating the same language found in
the claims. (See ,r,r 4, 19, 25, 29, and 38).
We find the claimed invention to be directed to a combination of
abstract ideas relating to 1) packing and 2) shipping and tracking of goods.
We find the following cases to be similar to portions of the abstract idea
regarding the shipping and tracking of containers:
Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 636 Fed.
App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Mem), ajf'g,. 100 F. Supp.3d 405 (D.
N.J. 2015). The District Court found the abstract idea to be monitoring
15
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
locations, movement, and load status of shipping containers within a
container-receiving yard, and storing, reporting and communicating this
information in various forms through generic computer functions
In GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc., 2015 WL 6747142 (N.D. Cal.
November 5, 2015), the District Court identified the abstract idea as "the
patents-in-suit describe a third-party portal that facilitates the process of
booking and tracking shipping containers across multiple carriers. It follows
from prior precedent that the patents-in-suit embrace an abstract idea-
'intermediated booking and tracing of shipping containers."'
While we do not find a specific prior court case regarding optimizing
packing of a container/box, we do find that visualization and packing of a
receptacle of goods has been well-known, routine, and conventional for as
long as there have been containers/boxes and modes of delivery thereof. We
note that the language of independent claim 1 does not set forth any specific
limitations beyond setting forth an iterative process with no specific details
of the methods of packing or estimation. As a result, we find the broad
limitations do not take the claimed invention beyond the abstract idea and
claims significantly more than the abstract idea alone.
Therefore, we determine Appellant's arguments in the Reply Brief do
not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of a lack of patent eligible
subject matter of independent claim 1 and independent claims 14 and 22, not
argued separately.
Additionally, Appellant does not set forth further separate arguments
for patentability of any of the dependent claims. Therefore, they will fall
with their parent independent claim.
16
Appeal2017-006383
Application 13/207,758
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 14--19, and 22-29
based upon a lack of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-6, 14--19, and 22-29 based upon a lack of patent eligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 4150(±).
AFFIRMED
17