Ex Parte GARG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2018

13165989 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/165,989 06/22/2011
37945 7590 08/30/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ANKITGARG
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.
IN9201 l 0088US 1 4960
EXAMINER
QAYYUM, ZESHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2018 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANKIT GARG, TAP AN K. NA YAK, ARITRA SEN,
and AKSHAT VERMA
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 19--21 and 26-33. Claims 1-18, 22-25, and 34--42 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of (i) claims 19--21, 26-31, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter;
1 As noted by Appellant in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 2), the real party in
interest is International Business Machines Corporation. This application is
related to U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/410,941, filed March 2,
2012, which is also before the Board as Appeal No. 2017-004241.
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
and (ii) obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 19. We
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 32 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.
Disclosed Invention and Illustrative Claim
The disclosed invention relates a computer program product having
computer usable program code for performing a method for server
consolidation for the efficient use of computer server resources to reduce the
total number of servers an organization requires. Spec. ,r 3. The disclosed
and claimed computer program product instructs a data processor to perform
consolidation and planning based on (i) licensing data including licensing
costs, and (ii) application workload requirements for applications running
computing resources of a set of servers. Spec. ,r,r 5, 6; Claim 19; Abstract.
An optimal configuration of the applications executing on the servers is
recommended based on the lowest calculated total cost, and then the
applications are consolidated into the recommended configuration. Spec. ,r,r
5, 6; Claim 19. Sole independent claim 19, reproduced below with
emphases added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
19. A computer program product for handling media, the
computer program product comprising:
a computer usable non-transitory storage medium having
computer usable program code embodied therewith, the
computer usable program code configured to instruct a data
processor to perform steps of:
storing information [sic] a storage medium, wherein said
information is for a set of applications running on a set of
servers, said information comprising:
(i) licensing data for the set of applications that
includes licensing costs per application,
(ii) application workload requirements for the set
of applications running on the set of servers, and
2
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
(iii) records of computing resources of each of
the set of servers;
mapping the application workload requirements of the set
of applications to the computing resources of the set of servers;
determining dependencies for the set of applications
running on the set of servers;
identifying various arrangements to place the set of
applications within different ones of the set of servers based on
the licensing data, the application workload requirements and
the records of computing resources;
generating a plurality of configurations for the set of
applications running on the set of servers, wherein said plurality
of configurations comprises a first configuration and a second
configuration, wherein different arrangements of the set
of applications are placed within different ones of the set of
servers in the first configuration and in the second
configuration, wherein each of the plurality of configurations
are generated:
(i) to assure that the set of applications are placed
within specific ones of the set of servers, and
(ii) to assure that computing resources of each of
the set of servers upon which the set of applications are
placed satisfies application workload requirements of
a server-subset of the set of applications that are placed
within that server;
calculating licensing costs for the first configuration and
for the second configuration, wherein the licensing costs are
determined for licenses associated with the set of applications
and the dependencies;
calculating operational costs for the first configuration
and for the second configuration;
calculating total costs for the first configuration and for
the second configuration, including summing the licensing
costs and the operating costs when calculating the total costs;
recommending one of the first configuration and the
second configuration depending on which configuration has a
lower total cost in accordance with the calculations;
providing results of the recommending to an authorized
administrator as part of a programmatic action that consolidates
the set of applications running on the set of servers; and
3
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
responsive to providing the results, consolidating the set
of applications into the first configuration or the second
configuration according to the results.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections, which are before us on
appeal:
(1) Claims 1-10 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 7-10; Ans. 2-5.
(2) Claim 19 stands rejected based on the judicially created doctrine
of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting, over claim 1 of U.S.
Patent Application No. 13/410,941, which has now published as Garg (US
2012/0331114 Al; published Dec. 27, 2012). 2 Final Act. 10-12; Ans. 6-7.
(3) Claims 19-21 and 26-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final 12-14;
Ans. 7-9. This rejection has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2; see
also Advisory Action mailed Nov. 29, 2016; Reply Br. 2) and is, therefore,
not before us on appeal.
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments in the briefs (App. Br. 7-19; Reply
Br. 2-7), the principal issue on appeal is whether or not the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-10 and 19-26 under 35 U.S.C § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
2 Appellants do not present specific arguments for claim 19, rejected based
on the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting, or otherwise rebut the Examiner's prima facie case in regards to
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 19 (see App. Br.
19; Reply Br. 2).
4
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
ANALYSIS
The Non-Statutory Subject Matter Rejection under 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. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS
Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (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 Corp., 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," id.,
e.g., to an abstract idea. For example, abstract ideas 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. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the
elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice
Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98). For claims
to pass muster, "at step two, an inventive concept must be evident in the
5
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
claims." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. We, therefore, look to whether
the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief. We agree with Appellants' contentions (App.
Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 5---6) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 32 as
being "merely directed to 'describing different configuration[s] and
calculating a plurality of different type of costs"' (Reply Br. 5), because
claim 32 positively recites "changing information technology
infrastructures" for the configurations "using a consolidation tool" with a
"graphical user interface" (see claim 32)(emphasis added), and the Examiner
(Final Act. 9, ,r 19; Ans. 12) fails to sufficiently address these claim
limitations. For the reasons that follow, as well as the reasons provided by
the Examiner in the Final Rejection (Final Act. 7-10), and the Examiner's
Answer (Ans. 2-5, 10-12), we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
(App. Br. 7-18; Reply Br. 2---6) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
19-21, 26-31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We do not find Appellants'
arguments for the patent-eligibility of claims 19-21, 26-31, and 33
persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided adequate findings
and reasoning to support a conclusion of patent-ineligibility, as well as a
comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Ans. 10-12. As such, with regard to claims 19-
6
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
21, 26-31, and 33, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein (Final Act. 7-10; Ans. 2-5, 10-12), and provide the
following for emphasis.
Step One of Alice
Regarding step one of Alice, Enfzsh held that the "directed to" inquiry
asks not whether "the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept," but instead
whether, "considered in light of the specification, ... 'their character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335.
Regarding improvements to computer-related technology, the Court in
Enfish held as follows:
We do not read Alice to broadly hold that all improvements in
computer-related technology are inherently abstract and,
therefore, must be considered at step two. Indeed, some
improvements in computer-related technology when
appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a
chip architecture, an LED display, and the like. Nor do we think
that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are
inherently abstract and therefore only properly analyzed at the
second step of the Alice analysis. Software can make non-
abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware
improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be
accomplished through either route. We thus see no reason to
conclude that all claims directed to improvements in computer-
related technology, including those directed to software, are
abstract and necessarily analyzed at the second step of Alice, nor
do we believe that Alice so directs. Therefore, we find it relevant
to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to
computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea,
even at the first step of the Alice analysis.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. Thus, we determine whether the claims "focus on
a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are
"directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke
7
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Federal Circuit has explained that, in determining whether claims
are patent-eligible under Section 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." Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288,
1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit also noted in that decision that
"examiners are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e., sets forth or
describes) a concept that is similar to concepts previously found abstract by
the courts." Id. at 1294 n.2.
Here, in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that claims 19--21, 26-31, and 33 are directed to
calculating a cost for different configurations and recommending a
configuration based on the lowest cost, which is a fundamental economic
practice and a method of organizing human activity, therefore, an abstract
idea. Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 2-5, 10-12.
We agree with the Examiner's comparison (Final Act. 7-9, ,r 18; Ans.
3--4, ,r 4) of the claims in the instant case on appeal with the claims found
ineligible in Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354
(2014) (electronic methods and computer programs for financial-trading
systems on which trades between two parties who are to exchange payment
are settled by a third party) and Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp., AKA
Freddie Mac v. GrafflRoss Holdings LLP (Fed. Cir. 2015) (method of
conducting electronic bond auctions) (hereinafter, "Freddie Mac"), which
were directed to financial analyses. The instant claims on appeal are also
directed to the performance of a financial analysis, albeit to recommend a
8
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
configuration having the lowest total cost, which is a combination of a
fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity.
Appellants' argument (App. Br. 9--11) that the claims in Alice are not parallel
in concept to those on appeal because they relate to intermediate settlement,
and not licensing costs, misses the point. The claims in both Alice and the
instant case on appeal are drawn to fundamental economic practices. And,
Appellants' argument (id. at 12-13) that the Freddie Mac case is not
precedential and, therefore, cannot serve as evidence of the presence of a
fundamental economic practice which is patent-ineligible, is also
unpersuasive. Freddie Mac also dealt with a fundamental economic
practice, and still carries weight as evidence supporting the Examiner's
findings, even if not as persuasive as a precedential decision may be.
At least the following decisions from our reviewing court have found
many types of fundamental commercial practices patent ineligible: OIP
Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert.
denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (mem) (2015) (offer-based price optimization);
buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (transaction
guaranty); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. Amazon, Inc., 671
F. App'x. 777 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016) (receiving instructions for ordering);
Macropoint, LLC v. Fourkites, Inc., 671 F. App'x 780 (mem) (Fed. Cir.
2016) (tracking freight); Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher
Terminals, LLC, 636 F. Appx. 1014 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016) (monitoring
shipping containers); America's Collectibles Network Inc. v. Jewelry
Channel, Inc. USA, 672 F. App'x 997 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2017) (conducting
reverse auction by adjusting price and inventory); and Easy Web Innovations,
LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2016-2066, 2017 WL 1969492 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(receiving, authenticating, and publishing data). The Supreme Court
9
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
additionally guides that contractual relations constitute "a fundamental
economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce." Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356, 2357,
as cited in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2014). Applying this guidance here, we observe independent claims 1, 19,
and 23 are directed to calculating costs for different configurations and
selecting the configuration with the lowest total cost, taking into
consideration licensing costs (i.e., a contractual relation).
Further, merely combining several abstract ideas (such a method of
organizing human activity in the field of servers and computing devices and
a fundamental business practice) does not render the combination any less
abstract. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327 ("Adding one abstract idea ... to
another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. latric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ( determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of
abstract ideas).
In this light, the recommendation of a configuration having the lowest
total cost based on cost calculations and comparisons recited in the claims
on appeal is "a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system
of commerce" (Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 ), combined with a method of
organizing human activity (e.g., determining dependencies, generating
configurations, recommending a configuration, and providing results).
Thus, claim 19 is drawn to a combination of abstract ideas. Claims 20, 21,
and 26-33 ultimately depend from claim 19, contain similar subject matter,
and are similarly directed to a combination of abstract ideas.
Because we determine that claims 19-21 and 26-33 are directed to a
combination of abstract ideas, we proceed to step two of the Alice analysis.
10
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
Step Two of Alice
Regarding step two of Alice, Appellants argue (App. Br. 15-16; Reply
Br. 4) that the Examiner has not shown (i) the elements of claim 19 to be
generic, well-known computer steps that merely carry out the abstract idea;
and (ii) the combination of those elements to be standard/routine.
We agree with the Examiner that claims 19-21, 26-31, and 33 do not
include limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea
because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or
technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea
to a particular technological environment ( e.g., a computer program product
having code for instructing a processor to store information about a set of
servers using computing resources to run applications stored on a storage
medium). Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 5, 12. We also agree with the Examiner that
claims 19-21, 26-31, and 33 do not clearly recite any computer/machine to
perform the method steps (Ans. 5, 12), and that the nominal recitations of
servers and computing resources in claim 19 are directed to generic
computer components having generic computer functionalities which are
well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is supported by Appellants'
description found at paragraph 16 of the Specification. Final Act. 9-1 O;
Ans. 5, 12; see also Spec. ,r,r 11-14, 17 describing a computer program
product. Furthermore, Appellants' Specification states that "computer
program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose
computer" (Spec. ,r 15).
11
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
Appellants also argue (App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 5---6) that dependent
claims 27 and 29--33 recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract
idea(s). Specifically, Appellants contend the features of (i) claim 27 improve
the overall consolidation process that takes into account mitigation costs and
licensing costs variations (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5); (ii) claim 29 minimize
the quantity of servers needed to handle the workload (App. Br. 16-17;
Reply Br. 5); (iii) claim 30 take into account operational costs of using
virtual machine (App. Br. 17); (iv) claim 31 take into account hardware-
level, virtualization, and application level costs (App. Br. 17); (v) claim 32
operate to change information technology infrastructures for configurations
using a consolidation tool and graphical user interface (App. Br. 17-18;
Reply Br. 5---6); and (vi) claim 33 provide a tradeoff between licensing costs
and complementary application workloads using a consolidation tool (App.
Br. 18; Reply Br. 6).
As discussed supra, we are persuaded by Appellants' contentions
(App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 5---6) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
32 as being "merely directed to 'describing different configuration[s] and
calculating a plurality of different type of costs"' (Reply Br. 5), because
claim 32 positively recites "changing information technology
infrastructures" for the configurations "using a consolidation tool" with a
"graphical user interface" (see claim 32). In addition, Appellants'
Specification supports our finding with regard to claim 32, because
paragraph 28 describes re-arranging physical resources and reconfiguring an
IT environment 110. However, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments with regard to claims 19-21, 26-31, and 33.
Although claims recite multiple cost calculations for different
configurations of computing resources of a servers running applications (i.e.,
12
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
computer operations), they do not go beyond conventional computer
operations or cost calculations. Specifically, claim 27 merely recites
calculating migration costs; claims 29--31 and 33 merely determine/calculate
different costs, and could be performed by a human using pen and paper;
and claim 33 recites generating a proposed change using a consolidation tool
without actually changing any configuration unlike claim 32's recitation of
"changing information technology infrastructures."
Appellants' argument (Reply Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 5 n.3) that no
reference anticipates the claims on appeal and, therefore, the claims have not
been shown to contain only routine/conventional elements (and are thus
patent eligible), is unpersuasive because "[ t ]he 'novelty' of any element or
steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in
determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As a result, we are not persuaded that the operations in claims 19-21,
26-31, and 33 are an improvement to any technology as opposed to an
improvement to a fundamental economic practice and/or method of
organizing human activity. Considering the claims elements individually
and as an ordered combination, claims 19-21, 26-31, and 33 do no more
than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a
generic computer or processer. Id. at 2359; Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674
F.3d 1315, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Simply adding a 'computer aided'
limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is
insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible.").
13
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
Preemption
Lastly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' conclusory arguments that
the claims do not preempt others from the whole field identified by the
Examiner of financial analysis, e.g., based on software costs. App. Br. 11-
12; Reply Br. 2-3. Preemption is not a separate test, but is inherently
addressed within the Alice framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption
may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."); 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 identifying a relevant audience, a
category of use, field of use, or technological environment.") (Citations
omitted), 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' arguments
regarding the absence of complete preemption.
Summary
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 of independent claim 19, as well as dependent claims 20, 21, 26-31,
and 33. And, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under U.S.C. § 101
of dependent claim 32.
14
Appeal2017-008639
Application 13/165,989
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did (a) not err in rejecting claims 19--21, 26-31, and
3 3; and (b) erred in rejecting claim 3 2, under 3 5 U.S. C § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
(2) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
19 based on the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting, over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/410,941,
which published as Garg (US 2012/0331114 Al; published Dec. 27, 2012). 3
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting (i) claims
19--21, 26-31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter; and (ii) claim 19 based on the judicially created
doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed pro
forma. And, the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is 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
3 Because Appellants do not present specific arguments for claim 19,
rejected based on the judicially created doctrine of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting (see generally App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 2),
no issue is presented by Appellants as to this rejection, and we summarily
sustain the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim
19.
15