Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2019

13921840 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/921,840 06/19/2013 Anuj Gupta
119741 7590 02/21/2019
Keller Jolley Preece / Adobe
1010 North 500 East, Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
20030.595 8950
EXAMINER
SITTNER, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2019 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tmeid@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANUJ GUPTA, ANUP, MANISH KASAT, and NEERAJ BAGG A
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921,840 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' "invention generally relate[s] to marketing and, more
particularly, to a method and apparatus for targeting messages in desktop
and mobile applications." (Spec. ,r 1.)2
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
retrieving, over a computer network by a user device from
at least one remote server, an advertising policy generated by the
at least one remote server for a first software application installed
on the user device, wherein the advertising policy is generated
by the at least one server to comprise a plurality of events with
regard to operation of the first software application installed on
the user device and one or more advertisements, wherein the one
or more advertisements comprise an advertisement related to a
second software application, and wherein the plurality of events
comprise: crashing the first software application, opening a type
of document in the first software application, adding a comment
within the first software application, and copying content within
the first software application;
storing, at the user device, the advertising policy and the
one or more advertisements;
recording, by the user device, user behavior and
application usage data during operation of the first software
application installed on the user device;
determining, by the user device, that the advertising policy
has been satisfied by comparing the recorded user behavior and
application usage data during operation of the first software
application on the user device to the plurality of events with
regard to operation of the first software application;
retrieving, by the user device, the advertisement related to
the second software application stored at the user device and
providing the advertisement for display on the user device based
2 "Spec." refers to the Specification filed June 19, 2013.
2
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
on the determination that the at least one advertising policy has
been satisfied.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
The§ l 12(a) reiection
The Examiner finds that the Specification "fails to disclose the
amended claimed features [ of claim 1] as follows: wherein the plurality of
events comprise crashing the first software application, opening a type of
document in the first software application, adding a comment within the first
software application, and copying content within the first software
application." (Final Action 3.) Specifically, the Examiner determines:
Based upon the current amendments, Examiner interpreted the
claim to read a 'singular ad policy' which is [sic] must include
each of the four listed events (i.e., crashing, opening, adding, and
copying) and no others. Further, Examiner interpreted that the
ad policy is only triggered when "all four" recited elements are
triggered. Finding no references which taught such a narrow
claim scope, Examiner dropped the prior-art rejection. However,
Examiner made a 112 rejection as he could not find support in
Appellants' specification for an ad policy which required all four
elements to make the ad policy. Further, Examiner found no
support in the specification requiring that all four events be
triggered in order to satisfy the ad policy.
(Answer 7.)
3
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
Appellants disagree and argue that
the Specification explicitly describes creating a single policy that
comprises a plurality of initial policies and corresponding events.
One of ordinary skill in the art reading the Specification would
thus understand that Applicant, at the time of filing, was in
possession of all of the individually disclosed triggering events,
and one or more embodiments that combine the disclosed
triggering events into a single policy. That is the beginning and
the end of the issue on appeal.
(Reply Br. 3.)
The test for sufficiency of a written description is "whether the
disclosure clearly 'allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."' Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed.Cir.2010) (en bane) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed.Cir.1991 )). The disclosure must
"reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor
had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing
date." Id. at 1351. Possession means "possession as shown in
the disclosure" and "requires an objective inquiry into the four
comers of the specification from the perspective of a person of
ordinary skill in the art." Id.
Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635
F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As an initial matter, we note that immediately prior to being amended
to its current form, claim 1 recited, in relevant part, "wherein the triggering
event comprises at least one of: crashing the first software application,
opening a type of document in the first software application, adding a
comment within the first software application, or copying content within the
first software application." (See Amendment and Response to Final Office
Action, filed January 14, 2016, at 2.) In its current form, claim 1 recites
"wherein the plurality of events comprise: crashing the first software
4
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
application, opening a type of document in the first software application,
adding a comment within the first software application, and copying content
within the first software application."
In view of the prosecution history, we agree, in part, with the
Examiner's claim interpretation. Specifically, applying a broadest
reasonable interpretation, we determine that the claimed advertising policy
comprises a plurality of events, and that the plurality of events comprises at
least the four recited events of"[ ( 1)] crashing the first software application,
[(2)] opening a type of document in the first software application, [(3)]
adding a comment within the first software application, and [(4)] copying
content within the first software application." See Claim 1.
Appellants argue that the Specification discloses "crashing a first
software application" (Appeal Br. 10, citing Spec. ,r 103), "opening a type of
document in the first software application" (id., citing Spec. ,r 10), "adding a
comment within the first software application" (id. at 11, citing Spec. ,r 10),
and "copying content within the first software application" (id., citing Spec.
,r 9). But the Specification discloses more than just these four events, and
Appellants do not persuasively argue that the Specification discloses that
these particular four events are necessary to the invention.
The Specification discloses:
[0009] . . . The policies may also define specific actions
that are to be performed when the recorded data satisfies the
policy. For example, a policy for ADOBE® READER® may
dictate that if a user performs a "text copy" operation a
predefined number of times in the same document, then display
a message advertising the virtues of ADOBE® ExportPDF ....
3 Appellants erroneously cited paragraph numbers of the published
application. (See, e.g., Appeal Br. 10.) Here, we cite to the Specification.
5
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
[0010] The embodiments record data regarding product
usage and user behavior within operation of the application. The
recorded data is stored in a database as it is generated. The
recorded data includes various events in the application including
[ (a)] mouse selection or [ (b)] using a tool/feature, such as adding
a comment, copying content, and the like. Applications events
are also recorded, such as application [ ( c)] crashes or [ ( d)]
updates, in addition to a number of times each event occurs
within a day, week, month, or other predetermined time period.
The recorded data also includes [ ( e)] each type of document that
is opened in the application and application specific information
such as [(f)] language, [(g)] geography, and the like. After each
event or piece of data is recorded, the embodiments determine
from the currently accumulated recorded data, whether a policy
has been satisfied that requires the display of a message or other
action. The policy that is satisfied may be due to product usage,
user behavior, or it may be that [(h)] a predefined amount of time
has passed since a last message was displayed.
(Spec. ,r,r 9-10.) In other words, in addition to the four events recited in
claim 1, the Specification discloses events including, e.g., (a) mouse
selection, (d) updates, (f) application language, (g) application geography,
and (h) time passed since last message display. Appellants do not point to
any disclosure in the Specification regarding why the four events recited in
the claim are necessary or why the above noted five additional events are not
necessary. In short, it is not clear from the Specification that one of ordinary
skill in the art reading the Specification would recognize that the inventors
invented what is now claimed, i.e., a method that requires the four recited
events but not the five additional events. See Purdue Pharma L.P. v.
Paulding Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[O]ne cannot disclose
a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest
and say here is my invention."); see also Ariad Pharms., Inc., 598 F.3d at
1351.
6
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
Therefore, we will affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
§ 112(a). Independent claims 8 and 14 contain similar language and are
similarly rejected. Claims 8 and 14, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and
15-20, are not separately argued and fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The § 101 rei ection
"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." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101, however,
"'contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."' Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(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, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. If the claims
are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second
step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the
claim ... contain[] an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the
7
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 221 ( citing
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed
to" two prong test to: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether
the claim "appl[ies ], rel[ies] on, or use[ s] 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 monopolize the judicial
exception." See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "2019 Guidance").
Here, the Examiner determines that "Claim 1 is directed to the
abstract idea of: targeting messages by: collecting and comparing known
information, and by comparing new and stored information and using rules
to identify options, and by displaying an advertisement." (Final Action 4,
emphasis omitted.)
Appellants disagree and argue that "the Examiner is unable to point to
any case that identifies the foregoing language as an abstract idea." (Appeal
Br. 13.)
Under step one of the Alice framework, we "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 Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, 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)).
The 'directed to' inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products
and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon
8
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
.... Rather, the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to
claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether
'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.' Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In
other words, the first step of the Alice framework "asks whether the focus of
the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant
technology] or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. at 1335-36; see also
2019 Guidance at 54--55.
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the "invention
generally relate[ s] to marketing and, more particularly, to a method and
apparatus for targeting messages in desktop and mobile applications."
(Spec. ,r 1.) Claim 1 provides further evidence. Claim 1 recites "retrieving
... by a user device ... an advertising policy ... for a first software
application installed on the user device, wherein the advertising policy ...
comprise[s] a plurality of events," "storing, at the user device, the
advertising policy and the one or more advertisements," "recording, by the
user device, user behavior and application usage data," "determining, by the
user device, the advertising policy has been satisfied," "retrieving, by the
user device, the advertisement related to the second software application."
In short, claim 1 is directed the abstract idea of commercial interactions, i.e.,
advertising and marketing activities and, more particularly, targeting
messages in desktop and mobile applications. (See 2019 Guidance at 52; see
9
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
also Spec. ,r 1.) This is accomplished by retrieving information, storing
information, analyzing information, and retrieving information.
Although we and the Examiner describe, at different levels of
abstraction, to what the claims are directed, it is recognized that "[a]n
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction."
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That
need not and, in this case does not, "impact the patentability analysis." Id.
at 1241.
We note that claims, like claim 1 here, directed to targeting an
advertising message to a user based on user activity, have been determined
to be directed to an abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining claims
related "to customizing information based on (1) information known about
the user and (2) navigation data" to be directed to an abstract idea); see also
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1271 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). "[W]e have treated collecting information, including when
limited to particular content (which does not change its character as
information), as within the realm of abstract ideas." Elec. Power Grp., 830
F.3d at 1353. "In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by
steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms,
without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea
category." Id. at 1354; see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The process of receiving copyrighted media,
selecting an ad [after consulting an activity log], offering the media in
exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the
consumer access to the media, [recording the event to the activity log,] and
10
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad all describe an abstract idea.").
Claim 1 merely implements the abstract idea in the field of desktop and
mobile applications.
Nonetheless, Appellants seek to analogize the present claims to the
claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014). (Appeal Br. 17.) We are not persuaded of error. The claims in DDR
Holdings "specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to
yield a desired result - a result that overrides the routine and conventional
sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258. Appellants do not persuasively argue that
claim 1 overrides or varies some routine and conventional sequence of
events.
Appellants also seek to analogize the present claims to those in
Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (See Appeal Br. 17, Reply Br. 9--10.)4 In Bascom,
the court determined that "an inventive concept can be found in the non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."
Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. Specifically, Bascom's content filter could be
"installed remotely in a single location" and "this particular arrangement of
elements is a technical improvement over the prior art ways of filtering." Id.
Appellants, although reciting limitations of claim 1, do not direct us to what
4 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be more properly
evaluated under step two of the Alice framework. However, for purposes of
maintaining consistent treatment within the USPTO, we evaluate it under
step one. See 2019 Guidance.
11
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
is alleged to be the "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces." (See Reply Br. 10.)
(Id.)
Nonetheless, Appellants argue that
the present case involves an inventive concept that provides a
technical solution to a technical problem. Specifically, the
claims are directed the [sic] inventive concept of providing
targeted messages while protecting consumer privacy by
utilizing a remote server to generate and provide advertising
policies that comprise a plurality of complex triggering events
Claim 1, however, does not recite "protecting consumer privacy" or similar
language.
Appellants' argument appears to be based on the disclosure in the
Specification that "[b ]ecause the application retrieves the policy from the
marketer, and no recorded data is sent to the marketer, there is no invasion
of user privacy." (Spec. ,r 13.) And although claim 1 recites "retrieving,
over a computer network by a user device from at least one remote server, an
advertising policy," we do not see, and Appellants do not indicate, where
claim 1 restricts sending recorded data, such as "user behavior and
application usage data," to the remote server or marketer. In other words,
Appellants' argument does not rely on where behavior and usage data is
stored, but instead relies on claim 1 not including a step of reporting the
recorded user behavior and usage data to the marketer. But claim 1 does not
exclude reporting the recorded user behavior and usage data to the marketer.
Ultramercial illustrates why we do not find Appellants' argument
persuasive.
12
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
The claim at issue in Ultramercial related to "receiving copyrighted
media, selecting an ad [after consulting an activity log], offering the media
in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the
consumer access to the media, [recording the event to the activity log,] and
receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad .... " Ultramercial, Inc., 772
F.3d at 715. The claim was determined to recite patent-ineligible subject
matter. Id. at 717. If we consider the step of recording the event to the
activity log to be analogous to sending user data to a marketer, we do not see
how removing that step from the claim would render the claim patent-
eligible.
Therefore, we do not find Appellants' argument persuasive.
Appellants also do not persuasively argue what technical problem is solved
by "providing targeted messages ... by utilizing a remote server to generate
and provide advertising policies." (See Reply Br. 10.)
Appellants also seek to analogize the present claims to the claims in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed.
Cir.2016). (AppealBr.17-18,ReplyBr.9-11.) Wedisagree. InMcRO,
the court determined that
the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce
"accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions
in animated characters" that previously could only be produced
by human animators. As the district court correctly recognized,
this computer automation is realized by improving the prior art
through "the use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph
weights and transitions between phonemes." The rules are
limiting in that they define morph weight sets as a function of the
timing of phoneme sub-sequences.
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 ( citations omitted). Here, the asserted
improvement is to a business practice regarding "targeting messages in
13
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
desktop and mobile applications." (Spec. ,r 1.) In short, "[t]hese claims in
substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract
business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not
patent-eligible." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256.
Moreover, Appellants do not argue that they invented a computer
network, a user device, or a remote server. Nor do we see how the recitation
of a computer network, a user device, and a remote server, even in
conjunction with the recited functions, "ensure[ s] 'that the [claim] is more
than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]." Alice, 573
U.S. at 221 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77.) Claim 1
uses generic computer components as tools to perform the abstract idea.
(See Spec. ,r,r 16, 18, 19; see also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake
Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (and cases cited therein).)
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Step two of the Alice framework has been described "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."' Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217-18 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
Appellants argue that "the present case utilizes rules of a particular
type to address a computer-centric problem and produce a novel, desired
result through specific means or methods that improve the relevant
technology." (Appeal Br. 18.) We are not persuaded of error.
As discussed above, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of
commercial interactions, i.e., advertising and marketing activities and, more
14
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
particularly, targeting messages in desktop and mobile applications. The
additional elements of a generic computer network, user device, and remote
server, do not recite significantly more than the ineligible concept itself.
Nor, as discussed above, do Appellants argue that they invented a computer
network, a user device, or a remote server.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it' " is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea " 'to a particular technological environment.' "
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a
computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[ t ]" an abstract idea
"on . . . a computer," that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ( citations omitted).
"[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea ... on a
generic computer." Id. at 225. They do not. Claim 1 relates to retrieving
information, storing information, analyzing information, and retrieving
information, to target messages in desktop and mobile applications.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
generic computer components at each step is purely conventional.
Retrieving/receiving, storing, analyzing, and retrieving/receiving additional
information are basic computer functions, i.e., they are well-understood,
routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims "do not include any
requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing,
15
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional,
generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive
concept .... "); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower
construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those
functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special
programming.").
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer
components of Appellants' method add nothing that is not already present
when the steps are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not, as
discussed above, purport to improve the functioning of the components
themselves. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or
technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than
an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer
components. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Appellants also argue that the claims produce a novel result. ( Appeal
Br. 18.) But "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly
discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot
rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for
patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369,
1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under § 101. Claims 2-20 are not separately argued and
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
16
Appeal2017-008940
Application 13/921, 840
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17