Ex Parte Breitenstein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2018

12889963 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/889,963 09/24/2010
87084 7590 08/29/2018
G TC Law Group PC & Affiliates
c/o CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Agneta Breitenstein
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.
HDCA-0001-P02 7350
EXAMINER
CHNG, JOY POH AI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2018 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):
j sammartin@gtclawgroup.com
gtcdocketing@cpaglobal.com
lhohn@gtclawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AGNETA BREITENSTEIN, STANLEY HUANG,
DONALD PETTINI, PAUL BLEICHER,
RYANSCHARER,andHUA YE
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35. Claims 2, 4--7, 12-23, and 25
are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Humedica, Inc, which
is the assignee of the present application. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention generally "relates to clinical informatics, a
clinical informatics platform and managing networks of health care
providers." Spec. ,r 4.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method of comparative healthcare benchmarking,
compnsmg:
gathering healthcare data, demographic data, and claims
data on a near real-time basis for a community of patients from
a plurality of sources, wherein the near real-time basis is at least
as frequently as five minutes;
processing the healthcare data, demographic data, and
claims data, wherein processing comprises identifying,
mapping and normalizing data elements,
wherein the mapping comprises assigning data to a field
of a database according to a hierarchically organized lexicon of
data elements, wherein multiple data element entries in the
lexicon are mapped to a single field for at least one field;
analyzing through the use of a computer processor the
healthcare data, demographic data, and claims data to obtain a
clinical benchmark, wherein the clinical benchmark is a
treatment outcome in the care of at least one of acute
myocardial infarction, diabetes, asthma, atrial fibrillation,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure,
coronary artery disease, hypertension, depression, osteoarthritis
and osteoporosis;
repeating the steps of gathering, processing, normalizing,
and analyzing to obtain a data sample to compare with the
2
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
clinical benchmark, wherein at least one change is made in at
least one of the repeated steps; and
presenting the data sample with the clinical benchmark as
a report in a graphical user interface, wherein the report can be
customized by at least one of changing at least one criterion.
App. Br. 15, Claims Appendix.
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (not one of the four
statutory categories). 2 Non-Final Act. 2.
B. Claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. 3
Non-Final Act. 3.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (not
one of the four statutory categories)? See infra, n.2.
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed a judicial exception without
significantly more? See infra, n.3.
2 See MPEP 706.03(a), form paragraph 7 .05.01.
3 See MPEP 706.03(a), form paragraph 7.05.015.
3
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
The Examiner's Rejection A under 35 US.C. § 101
(Non-statutory subject matter-not one of the four statutory categories)
The Examiner concludes that claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35 are
directed to non-statutory subject matter, because:
Claims 1 and 3 5 recites components that lack corresponding
structure. As per claim 1, and similarly claim 35, when read in
light of the specification, Examiner, in applying broadest
reasonable interpretation, interprets the steps of "gathering
healthcare data, demographic data and claims data",
"processing the healthcare data, demographic data and claims
data", and "repeating the steps of gathering, processing and
normalizing" as performed by human beings. A claim directed
to or including within its scope a human being will not be
considered to be patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
since the grant of a limited, but exclusive property right in a
human being is prohibited by the Constitution. The language
"including within its scope a human being" is the important
language here.
Non-Final Act. 2 (emphasis added).
We reverse the Examiner's cumulative rejection A, because
independent claims 1 and 35 are directed to a statutory category per se: both
claims 1 and 35 are process (method) claims. 4 Furthermore, claims 1 and 35
4 35 U.S.C. § 101 ("Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
4
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
expressly recite that the analyzing step is performed "through the use of a
computer processor." See supra, n.2.
Mayo/Alice Analysis under 35 USC§ 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLSBankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an
abstract idea. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to,
fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an
idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57.
If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry
ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
Cir. 2017).
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title." ( emphasis added)).
5
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the
elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). We consider the question of
whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities
of the computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract
idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We, therefore, decide under step two whether the claims: (a) set forth
an inventive concept that provides a specific means or method that improves
the relevant technology, or (b) are directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and
machinery. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
The Examiner's Rejection B under 35 USC§ 101
(The claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more)
Regarding the first step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis, the Examiner
concludes that claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35 are directed to a judicial
exception, i.e., an abstract idea, because:
Claims 1 and similarly, claim 35, are directed to a series of
steps that defines an abstract idea similar to using categories to
organize, store and transmit information, and comparing new
and stored information, and using rules to identify options,
which are concepts that have been previously found by the
courts to be abstract. Claims 1 and 3 5 are directed to gathering
data, processing data, mapping data, analyzing data, repeating
steps, and presenting data, which is similar to an abstract idea
6
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
of using categories to organize, store and transmit information,
and comparing new and stored information and using rules to
identify options. The abstract ideas for claims 3, 8-11 , 24 and
26-34 are similar to the abstract idea for claims 1 and 35 but
further describe aspects of real-time, processing data, data
record, presenting data, criterion, healthcare data, alert, source,
and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar
reasons as given above.
Non-Final Act. 3 ( emphasis added). 5
Regarding the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, the Examiner
finds the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because:
[T]he additional elements amount to no more than generic
computer/ computing components ( computing processor) that
serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment performing routine and conventional
activities that are well-understood in the pertinent industry (i.e.
gathering data, processing data, mapping data, analyzing data,
repeating steps, and presenting data). Applicant's specification
describes conventional computing/ computer hardware for
implementing the above described functions including "A
processor may be any kind of computational or processing
device capable of executing program instructions, codes, binary
instructions and the like" (see at least Paragraph [0082]). Claim
35 recites gathering healthcare data from glucose meters.
Transmission (i.e. sending, receiving) of data from various
electronic healthcare/medical devices (i.e. glucose meters) is
considered well-understood, routine and conventional
activities, previously known in the industry. Simply appending
well-understood, routine and conventional activities, previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,
does not amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception.
5 "Patent eligibility under§ 101 presents an issue of law." Accenture Glob.
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
7
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
Non-Final Act. 3 ( emphasis added). 6
For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner concludes that all
claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35 on appeal are not patent-eligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Mayo/Alice Analysis - Step 1
Regarding Alice Step 1, Appellants contend the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case. App. Br. 10. Appellants note:
While providing an indication of what the supposed abstract
idea is like, the Office Action never states what the abstract idea
is believed to actually be.
Further, while making reference to "concepts that have
been previously found by the courts to be abstract" (Office
Action, page 3, paragraph 7), the Office Action does not
identify an actual court case.
Id. (underline omitted).
In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection:
Claims 1 and 35 recite[], in part, a series of steps that includes
gathering data, processing data, mapping data, analyzing data,
repeating steps, and presenting data. These steps corresponds
to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as
"an idea of itself' in Alice. An example of "an idea of itself' is
the concept of receiving information, analyzing information and
6 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). In particular, "[ t ]he question of 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." Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
8
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
providing an output as in Electric Power Group[7] (because the
limitations outline gathering data, processing data, mapping
data, analyzing data and presenting output data), in addition to
using categories to organize, store and transmit information as
in Cybeifone[ 8] and comparing new and stored information and
using rules to identify options as in Smart gene. 9 The abstract
ideas for claims 3, 8-11, 24 and 26-34 are similar to the abstract
idea for claims 1 and 35 but further describe aspects of real-
time, processing data, data record, presenting data, criterion,
healthcare data, alert, source, and are, therefore, directed to an
abstract idea for similar reasons as given above.
Ans. 3--4 (italics added to case names) (footnotes added).
Appellants respond in the Reply Brief:
The inquiry in Electric Power Group turned on "how" the
result was achieved (see id. at 9), where the claims lacked
description of how the function of gathering, analyzing, and
displaying were achieved (see id. at 11 ). In contrast, the claims
in the present case recite details, such as the recitation in
independent claims 1 and 3 5 that "mapping comprises
assigning data to a field of a database according to a
hierarchically organized lexicon of data elements."
Reply Br. 2 (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355-56).
We note independent claims 1 and 35 are directed to, inter alia,
gathering and processing data, and:
7 Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
8 Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential).
9 SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App'x 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential).
9
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
analyzing through the use of a computer processor the
healthcare data, demographic data, and claims data to obtain a
clinical benchmark ... [and]
repeating the steps of gathering, processing, normalizing,
and analyzing to obtain a data sample to compare with the
clinical benchmark, wherein at least one change is made in at
least one of the repeated steps; and
presenting the data sample with the clinical benchmark as
a report in a graphical user interface, wherein the report can be
customized by at least one of changing at least one criterion.
Claim 1.
Data gathering is a classic example of insignificant extra-solution
activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane),
aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Our reviewing court has
concluded that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data,
recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing the data in
memory. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Smart Sys. Innovations,
LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
( concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of
data are directed to an abstract idea"); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353
( the collection of information and analysis of information are abstract ideas).
Moreover, but for the recitation of a generic computer processor and
database (independent claims 1 and 35), we find the recited steps or acts,
could be performed as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper. See
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("While the Supreme Court has altered the § 101 analysis since
CyberSource in cases like Mayo and Alice, we continue to 'treat[] analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
10
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the
abstract-idea category."' (brackets in original) (quoting Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1354)); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely mental processes can be
unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson [ 409 U.S. 63
(1972)]."). "[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for
collection [and] analysis ... does nothing significant to differentiate a
process from ordinary mental processes .... " Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1355. Data gathering, such as receiving and analyzing (or identifying data),
by itself, does not transform an otherwise-abstract process or system of
information collection and analysis. See id.
Appellants cite to McRO for the guidance that a process specifically
designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional
industry practice may be patent-eligible. Reply Br. 4 ( citing McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
However, McRO also guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents
patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the
result is accomplished."' McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 (emphasis added)
(quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)).
Here, Appellants' claims are directed to the result of: "presenting the
data sample with the clinical benchmark as a report in a graphical user
interface, wherein the report can be customized by at least one of changing
at least one criterion." Independent claim 1. See commensurate language,
independent claim 3 5.
11
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
Appellants further aver "the court in Enfzsh makes clear that 'a
specific improvement to the way computers operate' is not an abstract idea."
App. Br. 12.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 11-12), the
claimed self-referential table in Enfzsh was a specific type of data structure
designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in
memory. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1339. Appellants' claims 1 and 35 both recite
"assigning data to a field of a database according to a hierarchically
organized lexicon of data elements." On this record, Appellants have not
shown that the recited "hierarchically organized lexicon of data elements"
improves the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, as found
by the court in Enfzsh. See Claim 1 and 35.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that Appellants' claimed invention
improves the recited database's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise
changes the way the database functions, at least in the sense contemplated by
the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh.
Appellants advance no further substantive arguments regarding Alice
Step 1. Therefore, on this record, we conclude Appellants' claims 1, 3,
8-11, 24, and 26-35 are directed to an abstract idea, which is similar to the
abstract ideas identified by our reviewing courts as discussed above, that
could additionally be performed as mental steps, albeit with the aid of pen
and paper.
Mayo/Alice Analysis-Step 2
Because we conclude the claims are directed to an abstract idea for
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 3;
Ans. 3---6), we tum to the second part of the Alice/Mayo analysis. We
12
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
analyze the claims to determine if there are additional limitations that
individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to
"significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
Regarding Alice Step 2, Appellants address the purported inventive
concept of the claims. Appellants argue:
The claims also improve the operation of a computer. As
noted above, the quantitative and technical nature of the
claimed methods will allow for the efficient creation and
analysis of clinical benchmarks. As recited in the claims, this
process is enabled to take place in near real time. As a result, a
computer performing the recited steps will experience less
processing time.
App. Br. 12 (emphasis added).
That the recited "computer processor" of claims 1 and 3 5 performs the
steps of the method in real time does not render the claims non-abstract. See
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims directed to monitoring delivery of
real-time information to users or measuring such delivery as directed to an
abstract idea); see also id. (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351-53
(noting that collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results is an
abstract idea, even when undertaken in real time)).
Although the steps recited in Appellants' claims may be performed
faster or more efficiently with the recited "computer processor" of claims 1
and 35, we find the resultant speed increase comes from a "general-purpose
computer, rather than from the patented method itself," and does "not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed [invention]."
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ( citation omitted).
13
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
Our reviewing court provides guidance regarding the use of such
generic computer components. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355
("We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks
that are not even arguably inventive are 'insufficient to pass the test of an
inventive concept in the application' of an abstract idea." (quoting buySAFE,
Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)));
Intellectual Ventures Iv. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the claims recite both a generic computer
element-a processor-and a series of generic computer 'components' that
merely restate their individual functions . . . . That is to say, they merely
describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This
is simply not enough under step two.").
Appellants further argue:
Continuing, physical objects are required to carry out the
claimed method, including "analyzing through the use of a
computer processor" in claims 1 and 35, which is patent
eligible. Further, claim 35 recites gathering healthcare data on
a near real-time basis for a community of patients from a
plurality of glucose meters. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. [ v.
Biogen IDECJ, 659 F.3d[] 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011), finding
claims patent-eligible because the claims required a physical
step.
App. Br. 13-14 (emphasis omitted).
However, the Supreme Court guides that the "prohibition against
patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the
use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or [by] adding
'insignificant postsolution activity."' Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-
11 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981)).
14
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
Applying this guidance here, we agree with the Examiner that "[ t ]he
glucose meter is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is
merely a [healthcare] data source, and it is not used to perform any of the
method steps." Ans. 9; see Independent claim 35.
Regarding Appellants' argument "that the limitations within the
claims do meaningfully limit implementation, such that there is no
preemption the field" (Reply Br. 5), our reviewing court provides applicable
guidance: "[ w ]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
("[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-
empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains
only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as gathering
data, identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or
technological environment."), vacated and remanded, WildTangent, Inc. v.
Ultramercial LLC, 134 S. Ct. 2870 (2014) (remanding for consideration in
light of Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding
the absence of complete preemption.
Because we find Appellants have not established that claims 1, 3,
8-11, 24, and 26-35 are directed to an improvement in the recited generic
computer processor and database, we conclude that none of the claim
limitations, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently
transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
15
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Mayo/Alice analyses,
that each of Appellants' claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35, considered as a
whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (under step one), and
under step two, does not recite something "significantly more" to transform
the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection B under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and
26-35, as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. 10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (not
one of the four statutory categories). See supra, n.2.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24, and 26-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. See supra, n.3.
10 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
16
Appeal2017-005812
Application 12/889,963
DECISION
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 8-11, 24,
and 26-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17