Ex Parte Linden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13615321 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/615,321 09/13/2012 Lee Linden
107193 7590 11/01/2018
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
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.
19487.352.3 9488
EXAMINER
SEIBERT, CHRISTOPHERB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
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 LEE LINDEN and BENJAMIN LEWIS
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, this application is related to copending
Application No. 13/615,289; copending Application No. 13/615,307; and
copending Application No. 13/615,328, all currently on appeal. App. Br. 1.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method for enabling a gift
transaction. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a gift request from a sender, the gift request
corresponding to an event and specifying a recipient;
identifying, by at least one processor, a nature of the event
based on communications on an online social network;
identifying a time window based upon the nature of the
event;
accessing a time-specific list of previous gifts comprising
gifts previously selected for the recipient by other senders within
the identified time window based upon the nature of the event;
generating, by the at least one processor, a list of suggested
gifts utilizing the time-specific list of previous gifts selected for
the recipient by other senders within the identified time window;
providing to the sender the generated list of suggested gifts
based on the time-specific list of previous gifts selected for the
recipient by other senders within the identified time window;
receiving, from the sender, a selection of a gift item for the
recipient from the list of suggested gifts;
requesting approval, by the at least one processor via the
online social network, of the gift item from the recipient;
posting, by the at least one processor in response to
approval of the gift item by the recipient but prior to purchase of
the modified gift item 3 by the sender for the recipient, a
notification of the modified gift item and the event corresponding
to the gift request to the online social network, the notification
accessible to the recipient, the sender, and one or more other third
3 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it for the Examiner to
determine whether there is proper antecedent basis for the limitation "the
modified gift item," as recited in independent claims 1 and 13.
2
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
party users of the online social network and identifying the
sender, the recipient, and the modified gift;
sending a message to the sender of the modified gift item
indicating that the notification of the modified gift item and the
event corresponding to the gift request has been posted to the
online social network; and
completing, by the at least one processor, a purchase of the
gift item by the sender.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, without significantly
more. Final Act 2--4.
Claims 1-3, 6-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of O'Sullivan et al. (US
2010/0280879 Al; published Nov. 4, 2010) ("O'Sullivan"), Morgenstern
(US 2008/0189188 Al; published Aug. 7, 2008), and Jacobi et al. (US
2008/0154632 Al; published June 26, 2008) ("Jacobi"). Final Act. 4--9.
Claims 4, 5, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, Jacobi,
and Lee et al. (US 2009/0171804 Al; published July 2, 2009) ("Lee"). Final
Act. 9-11.
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No.
13/615,289, claim 1 of copending Application No. 13/615,321, and claim I
of copending Application No. 13/615,307. Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
3
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer (Ans. 4--13) and in the Action (Final Act. 2-13) from
which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S. C. § 1 OJ
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 Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). In determining whether a claim
falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our
analysis by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 76-77 (2012)).
In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. See id. at 2356.
If the claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we then
consider the elements of the claim-both individually and as an ordered
combination-to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature
of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. at
2355. This is a search for an "inventive concept"-an element or
4
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
"significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. Id. (internal quotations and
citation omitted). 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, 566 U.S. at 71. 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. See
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 13, and dependent claims 2-12
and 14--20, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined the claims are
directed to an abstract idea of "gift shopping," i.e., a "fundamental economic
practice." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also determined the claims as a
whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id. at
3--4.
Alice Step 1: Abstract Idea
As to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants contend the
Examiner erred by inventing an abstract idea and not citing case authority
for the conclusion that "gift shopping" is an abstract idea akin to a
fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity.
App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded of error. To determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to an abstract idea, we need only look to other decisions
where similar concepts were previously found abstract by the courts. See
Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("Instead of a definition [for what an 'abstract idea'
5
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
encompasses], then, 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.")
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention resembles the claims
at issue in Alice. See Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 5. Claim 1 is directed to
gift shopping, whereby a list of suggested gifts is generated for a sender
from a list of gifts previously selected for the recipient by other senders
within a time window, a request for approval of a selected gift is sent to the
recipient, a notification of the gift is posted on an online social network, and
payment is initiated for the gift item. Gift shopping is a fundamental
economic practice, long prevalent in our system of commerce, like the risk
hedging in Bilski (see Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)) and the
intermediated settlement in Alice (see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57). Thus,
gift shopping, like the fundamental economic practices above, is an "abstract
idea" beyond the scope of§ 101. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
Accordingly, we see no error in the Examiner's conclusion that the
claims are directed to a fundamental economic practice. See Final Act. 2-3;
see also Ans. 5-10.
Appellants next argue that the Examiner's analysis overly generalizes
the claims because "the actual claims contain numerous steps that are not
involved in the concept of' gift shopping."' App. Br. 16. Appellants assert
that the Examiner merely copied and pasted the claim language and
concluded, without further analysis, that all of the elements are "'directed to
the abstract idea."' Id. at 15.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellants' argument does not address
the Examiner's determinations as to which claim elements are part of the
6
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
abstract idea and which are additional elements. See Ans. 6. For example,
the Examiner determined that the generating and posting steps being
performed "by the at least one processor," and the social network being
"online" are additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea. Id.
Additional elements are addressed in step 2 of the Alice analysis, which
endeavors to identify additional elements "sufficient to ensure that the patent
in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).
Appellants also argue the claims are directed to concrete, patent-
eligible concepts, not mere "gift shopping." App. Br. 17. In Appellants'
view, the claims are directed to
systems and methods for generating suggested gifts utilizing a
time-specific list of previous gifts selected for a recipient by
other senders within a time window selected based on the nature
of an event identified from communications in an online social
network and utilizing the online social network to provide digital
notifications and messages to a sender of a gift item ( and
recipients and other third party users of the social networking
system) prior to the sender purchasing a gift.
Id. (citing Enfish).
We are not persuaded. In Enfish, "the plain focus of the claims is on
an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself." Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1336. In contrast, we do not find a claimed focus on an improvement to the
computer functionality here. Appellants point to the Specification, but none
of the cited paragraphs explains how using a social networking system to
provide digital notifications and messages prior to a sender purchasing a gift
improves any computer functionality. See App. Br. 18 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 18,
50, 55, 56). We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to
7
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
solving a business or commercial problem, not a technical problem. See
Ans. 7.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
determination that the claims are directed to "gift shopping," which is a
fundamental economic practice and an "abstract idea."
Alice Step 2: Inventive Concept
As to the second step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants argue "the
actual elements of the claims go far beyond the general idea of 'gift
shopping."' App. Br. 19. As in step 1 of the Alice analysis, Appellants
again identify claim elements that Appellants do not consider part of the
abstract idea of "gift shopping." Id. Appellants argue that the Examiner
failed to analyze any additional elements in step 2 because the Examiner
determined that all of the claim elements are directed to the abstract idea of
"gift shopping" in step 1. See id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. The question in step 2 of
the Alice analysis is not whether there are additional elements in the claims,
but whether the additional elements add anything "significantly more" to
transform the abstract concept into patentable eligible subject matter. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355. The Examiner identified the recited generating and
posting "by at least one processor" and the recited social network being
"online" as additional elements. Ans. 6, 8. The Examiner determined that
the additional limitations are nothing more than instructions to perform the
abstract idea on a generic computer. Id. at 8. Appellants have not
challenged the Examiner's determinations with regard to the additional
elements identified by the Examiner. Nor have Appellants argued that any
8
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
additional element adds something "significantly more" such that the claims
are patent-eligible. See App. Br. 17-21.
For example, Appellants do not argue that any of the elements of
claims 1 and 13 are individually inventive. See App. Br. 18-19. Instead, in
the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 7-8), Appellants rely on DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), in which the Federal
Circuit found claims were "necessarily rooted in computer technology in
order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks" because they addressed a technical issue unique to Internet
website problems. 773 F.3d at 1257.
Here, unlike in DDR Holdings, the claims merely use technology to
address issues of communication between gift senders, gift recipients, and
others, without solving any underlying technological issues. As recognized
by the Supreme Court, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59 (concluding claims "simply instruct[ing]
the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on
a generic computer" not patent-eligible); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims merely reciting
abstract idea of using advertising as currency as applied to particular
technological environment of the Internet not patent-eligible.); Accenture
Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344--45
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (Claims reciting "generalized software components
arranged to implement an abstract concept [ of generating insurance-policy-
related tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an
event] on a computer" not patent-eligible.); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674
9
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
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.").
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claimed
limitations as an ordered combination include an inventive concept because
"they provide an inventive concept that provides a technical solution to a
technical problem." App. Br. 20 (citing Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc.
v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellants argue
"the ordered combination of limitations in the claims provide an inventive
concept that goes beyond mere recitation of 'gift shopping."' Id. at 21. In
particular, Appellants argue the claims
include the inventive concept of generating suggested gifts
utilizing a time-specific list of previous gifts selected for a
recipient by other senders within a time window selected based
on the nature of an event identified from communications in an
online social network and utilizing the online social network to
provide digital notifications and messages to a sender of a gift
item ( and recipients and other third party users of the social
networking system) prior to the sender purchasing a gift.
Id. Appellants further argue the claimed invention "serves to provide a
digital solution that can remove concerns regarding the absence of a brick-
and-mortar store"; "can further reduce concerns by identifying suggested
gifts that correspond to a contemporary event in the life of a recipient and do
not overlap or conflate with gifts already selected for the event"; and "serves
to remove the hurdle of entering payment or delivery information prior to
selecting a gift." App. Br. 22.
The claims here are distinguishable from those in Bascom. In
Bascom, the system claims were directed to a "'content filtering system for
filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network,'" which the
10
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
court held were directed to an abstract idea. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348--49.
The court further held the claims included an inventive concept in the
ordered combination of system components, including a local client
computer and a remote ISP server connected to the client computer and
Internet computer network providing for "the installation of a filtering tool at
a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering
features specific to each end user." Id. at 1350. The claims at issue here do
not involve a similar or analogous arrangement or "ordered combination" of
components. We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations are
not improvements to the functioning of a computer or some other technology
(see Ans. 9), and that any problems being solved are commercial, not
technological. Indeed, we find nothing in Appellants' claims that adds
anything "significantly more" to transform the abstract concept of gift
shopping.
Because Appellants' claims 1-20 are directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract concept and do not recite something "significantly more" under the
second prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 17 for obviousness, the
Examiner found the combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, and Jacobi
teaches all of the recited limitations. Final Act. 4--9.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the cited references
fail to teach or suggest the limitation "generating, by the at least one
processor, a list of suggested gifts utilizing the time-specific list of previous
gifts selected for the recipient by other senders within the identified time
11
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
window," as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in
independent claim 13. App. Br. 26. In particular, Appellants argue that one
of
ordinary skill in the art "would not read Jacobi and generate a list of
suggested gifts utilizing a time-specific list of previous gifts selected for the
recipient by other senders within an identified time window." Id. at 28.
Appellants argue that, because Jacobi teaches analyzing a time period to
determine an upcoming event and then generating gift recommendations
based on a recipient's wish list or purchase history, Jacobi takes the opposite
approach of the claimed invention. Id. at 27.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants
argue the references separately. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a
combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed
invention is suggested expressly in any one or all of the references, but
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
Here, the Examiner relied on O'Sullivan as teaching the claim
limitation "identify a nature of the event based on communications on an
online social network." Ans. 10 (citing O'Sullivan ,r,r 34--35). The
Examiner relied on Jacobi as teaching generating the list of suggested items
based on the time window. Ans. 11. Appellants do not address whether the
disputed limitation would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the
art in light of the combined teachings of those references.
12
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred because the
combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, and Jacobi do not teach or suggest
the limitation
posting, by the at least one processor in response to
approval of the gift item by the recipient but prior to purchase of
the modified gift item by the sender for the recipient, a
notification of the modified gift item and the event corresponding
to the gift request to the online social network, the notification
accessible to the recipient, the sender, and one or more other third
party users of the online social network and identifying the
sender, the recipient, and the modified gift,
as recited by independent claim 1, and as similarly recited by independent
claim 13. App. Br. 28. In particular, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill
would not have read O'Sullivan and Morgenstern as teaching posting a
notification for viewing by the sender and friends of the sender prior to the
sender purchasing the gift item. Id. at 29.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found
that O'Sullivan teaches a notification that is sent prior to purchasing the
item. Final Act. 5; Ans. 11 (citing O'Sullivan Fig. 3C, ,r 48). We agree.
O'Sullivan, in describing Figure 3C, explicitly teaches "the transaction
manager module 208 or purchase process manager module 204 may notify
the gift recipient of the gift giver's final gift selection prior to actual
purchase of the gift by the gift giver (block 332)." O'Sullivan ,r 48.
Moreover, the Examiner found Morgenstern teaches a method of sending
gifts through an online social network, including by the known technique of
posting a notification that is accessible to the recipient, the sender, and one
or more other third party users of the on line social network. Final Act. 5---6
13
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
(citing Morgenstern Figs. 7, 12, and 15, ,r,r 80, 97, 98). Appellants have not
rebutted the Examiner's findings persuasively.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of O'Sullivan, Morgenstern, and Jacobi teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations recited in claims 1 and 13.
Appellants next contend that the disputed subject matter would not
have been obvious because O'Sullivan teaches away from the Examiner's
proposed combination. App. Br. 30; Reply Br. 14. In particular, Appellants
argue that O'Sullivan teaches away from the disputed "posting" limitation
because "O'Sullivan warns that sharing direct information about 'selections,
specifications, or rejections' may undermine the relationship between the
sender and the recipient." Id. (citing O'Sullivan ,r 9).
Appellants further argue that "O'Sullivan explains that information
should be maintained in 'an anonymous manner' to avoid violating 'social
norms."' Id. ( citing O'Sullivan ,r 70). Appellants also argue that
"O'Sullivan teaches that 'explicitness' would 'devalue the gift and/or the
entire gift giving process."' Id. (citing O'Sullivan ,r 6). Appellants argue
that the recited "sending" step "is directly contrary to maintaining selections
in an anonymous manner, as O'Sullivan teaches. Id. at 31.
Appellants' "teaching away" argument fails because Appellants have
not identified where O'Sullivan actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the "posting" or "sending" limitations. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not
teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an
14
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
alternative invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage' investigation into the invention claimed") ( citing Fulton).
The paragraphs in O'Sullivan cited by Appellants do not actually
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the disputed limitation.
Paragraph 6 of O'Sullivan explains, for example, that "having the gift
recipient specify a gift to eliminate uncertainty in gift selection removes the
element of surprise and may also obligate the gift giver to an uncomfortable
price point or type of gift." O'Sullivan ,r 6. Paragraph 9 describes a "gift
incentive engine [that] combines an interactive distributed environment for
gathering anonymous ( and opaque) gift selection advice from relevant
parties .... " O'Sullivan ,r 9. Paragraph 70 describes that "knowledge held
by one party that would be beneficial to another party is obtained in an
anonymous manner (anonymous from the point of view of the non-input
providing parties)." O'Sullivan ,r 70. As the Examiner points out,
"O'Sullivan teaches both anonymous and public notifications and therefore
cannot be said to be teaching away from a public notification." Ans. 12
( citing O'Sullivan ,r 3 8).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner "fails to provide any cogent
reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would read Morgenstern 's
teaching (to post a notification of a purchased gift item) with O'Sullivan's
teaching (to provide a gift suggestion) in combination as teaching" the
disputed "posting" limitation. App. Br. 30.
We disagree. The Examiner provided "articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see Final Act. 6. Thus, we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's ultimate conclusion that claims
15
Appeal2017-008460
Application 13/615,321
1 and 13 are obvious over the combined teachings of O'Sullivan,
Morgenstern, and Jacobi.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13. We also sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 2-12 and 14--20, not argued separately with
particularity. App. Br. 32-33.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection of Claim 1
Claim 1 stands provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No.
13/615,289, claim 1 of copending Application No. 13/615,321, and claim 1
of copending Application No. 13/615,307. Final Act. 12.
Because Appellants make no arguments related to this rejection, we,
therefore, summarily sustain the rejection proforma. Arguments not made
are waived.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
16