Ex Parte BENSLEY et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 4, 2019

14386411 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/386,411 09/19/2014 Robert J. BENSLEY
27572 7590 04/08/2019
Harness Dickey (Troy)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
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.
16601-000002-US-NP 4023
EXAMINER
YIP,JACK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2019 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteROBERT J. BENSLEY,JASONRIVAS, and
JOHN J. BRUSK
Appeal2018-005975
Application 14/386,411 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, CYNTHIAL. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Robert 1. Bensley et al. (Appellants) appeal under35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21,2 which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Wes tern Michigan University Research Foundation as
the real party in interest. Brief, filed Sept. 29, 2017 ("Br.") 2.
2 See Final Office Action, mailed Mar. 23, 2017 ("Final Act.") 2-20; see
also Examiner's Answer, mailed Feb. 20, 2018 ("Ans.") 2-22. Examiner
entered the Amendment filed Dec. 7, 2016. See Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer-implemented tool for building a backend
content management system for an interactive, computer-
implemented behavior change-based lesson delivery system,
compnsmg:
a user interface implemented by a processor programmed
to receive input from a content creating user of the computer-
implemented tool;
a lesson manager implemented by the processor
programmed to generate a decision tree structure and to
populate that tree structure with frrst content in accordance with
input received from the user via the user interface to defme a
lesson comprising a plurality of lesson pages stored in memory;
a virtual educator manager implemented by the processor
programmed to store in memory a plurality of different
graphical images of an educator character, each image
corresponding to a different facial expression or gesture, the
virtual educator manager implemented by the processor being
further programmed to respond based on input received from
the user via the user interface by associating and storing in
memory a selected one of the plurality of different graphical
images with selected ones of said lesson pages;
a link manager implemented by the processor
programmed to store a plurality of links autonomously from the
lesson, the links corresponding to second content to supplement
the frrst content, the link manager implemented by the
processor being further programmed to respond based on input
received from the content creating user via the user interface to
defme a conditional reference between a lesson page and the
second content that is programmed to test at runtime of the
change-based lesson delivery system whether the referenced
second content is available and to suppress the link if it is not
available;
an impact manager implemented by a processor
programmed to defme in memory a data structure in which to
store a date when the lesson was completed by a person using
the lesson delivery system and programmed to compute a
2
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
predefmed interval after the stored date representing a later date
on which to issue a stage-of-change impact questionnaire.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more. Final Act. 3-5.
2. Claims 16-18and21 arerejectedunder35U.S.C. § 102(a)(l)as
anticipated by Elzinga et al. (US 2005/0026131 Al; pub. Feb. 3, 2005,
hereinafter "Elzinga"). Id. at 5-9.
3. Claims 1--4, 8-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Elzinga and McCauley et al. (US 2009/0070426 Al;
pub. Mar. 12, 2009, hereinafter"McCauley"). 3 Id. at9-19.
4. Claims 5-7 arerejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentableover
Elzinga, McCauley, and Tatsouka(US 6,260,033 Bl; iss. July 10, 2001).
Id. at 19-20.
ANALYSIS
35 USC§ 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may, nevertheless, be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme
Court has interpreted35 U.S.C. § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools
of scientific and technological work, such that including them within the
domain of patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised
3 The statement of rejection incorrectly includes claim 5-7, which are
rejected under Elzinga, McCauley, and Tatsouka.
3
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
upon them. Ass 'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576,589 (2013).
Of course, "[ a ]t some level, 'all inventions ... embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply'" these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
Alice Corp. Ptv. Ltd. CLSBankinternational, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014)
( citation omitted). Accordingly, evaluating ineligible subject matter, under
these judicial exclusions, involves a two-step framework for
"distinguish[ ing] between patents that claim the buildin[g] block[ s] of
human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something
more, []thereby transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
( citations omitted). The frrst step determines whether the claim is directed to
judicially excluded subject matter ( such as a so-called "abstract idea"); the
second step determines whether there are any "additional elements" recited
in the claim that ( either individually or as an "ordered combination") amount
to "significantly more" than the identified judicially excepted subject matter
itself. Id. at 217-18.
USPTOrecentlypublished revised guidance on the application of
§ 101, in accordance with judicial precedent. 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019
Revised Guidance"). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, a claim is "directed
to" an abstract idea, only if the claim recites any of (1) mathematical
concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental
processes -without integrating such abstract idea into a "practical
application," i.e., without "apply[ing], rely[ing] on, orus[ing] 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
4
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
monopolize the judicial exception." 2019 Revised Guidance, 52-55. A
claim so "directed to" an abstract idea constitutes ineligible subject matter,
unless it recites an additional element ( or combination of elements)
amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
As to the first step of the Alice framework, the Examiner states:
[T]he claims recite a pre-computer analogue of a teacher creates
a plurality of lesson elements of a subject which includes the
steps for inputting a lesson content; generating a hierarchical
structure which includes a plurality of lesson elements and
determining a relation between the plurality of lesson element;
includes identifications of an educator associated with lesson
element which allow a user to select the lesson element; the
plurality of lesson elements are linked and delivered to the
student based on a conditional reference (i.e., a student's
proficiency of one lesson element); an survey is delivered to a
student at the end of the lesson to determine the effectiveness of
the lesson. This is an idea 'of itself' akin to other concepts that
have been identified as directed to abstract ideas, such as
Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group)
( the claimed method similarly collecting lesson information
from an author user, and analyzing the lesson information and
displaying the lesson information to the student). This is
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity akin to other
concepts that have been identified as directed to abstract ideas,
such as Filtering content (BASCOM) (the claimed method
similarly filtering dead link) and Classifying and storing digital
images in an organized manner (TL! Comms.) (the claimed
method similarly storing and classifying a plurality of different
graphical images of an educator character).
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3--4.
Notwithstanding the propriety of the Examiner's determination as to
whether the claims are directed to the identified abstract idea, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has failed to show adequately that the
5
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
additional elements would not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea.
The inquiry into whether additional claim elements - i.e., claim
elements other than those that describe any judicial exception to which a
claim might be directed- amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception itself considers whether the claim limitations "involve more than
performance of'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities
previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at225). Further, this step "requires more
than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art,"
because "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and
non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." BASCOM Global
Internet Services., Inc. v. AT&T MobilUy LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Notably, "[w]hethersomethingis well-understood, routine, and
conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual
determination." Berkheimerv. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369(Fed. Cir.
2018).
USP TO' s Guidance Memorandum of May 4, 2016 ("May 2016
Guidance") provided:
It is important to remember that a new combination of steps in a
process may be patent eligible even though all the steps of the
combination were individually well known and in common use
before the combination was made ([Diamondv. Diehr,450U.S.
17 5 ( 1981) ]). Thus, it is particularly critical to address the
combination of additional elements, because while individually-
viewed elements may not appear to add significantly more,
those additional elements when viewed in combination may
6
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
amount to significantly more than the exception by
meaningfully limiting the judicial exception.
May 2016 Guidance, 3.
Under the second step of the Alice framework, the Examiner states
"the claim recites a generic computer and typical components of a generic
computer, performing routine and conventional function of implementing
instructions of an abstract idea on a computer." Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 4. 4 The Examiner identifies "a computer, a processor, a display and a
content delivery system" as the additional claim elements, and summarily
concludes"[ v ]iewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not
provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent
eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B, No)." Final Act. 4
(emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 4--5. Also, the Examiner determines:
Claims 1, 13, 16, [and] 20-21 further recite a plurality of
software component; for example, a user interface, a lesson
manager, a virtual educator manager, a link manager and an
impact manager. The components of the claims are not drawn
to structural components. In the claim, each of the components
are disclosed as being software modules or programs. As such,
the claims are drawn to a computer program or software per se
and are thus drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Ans. 5.
Appellants contend "a court must look to the claims as an ordered
combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps."
Br. 15. In particular, Appellants argue the claims contain numerous
4 Although the scope of the independent claims vary, the Examiner applies
the same analysis to all the claims.
7
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
meaningful limitations that satisfy the "significantly more" requirement. Id.
at 23. According to Appellants, "[ a ]mong these limitations, each of the
following provides [ and] meets the 'significantly more'" requirement:
( 1) [link manager]
a link manager implemented by the processor programmed to
store a plurality of links autonomously from the lesson, the
links corresponding to second content to supplement the first
content, the link manager implemented by the processor being
further programmed to respond based on input received from
the content creating user via the user interface to define a
conditional reference between a lesson page and the second
content that is programmed to test at runtime of the change-
based lesson delivery system whether the referenced second
content is available and to suppress the link if it is not available
(2) [impact manager]
an impact manager implemented by a processor programmed to
define in memory a data structure in which to store a date when
the lesson was completed by a person using the lesson delivery
system and programmed to compute a predefmed interval after
the stored date representing a later date on which to issue a
stage-of-change impact questionnaire
(3) [virtual educatormanager]
a virtual educator manager implemented by the processor
programmed to store in memory a plurality of different
graphical images of an educator character, each image
corresponding to a different facial expression or gesture, the
virtual educator manager implemented by the processor being
further programmed to respond based on input received from
the user via the user interface by associating and storing in
memory a selected one of the plurality of different graphical
images with selected ones of said lesson pages
Id. at 23-24.
8
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
In response to Appellants' argument as to the ( 1) link manager
limitation, the Examiner states:
The Office determines that this method of instruction was
routinely performed pre-computer era, for example[,] by a
teacher select usable concept ( also hide other outdated,
incorrect and inappropriate material from the student). The
Office respectfully submits thatthe alleged 'technical feature' is
Certain Methods ofOrganizing Human Activity akin to other
concepts that have been identified as directed to abstract ideas,
such as Filtering content (BASCOM) (the claimed method
similarly filtering dead link).
Ans. 26. As to the (2) impact manager limitation, the Examiner states: "The
Office determines that this method of instruction was routinely performed
pre-computer era, for example [,] by a school issue a feedback survey to the
student after a predetermined period (i.e., a day, a week) the completion of
the learning content (i.e., to assess the effectiveness of the learning
content.[)]". Id. As to the (3) virtual educator manager limitation, the
Examiner states:
The Office determines that this method of instruction was
routinely performed pre-computer era, for example[,] by an
educator attaching pictures to illustrate different concepts in a
lesson plan. This is Certain Methods of Organizing Human
Activity akin to other concepts that have been identified as
directed to abstract ideas, such as Classifying and storing digital
images in an organized manner.
Id. at 27. "Furthermore, [the Examiner asserts,] display[ing] images of a
person in computer system represents well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry." Id.
Yet, in the second step of the Alice framework, the proper inquiry is
not whether the additional elements are abstract; indeed, such a
9
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
determination would be established under the first step of the Alice
framework. Rather, the inquiry of the second Alice step focuses on whether
any additional claim elements - considered individually and in combination
- constitute more than well-understood, routine, and conventional features.
See Content Extraction, 776F.3dat 1347--48. USPTOGuidancedatedApril
19, 2018 ("April 2018 Guidance") addresses the requisite factual
determinations for such a rejection, explaining that an additional element ( or
combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional
unless the examiner fmds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with,
one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or
to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution
that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element( s ). A
specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of additional elements when it
describes the additional elements as well-understood or
routine or conventional ( or an equivalent term), as a
commercially available product, or in a manner that
indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently
well-known that the specification does not need to
describe the particulars of such additional elements to
satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Afmding that an element is
well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be
based only on the fact that the specification is silent with
respect to describing such element.
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed
in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood,
routine, conventional nature of the additional element( s ).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element( s ). An appropriate publication could include a
book, manual, review article, or other source that
10
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-
known and in common use in the relevant industry. It
does not include all items that might otherwise qualify as
a "printed publication" as used in 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Whether something is disclosed in a document that is
considered a "printed publication" under 3 5 U.S. C.
§ 102 is a distinct inquiry from whether something is
well-known, routine, conventional activity. A document
may be a printed publication but still fail to establish that
something it describes is well-understood, routine,
conventional activity .... The nature of the publication
and the description of the additional elements in the
publication would need to demonstrate that the additional
elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the
relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or
elements that are so well-known that they do not need to
be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). Forexample, while U.S.patentsand
published applications are publications, merely fmding
the additional element in a single patent or published
application would not be sufficient to demonstrate that
the additional element is well-understood, routine,
conventional, unless the patent or published application
demonstrates that the additional element are widely
prevalent or in common use in the relevant field.
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of
the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the
additional element( s ). This option should be used only
when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her
personal knowledge, that the additional element( s)
represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity
engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the
additional elements are widely prevalent or in common
use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of
activity or elements that are so well-known that they do
not need to be described in detail in a patent application
to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Procedures for taking
official notice and addressing an applicant's challenge to
official notice are discussed in MPEP §2144.03.
11
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
April 2018 Guidance 3--4 (footnote omitted). Thus, the rejection of record
lacks sufficiently supported fmdings to satisfy the inquiry under step two of
Alice, including the above-identified portion of the April 2018 Guidance.
The proper analysis demonstrates that the identified ordered combination of
additional claim elements under the secondAlice step- exists in one or
more of the enumerated evidentiary sources (see April 2018 Guidance, 3--4)
in order to establish such combination as well-understood, routine or
conventional. For example, an adequately supported rejection should
consider and make explicit whether the combination of claim 1 's recited
additional elements, which are discussed above, together are, as a factual
matter, well-understood, routine or conventional.
Furthermore, the Examiner's determination that independent claims 1,
13, 16, 20, and21 are directed to softwareperse (Ans. 5) is erroneous. See
MPEP § 2106. 03 (Products that do not have a physical or tangible form,
such as information ("data per se") or a computer program per se ("software
per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.). All
of the independent claims are drawn to an apparatus and recite a structural
recitation, i.e. "a processor," which is a machine. As such, claims 1, 13, 16,
20, and 21 are not directed to software per se.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not adequately
established that the claims on appeal are directed to a judicial exception
without significantly more, or that they are directed to software per se.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
12
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
35 USC§ 102
Appellants contend that claims 16-18 and21 employ "an impact
manager that automatically generates impact questionnaires that measure the
client's stage of change at a predefined interval after the particular lesson
was completed." Br. 26. Distinguishing paragraphs 95 and 115 of Elzinga,
Appellants argue that "there is no indication that Elzinga would configure its
learning system to trigger questionnaires at predefmed intervals after a
stored date thatthe lesson was completed." Id. at 27.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because in addition those
paragraphs, the Examiner also cites paragraphs 108, 113, 116,136,215, and
332. Ans. 30; see also Final Act. 6. Notably, the Examiner fmds Elzinga
discloses that the "adaptive path builder tool allows instructional designers
to develop the sequence of activities for learning a task or concept. It also
allows designers to organize test items to assemble a test, set the timing of
questionnaire items." Ans. 30 (quoting Elzinga ,r 113). According to the
Examiner, Elzinga discloses:
"Tests and questionnaires are created as adaptive paths. To get
learner feedback on a particular activity, a questionnaire
activity is placed after the activity within the adaptive path. By
indicating branching conditions, the questionnaire activity is
activated a certain percent of the time for a group of learners, or
only when a learner has struggled with a previous activity";
[0136]; [0215], "Relating to a delay range, a minimum delay
and a maximum delay are included in the branching criteria of
each branch"; [0332], "Each of these items must be checked off
and the date of completion entered"; claim 40, "40. A method
as recited in claim 38, wherein the information tracked includes
at least one of: (i) a period of time; Elzinga teaches an adaptive
path builder tool allows instructional designers to develop the
sequence of activities for learning a task or concept. It also
allows designers to organize test items to assemble a test, set
13
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
the timing of questionnaire items; furthermore, the date of
completion of an item is recorded (see [0332]).
Id. Because Appellants have not disputed these explicit fmdings made by
the Examiner, we are not apprised of error in the rejection. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 16-18 and 21 5 as anticipated by Elzinga.
35 USC§ 103
As to claims 1-15, 19, and 20, we agree with Appellants (Br. 25) that
the Examiner erred in determining that "a plurality of different graphical
images of an educator character, each image corresponding to a different
facial expression or gesture" recited in claims 1, 13, and 20
is nonfunctional descriptive material that is not to be given any patentable
weight (Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2, 31 ); and as a result erred in
determining that the combination of applied references teaches or suggests
this limitation as set forth in each of independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
As for printed matter, the Federal Circuit has noted: "[O]nce it is
determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, one must then
determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated
physical substrate, and only if the answer is 'no' is the printed matter owed
no patentable weight." In re DiStefano, III, 808 F.3d 845,851 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Our reviewing court has held, printed matter may serve to
distinguish an invention from the prior art only if there is a functional
5 We note that the scope of claim 21 is different from independent claim 16.
See Br., Claims App. (Tab A-9). The limitation argued is applicable to
independent claim 16 only because claim 21 does not recite an impact
manager; but, no separate arguments are presented to contest the rejection of
claim 21. See Br. 26.
14
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
between the printed matter and its substrate. See AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex,
Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1064---65 (Fed. Cir. 2010); King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (the relevant inquiry
here is whether the additional instructional limitation has a "new and
unobvious functional relationship" with the method, that is, whether the
limitation in no way depends on the method, and the method does not
depend on the limitation); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889
(BP AI 2008) (precedential) (Informational content of the data thus
represents non-functional descriptive material, which "does not lend
patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or
process."); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BP AI 2005)
(informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003), ajfd, (Rule 36) (June 12,
2006) ("[W]ellness-related" data in databases and communicated on
distributed network did not functionally change either the data storage
system or the communication system used in the claimed method.). See
also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d
1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (the Examiner need not give patentable
weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional
relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate).
In this light, in the instant case concerning the limitation
a virtual educator manager implemented by the processor
programmed to store in memory a plurality of different
graphical images of an educator character, each image
corresponding to a different facial expression or gesture, the
virtual educator manager implemented by the processor being
further programmed to respond based on input received from
the user via the user interface by associating and storing in
memory a selected one of the plurality of different graphical
images with selected ones of said lesson pages
15
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
(Br., Claims App. Tab A-1), we agree with Appellants that "it is not the
mere display on the screen (substrate) being claimed, but the manner in
which the virtual educator manager-based on input received from the
user-associates and stores in memory a selected one of the plurality of
images with selected ones of the lesson pages." Br. 25. In other words, "the
virtual educator manager is in fact mediating a functi anal relationship
between the so-called printed matter (graphical images) and the memory in
which the image and lesson page relationships are stored." Id.
The Examiner's reasoning that a plurality of images (printed matter)
placed on a substrate ( display) represent"[ m Jere support by the substrate for
the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for
patentability" (see Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2, 29) is flawed because it
does not account for the limitation as a whole in the context of the claim. As
recited in claim 1, and similarly in independent claims 13 and 20, the virtual
educator manager implemented by the processor being further programmed
to respond based on input received from the user via the user interface by
associating and storing in memory a selected one of the plurality of different
graphical images with selected ones of said lesson pages. In other words,
the virtual educator manager is triggered to respond based on input from the
user by associating and storing selected images with selected lesson pages.
As a result, we are constrained by the record before us not to sustain
the Examiner's obvious rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 20, which
all contain this disputed feature, including dependent claims 2-12, 14, 15,
and 19.
16
Appeal 2018-005975
Application 14/386,411
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections under35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17