Ex Parte Morton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13610236 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/610,236 09/11/2012
98449 7590 08/02/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Salomon Morton
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.
1233-318US01 9038
EXAMINER
CASEY, ALEXIS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Yv1ICHAEL SALOYv10N 1\10RTON
and JEREl\,f''{ FALLER
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236 1
Technology Center 3600
Before: ANTON W. PETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 16-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
SUMMARY OF DECISION
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims relate generally to the field of electronic media.
Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 16 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
16. A computer system for processing comments
corresponding to a plurality of portions of an electronic
book, the system comprising:
one or more hardware processors;
an aggregation module configured to receive a plurality of
comments, each comment corresponding to at least one
of the plurality of portions and authored by a
corresponding one of a plurality of users, the
aggregation module further configured to interact with
the one or more hardware processors to group the
comments responsive to characteristics of the users that
authored the comments;
an analysis module configured to interact with the one or
more hardware processors to generate reader-specific
comments corresponding to each of the plurality of
portions, based on the comments as grouped by the
aggregation module; and
a presentation module configured to interact with the one or
more hardware processors to generate presentation
information for presentation on a display of a client
device based on the reader-specific comments.
2
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kanderkar et al.
("Kanderkar")
Patterson et al.
("Patterson")
Mbenkum et al.
("Mbenkum")
US 2012/0210203 Al Aug. 16, 2012
US 2012/0221441 Al Aug. 30, 2012
US 2012/0324392 Al Dec. 20, 2012
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed
to an abstraction.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Kandekar, Mbenkum, and Patterson. Final Act. 3-13
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2-8 of the Final
Action and pages 2-7 of the Answer.
2. Kandekar discloses
In an example of generating a content summary,
the content summary may be generated based on
user-specific information. For example, the media
summary generator 118 may receive or gather
information about a user that has accessed or
opened the e-book 116. The information may
include a profile of the user, gaze-tracking
information for the user, annotations of the user,
3
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
social network information of the user, the like, or
combinations thereof. The media summary
generator 118 may use this information for
generating a content summary for a media item,
such as the e-book 116, in accordance with
embodiments of the present disclosure.
Kandekar ,r 34 ( emphasis omitted).
3. Kandekar discloses
Embodiments of the present disclosure enable an
electronic device, such as an e-book reader, to
identify or receive identification of a position
within a media item residing on the electronic
device, to generate a content summary for a
portion of the media item based on the identified
position, and to present the content summary to a
user of the electronic device. For example, an e-
book reader may identify a bookmarked position
within an e-book, generate a content summary for
a portion of the e-book that precedes the
bookmarked position, and display the content
summary to a reader. Other embodiments of the
present disclosure enable the electronic device to
generate a content summary based on user-specific
information or time since the user last read or
accessed the media item.
Kandekar ,r 20.
4. Patterson discloses
As mentioned above, user profile data 310 is
usable on a per-student basis and is also capable of
being aggregated for vanous populations of
4
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
subscribers. The population can be the entire
subscriber population, or any selected subset
thereof, such as targeted subscribers based on any
combination of demographic or behavioral
characteristics, or content selections. System-wide
usage data includes trends and patterns in usage
habits for any desired population. For example,
correlations can be made between electronic
textbooks and add-ons that students choose
(presumably related in some way to those
textbooks). In one embodiment, when a user
obtains a new textbook, such data are used to
recommend other related items the user might also
be interested in obtaining Valuation of items,
relative rankings of items, and other synthesized
information can also be obtained from such data.
Patterson ,r 49 ( emphasis omitted).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts. First, ... determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. [] If so, we then
ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us?"
[] To answer that question, []consider the elements
5
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
of each claim both individually and "as an ordered
combination" to determine whether the additional
elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a
patent-eligible application. [The Court] described
step two of this analysis 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 Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73
(2012)).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
Although the Court in Alice made a direct finding as to what the
claims were directed to, we determine that this case's claims themselves and
the Specification provide enough information to inform one as to what they
are directed to.
The steps in representative claim 16 result in: generating presentation
information for presentation on a display of a client device based on the
reader-specific comments.
The Examiner found that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of
"collecting comment data, recognizing certain comment data within the
collected data set, using categories to organize, store, and transmit comment
information." Final Act. 2. The Specification states:
6
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
Traditionally, feedback on such media
objects has been provided by expert reviewers.
With the growth of the Internet, "crowd sourced"
feedback has become increasingly popular.
Typical crowd sourcing of feedback entails users
( rather than professional reviewers) entering
ratings and reviews into a feedback collection
system. For example, the GOOGLE PLAY
STOREâ„¢ enables users to rate a book with a score
from one to five and provide a written review.
These ratings and reviews are aggregated and
made available to other users to inform their
decisions regarding whether to purchase a
particular book.
Spec. ,r 3. Thus, all this evidence shows that claim 16 is directed to crowd
sourcing feedback of electronic books based on comments grouped by users'
characteristics. It follows from prior Supreme Court cases, and Gottschalk
v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), in particular, that the claims at issue here are
directed to an abstract idea. Crowd sourcing feedback by user
characteristics is a method of organizing human behavior, because it controls
feedback by filtering human perception by user characteristics. It is also a
fundamental economic principle because the "ratings and reviews are
aggregated and made available to other users to inform their decisions
regarding whether to purchase a particular book." Spec. ,r 3. The patent-
ineligible end of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 spectrum includes methods of
organizing human activities and fundamental economic principles. See Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2355-57. Thus, crowd sourcing feedback of
7
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
electronic books based on comments grouped by users' characteristics is an
"abstract idea" beyond the scope of section 101.
As in Alice, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the
"abstract ideas" category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is
no meaningful distinction in the level of abstraction between the concept of
an intermediated settlement in Alice and the concept of crowd sourcing
feedback of electronic books based on comments grouped by users'
characteristics, at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of "abstract
ideas" as the Court has used that term. That the claims do not preempt all
forms of the abstraction or may be limited to electronic books, does not
make them any less abstract. See OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 16, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, transmission, and
linkage and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Finding claims not abstract because
they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation.").
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the
analysis at Mayo step two.
[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
8
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
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. This conclusion accords with the
preemption concern that undergirds our § 101
jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers,
wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of "additional featur[ e ]" that
provides any "practical assurance that the process
is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself."
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358 (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 2359. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval----one of
the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig, 639 F.3d
9
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
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.").
In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process
of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a
particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract." SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022
(Fed. Cir. 2018) ( citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants' method add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
access/ display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be
abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (Sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display,
allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction.); Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (Sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation,
display, and transmission.); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Sequence of
processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring.). The ordering of the steps
is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
10
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the
functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in
any other technology or technical field. The Specification spells out
different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of information access under different scenarios. See,
e.g., Spec. i-fi-f l 8-20. The Specification does not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions, at least with respect to the
claims in the instant application. Instead, the claims at issue amount to
nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea of
information access using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Id.
As to the system claims, they
are no different from the method claims in
substance. The method claims recite the abstract
idea implemented on a generic computer; the
system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same
idea. This Court has long "wam[ed] ... against"
interpreting § 101 "in ways that make patent
eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art."'
We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 12-15) Appellants
have submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our analysis above
11
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which have been
made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellants argue:
Consequently, the Final Office Action fails to
'clearly articulat[e] the reason(s)' for the rejection.
Second, the May 2016 Memorandum cautioned
that [E]xaminers 'should be familiar with any cited
decision relied upon in making or maintaining a
rejection to ensure that the rejection is reasonably
tied to the facts of the case and avoid relying upon
language taken out of context.' May 2016
Memorandum, p. 3. The Examiner has not
asserted, let alone explained, how the claims are
similar to the 'basic concept of data recognition
and storage' identified as an abstract idea in
Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo
Bank, NA.
Appeal Br. 13-14.
We disagree with Appellants. In rejecting the pending claims under
section 101, the Examiner analyzed the claims using the Mayo/Alice two-
step framework, consistent with the guidance set forth in the USPTO's 2015
UPDATE To PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY, IV and the MAY 2016
MEMORANDUM, II. See Answer 4. Specifically, the Examiner notified
Appellants that the claims are broadly "directed to an abstract idea for
collecting comment data, recognizing certain comment data within the
collected data set, using categories to organize, store, and transmit comment
information." Final Act. 2. Turning to step two, the Examiner determined
12
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
that the
Id. at 2-3.
claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception because the additional element
or combination of elements in the claims other
than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more
than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on
a computer including a computer system, and/ or
(ii) recitation of generic computer structure, such
as a processor, that serves to perform generic
computer functions, including receiving data,
aggregating and processing data and transmitting
data, that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the
pertinent industry.
All that is required of the Office to meet its prima facie burden of
production is that the Examiner set forth the statutory basis of the rejection
and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and
informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132.
As the statute itself instructs, the Examiner must "notify the applicant,"
"stating the reasons for such rejection," "together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging the propriety of continuing
prosecution of his application." 35 U.S.C. § 132; see In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). I-fore, as we found above, the Examiner has
made these findings as required by the statute. See Final Act 2-3.
13
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
In this regard also, there is no requirement that the Examiner must
provide evidentiary support in every case before a conclusion can be made
that a claim is directed to an abstract idea. 2
The Examiner in support of its position that the "claims are directed to
an abstract idea and the addition of a display is merely a recitation of generic
computing system to perform generic computing functions without
providing significantly more," cites to a series of cases in the Examiner's
Answer. See Ans. 2--4. Appellants in reply, attempt to distinguish its claims
from those involved in the cases cited by the Examiner on pages 13 and 14
of the Appeal Brief. We have reviewed these arguments and find them
unpersuasive. For example, the court in Enfish framed the question as
"whether the focus of the claims is on [a] specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities ... or, instead, on 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, 1335-1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here,
as found supra, we find nothing in the claims that is directed to an
2 See, e.g., MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) (2018) ("The courts consider the
determination of whether a claim is eligible (which involves identifying
whether an exception such as an abstract idea is being claimed) to be a
question of law. Thus, the court does not require 'evidence' that a claimed
concept is a judicial exception, and generally decides the legal conclusion of
eligibility without resolving any factual issues.") (citations omitted.)
14
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
improvement in computer capabilities.
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
The Appellants argued claims 16-19, 22-25, and 27-30 as a group.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellants argue claim 16 as the representative claim for this
group, and the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 16. See id.,
see also, 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Claim 16 recites in pertinent part "processors to group the comments
responsive to characteristics of the users that authored the comments."
Appeal Br. 16, Claims App.
Appellants argue,
Kandekar discloses 'generat[ing] a content
summary based on user-specific information.'
Kandekar, ,r [0020]. Kandekar discloses tailoring a
content summary generated for a user based on
information about that user; it is silent as to
grouping comments responsive to the
characteristics of the authors of those contents.
Appeal Br. 8.
Appellants further argue,
The cited paragraphs of Patterson do not address
'group[ing] comments responsive to characteristics
of the users that authored the comments' but
instead address (i) a 'collaboration subsystem 240 .
. . that allow[ s] students to work together. . . .
[U]sers can share their annotations and notes with
their study group' (paragraph [0035]); (ii) 'User
profile data storage 310 includes information about
an individual user (e.g., a student), to facilitate the
15
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
payment and collaborative aspects of system
100 .... In one embodiment, when a user obtains a
new textbook, such data are used to recommend
other related items the user might also be
interested in obtaining" (paragraph [0049]).
However, Patterson makes no mention of grouping
user comments based on characteristics of the
authors of those comments.
Appeal Br. 8-9.
The Examiner however found concerning Kandekar that,
each comment corresponding to at least one of the
plurality of portions (portion of the content,
[0033]) and authored by a corresponding one of a
plurality of users (annotations of the user [0034]),
the aggregation module further configured to
interact with the one or more hardware processors
(processor, 122) to group the comments responsive
to characteristics of the users (generating a content
summary based on user-specific information,
[0034];
Final Act. 4. And, the Examiner found that in Kandekar "[t]he user
comments and annotations, bookmarked positions and characteristics are
grouped [0037] [0094] and characteristics and demographic information is
utilized to generate the reader specific, user created annotations and
summary, [0095]." Final Act. 11.
The Examiner also found, "Patterson explicitly discloses the user
author characteristics are utilized [] for grouping comments." (Answer 6).
"Patterson discloses receiving user/author comments, [0033] and grouping
16
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
comments responsive to characteristics of the authors [0035] [0043] [0045]
[0049]." (Final Act. 6).
We disagree with Appellants because Kandekar explicitly discloses
"generating a content summary, the content summary may be generated
based on user-specific information." (FF. 2). Even assuming that this does
not equate to "group[ing] the comments responsive to characteristics of the
users", the Examiner also relies on Patterson for this feature. Answer 6,
Final Act. 6. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art looking to
Kandekar and Patterson would arrive at the claimed "processors to group the
comments responsive to characteristics of the users that authored the
comments." Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. This is because Patterson
explicitly discloses
user profile data 310 is usable on a per-student
basis and is also capable of being aggregated for
various populations of subscribers. The population
can be the entire subscriber population, or any
selected subset thereof, such as targeted
subscribers based on any combination of
demographic or behavioral characteristics, or
content selections the user author characteristics
are utilized in for grouping comments.
FF. 4. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art looking to Kandekar's
disclosure of generating a content summary based on user-specific
information (FF. 2, 3), and Patterson's disclosure of aggregation for various
populations of subscribers (FF. 4), would arrive at the claimed "group[ing]
the comments responsive to characteristics of the users that authored the
17
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
comments" because understanding the source of the review would be
inferred as part of the survey. See KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007) (In making the obviousness determination one "can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.").
Concerning claim 20, the Examiner found, Mbenkum disloses,
"[ c ]omparing the first set of comments to the second set of comments to
determine a similarity therebetween (track the relationships between
comments in order to create threaded discussions and rate comments,
[0047])." (Final Act. 7).
Appellants argue, inter alia,
the only reference to 'similarity' in paragraph
[0044] is that '[t]he page notes window 450
similarly list the available page notes,' which is
not relevant to this analysis. Paragraph [0047]
states in most pertinent part, ' [ t ]he comment
database entity 332 would then track the
relationships between comments 332 in order to
create threaded discussions about the current
chapter.'
(Appeal Br. 11 ).
We disagree with Appellants. Appellant's Specification does not
specifically define the term "similarity", nor does it utilize the term contrary
to its customary meaning. The ordinary and customary definition of the
18
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
word "similar" is, "having characteristics in common. "3 We find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the disclosed tracking of
relationships between comments to create a thread constitutes "a similarity"
because these relationships are based on the common characteristic of being
tracked.
Appellants also argue that,
Paragraph [0027] likewise states that 'page notes
346 can relate to other notes 346, thereby allowing
the creation of threaded, back-and-forth
discussions within the book's community.' These
cannot be considered to be comments
'corresponding to a plurality of references, the
electronic book not being one of the plurality of
references' as set forth in claim 20.
(Appeal Br. 11 ).
The Examiner found that Mbenkum discloses the limitation of the
electronic book not being one of the plurality of references, finding,
[ r ]eceiving a first set of comments, authored by the
specific reader, corresponding to a plurality of
references ( each user can make multiple user
community additions including page notes, chapter
comments, book reviews and ratings about any
book, [0018]), the electronic book not being one of
the plurality of references (any book, [0018];
journal article, news report, [0010]; user A submits
note, [0014] [0035])
(Final Act. 7).
3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/similar (last visited
7/17/2018)
19
Appeal2017-001754
Application 13/610,236
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants
argue paragraph 27 of Mbenkum which was not cited by the Examiner in
mapping this claim limitation to Mbenkun. What was cited by the Examiner
were paragraphs 10, 18, 14 and 35. See id. The Examiner has found that
Mbenkun discloses "any book", and thus meets the claim requirement. Id.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has made its prima facie case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 16-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 16-30 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.
20