Ex Parte Seyer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2018

13048333 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/048,333 03/15/2011
21186 7590 09/19/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Dan Seyer
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.
2490.007US 1 8481
EXAMINER
DEGA, MURALI K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN SEYER, RAYMOND LEE,
DEWAYNE DUSTIN BREESE, and TIM POTRANANDANA
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention is generally directed to a voting
communication system for voting in contests or competitions, such as reality
television talent contest shows. Spec. ,r 17. More specifically, Appellants'
claimed invention is directed to methods for registering users with a voting
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
communications system, presenting a user an interface for entering a vote,
receiving votes for eligible entities, and automatically initiating
communications with a system (via either phone or SMS) to submit/register
the user votes with a voting system. Spec. ,r,r 17-20. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a registration request from a user, at a
communication system, for a vote communication application;
based on receiving the registration request, presenting a
vote input interface from the vote communication application, of
the communication system, to the user;
receiving, at the communication system, an allocation of
user votes across a set of entities eligible to receive user votes;
and
automatically initiating communications from the
communication system to a vote receiving system in accordance
with the allocation of user votes, the communications including
initiating a telephone call to a dedicated telephone number
uniquely associated with an entity of the set of entities in order
to register the user votes with the vote receiving system.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 4--5.
Claims 1, 5-18, and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Gupta (US 2008/0109491 Al; May 8, 2008) and Crocker
(US 2010/0257030 Al; Oct. 7, 2010). 1 Final Act. 5-13.
1 The header for the rejection states that claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31
are rejected over Gupta, Crocker, and Klein. However, the Examiner relies
2
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Gupta, Crocker, and Klein (US 2011/0053559 Al; Mar. 3, 2011).
Final Act. 6-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
THE 35 U.S.C. § 112 REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 4--5. Specifically, the Examiner finds Appellants'
Specification does not provide written description support for "receiving a
registration request from a user, at a communication system, for a vote
communication application," as recited in each of the independent claims.
Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner finds Appellants' Specification discloses
"vote registering," but does not disclose a user making a request for
registration of the voter or user. Final Act. 5; Ans. 12.
Appellants argue "[t]here is no in haec verba requirement," and the
relevant question is whether the description clearly allows ordinarily skilled
artisans to recognize an inventor invented what is claimed. App. Br. 30.
Appellants assert the Specification supports the receiving a registration
on Klein only for teaching the use of Short Message Service (SMS) to
contact voters or notify voters of results. See Final Act. 8-9. Only claims
30 and 31 recite the use of SMS messages. See App. Br. 23. Therefore,
Klein is not relevant to the rejection of claims 1, 5-18, and 20-23.
3
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
request step. App. Br. 30-31 (citing Spec. ,r,r 25, 30, 42--43, Figs. 1 (104,
108, 116), 3 (302), 4 (402, 404)).
The Specification discloses that "the registration module 302 allows a
user of the user computer system 108 to register with the communication
system 104 through, for example, the social networking system 106." Spec.
,r 42. Notably, registration module 302 is part of vote communication
application 116, which resides on communication system 104. Spec. ,r,r 30,
38, 40, Figs. 1, 3. "[V]ote communication application 116 exposes an
interface to a user ... that enables the user to" vote, and vote communication
application 116 then may store that user's vote allocation(s). Spec. ,r 31.
The Specification also discloses user table 204 that stores "a unique record
for each of the registered users of the vote communication application 116."
Spec. ,r 37.
It is clear from Appellants' Specification that embodiments of the
claimed system require a user to be registered in order to access vote
communication application 116. Accordingly, the disclosed system supports
the concept of a user registering with vote communication application 116.
Although the Specification does not explicitly disclose receiving a
registration request from a user, to a person of ordinary skill in the art the
Specification implicitly discloses such a feature because in order to register a
user, the system must receive a registration request from the user in some
form. The request may include, for example: a user clicking on a link to
initiate the registration process; a user attempting to access vote
communication system 116 and, in response to being prompted to register,
submitting of a selected usemame and password combination so vote
communication system 116 can complete the registration process (i.e., store
4
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
the user information); or any other request from a user to become a
registered user of vote communication system 116.
The Specification does not use the exact phrasing recited in the claims
(i.e., "receiving a registration request from a user, at a communication
system, for a vote communication application"), but the Specification
sufficiently discloses the concept such that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood the inventors were in possession of the recited
language. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Specification
supports the recited receiving a registration request step.
For the above reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
THE 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
The Examiner concludes claims 1, 5-18, 20-23, 30, and 31 are
directed to judicially excepted subject matter. Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 3---6.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not presented a prima facie case that the
claims recite ineligible subject matter, the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea, and the Examiner has not shown the claims' limitations fail to
recite significantly more than the abstract idea. App. Br. 15-22; Reply
Br. 2---6. Aside from asserting the Examiner has not separately addressed the
dependent claims, Appellants argue the § 101 rejection of all claims as a
group. See App. Br. 15-22; Reply Br. 2---6. Accordingly, with respect to the
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Alice/Mayo Framework
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
5
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
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. There is no dispute that claim 1
is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories.
In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), the Supreme Court explained that 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 "contains an important implicit exception" for laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981 ). In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a two-step analytical
framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter: (1) "determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible concept, such
as an abstract idea; and, if so, (2) "consider the elements of each claim both
individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements" add enough to transform the "nature of the claim" into
"significantly more" than a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step one in the Mayol Alice framework involves looking at the "focus"
of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Step two
involves the search for an "inventive concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355;
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. For an inventive concept, "more is required
than 'well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in"'
by the relevant community. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79--80).
6
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Prima Facie Case
Appellants argue the Examiner has not responded to many of
Appellants' prior arguments, has not identified court cases having a concept
similar to that recited in the claims that was determined to be an abstract
idea, and has failed to address any of Appellants' dependent claims. App.
Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 2--4. 2 To the extent these arguments merely disagree
with the Examiner's conclusions, we address such contentions applying the
two-step Alice framework in the following sections. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd.
v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Instead of
using a definition of an abstract idea, "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." (citing Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54)).
To the extent Appellants' arguments assert the Examiner failed to
present a prima facie case of ineligibility, we disagree. The Federal Circuit
has repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is merely a procedural device
that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production." Hyatt v.
Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The court has, thus, held that the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) carries its procedural burden of establishing
a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
§ 132 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for rejection, "together with
such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety
2 Appellants also argue the Examiner has not identified the law of nature or
natural phenomenon recited in the claims. App. Br. 20. The Examiner,
however, did not conclude the claims are directed to a law of nature or
natural phenomenon.
7
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." See In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (Section 132 "is violated when a rejection is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to
counter the grounds for rejection.").
The Examiner's rejection, as discussed further below, satisfies the
initial burden of production by identifying the concept to which Appellants'
claims are directed, determining the claims are directed to abstract ideas
similar to concepts previously determined to be abstract ideas, identifying
the elements recited in Appellants' claims that are beyond the abstract idea,
and explaining why the additional elements do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. See Final Act. 3-5, 14--15; Ans. 3---6.
Accordingly, the Examiner identified 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the statutory basis
for the rejection and explained and analyzed the rejection in sufficient detail
to permit Appellants to respond meaningfully. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362.
Step One of the Alice Framework
Turning to step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner concludes
claim 1 is directed to a "system for receiving [a] request for communication,
communicating the application and receiving votes and registering the user
votes, as part of organizing human activities," which "is a process of
managing human activity which was found abstract by the courts using
computers such as collecting and comparing information (Classen), using
GUI which manages the interaction between a computer system and a user
through graphical elements such as windows on a display." Final Act. 14;
Ans. 3--4. Alternatively, the Examiner concludes claim 1 is directed to
"using categories to organize, store, and transmit information ( Cyberfone ). "
8
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Final Act. 14; Ans. 4. The Examiner states the dependent claims recite the
same concepts as the independent claims. Ans. 5. The Examiner
distinguished Appellants' claims from the claims in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334--35 (Fed. Cir. 2016), because Appellants' claims
merely receive, present, and transmit data, and do not recite a technical
improvement. Ans. 4--5.
Appellants assert the Examiner characterized the claims at too high a
level by oversimplifying the claims and, rather than identifying the abstract
claim elements, simply "listed the claim elements and, without analysis,
summarily dismissed them as" abstract. App. Br. 19. Appellants argue their
claims are like the claims in Enfish because Appellants' claims are directed
to a specific improvement in computer capabilities, rather than just using a
computer as a tool, because the claims recite an improvement in "specific
forms of communications between a computer system and telephone systems
and an end-user." App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue
the claims improve "the functioning of the computer and related method"
because the computer authenticates "in a wider variety of situations." App.
Br. 18. Appellants also assert the claims improve another technology or
technical field, namely "interacting with electronic communications
computer systems in general including initiating telephone calls, or other
messages, to a dedicated telephone number." App. Br. 18. Appellants
summarize claim 1 and claim 30's limitations and conclude the claims are
directed to a computer-centric problem. App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 5.
We agree with the Examiner's characterization of claim 1.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to receiving a registration request and votes
from a user, recognizing or analyzing the votes received from the user to
9
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
determine the entities the user voted for (i.e., vote allocation), and
transmitting the vote allocation to the vote receiving system. Contrary to
Appellants' assertion, we do not see how claim 1 is directed to allowing "the
computer to function for authentication in a wider variety of situations" or
how the claim improves the ability for communication systems to interact
with each other. See App. Br. 18.
Nor do we agree with Appellants' conclusory assertion that claim 1 is
"directed to a computer-centric problem." See App. Br. 18-19. Rather,
claim 1 merely uses computers and telephones as tools to receive, analyze,
and transmit information from users to voting systems. The claims are not
directed to how to create an interface between computer systems and
telephone systems, but merely recite the function of using such systems to
transmit and receive information between the systems. See In re TL!
Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Reciting
"concrete, tangible components such as 'a telephone unit' and a 'server,"'
does not change the character of what the claim is directed to when "the
recited physical components merely provide a generic environment in which
to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an
organized manner.").
There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract
idea." Rather, we look to other decisions where similar concepts were
previously found abstract by the courts. See Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1294
("Instead of a definition [for what an 'abstract idea' 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
10
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
about, and which way they were decided."); see also Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at
1334--35.
The Federal Circuit has concluded similar concepts were directed to
abstract ideas. In TL! Communications, the court determined claims reciting
recording and storing images by a digital pick up unit, transmitting the
images and classification information (prescribed using a telephone) to a
server, and extracting and storing the images were directed to an abstract
idea because the claims focused on classifying and storing digital images.
TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 610-11. Similarly, in Electric Power, the
Federal Circuit concluded claims directed to "collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis"
were directed to an abstract idea. See Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353-54); see also Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding "taking
existing information ... and organizing this information into a new form" is
an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat 'l Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting,
recognizing, and storing information is an abstract idea).
We see little difference between claim 1 and the claims in the above-
identified cases. Claim 1 's focus is on receiving information (votes) from a
user, analyzing or identifying the information (vote allocation), and
transmitting information (vote allocation) to the vote receiving system.
Claim 1 can also be viewed as simply focusing on receiving votes,
identifying or classifying the votes according to the entity or entities voted
for, and recording or storing those votes in the vote receiving system.
11
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed
to abstract ideas. Therefore, we tum to step two of the Alice analysis.
Step Two of the Alice Framework
Next, we tum to step two of Alice to determine whether the additional
limitations, when considered both "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the
claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355-58.
The Examiner concludes there are no additional elements other than
generically recited computer systems and applications that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional computer-implemented functions for
receiving and communicating information. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
concludes that, taken together, the additional elements offer no more than
the sum of the parts because the generic computing elements are just
performing their individual functions. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
concludes the claims do not improve another technology or field or the
functioning of the computer itself and the claims merely link the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment, using generic computers to
carry out the abstract idea, without any claimed enhancement to a
technology or device. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner merely made conclusory statements
with no rational underpinnings, which is improper. App. Br. 20-22. As
discussed above, to the extent Appellants argue the Examiner failed to
present a prima facie case, we disagree. The Examiner provided reasoning
why the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the
abstract idea itself.
12
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Other than the recited functions of receiving voting information,
identifying or analyzing the information to determine vote allocation, and
transmitting the vote allocation to a vote receiving system, claim 1 recites
only receiving a registration request, generic computer systems to implement
the abstract idea, and initiating a telephone call. We agree with the
Examiner that these additional elements do not add significantly more to the
abstract idea. Receiving a registration request to register a user is a well-
understood, routine, and conventional step for computer systems that track
particular activities of individual users. See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[R]elying on a
computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.").
Moreover, as mentioned above, although claim 1 recites using
computing systems and initiating a telephone call, claim 1 recites only the
function resulting from using these systems and does not recite a specific
improvement in how the systems operate. See TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at
611 ( determining that reciting certain physical components that limit the
environment in which to carry out the abstract idea is insufficient to
transform the abstract idea into eligible subject matter). Similar to the
Court's determination in TL! Communications that "the problem facing the
inventor was not how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to
transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification
information to that data," the problem Appellants' claims address is not how
to combine a computer system with a telephonic or SMS voting system. TL!
Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 612. In TL! Communications the court decided the
invention "sought to 'provid[ e] for recording, administration and archiving
13
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
of digital images simply, fast and in such way that the information therefore
may be easily tracked."' TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d at 612. Here, the claims
seek to receive voting information, identify the vote allocation, and transmit
the vote allocation to a vote receiving system. As in TL! Communications,
Appellants' "[S]pecification does not describe a new telephone, a new
server, or a new physical combination of the two" and "instead
predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional
terms."
Accordingly, the claimed limitations, considered both individually
and together, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and,
therefore, do not render the subject matter patent eligible.
Summary
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to merely an abstract idea, rendering the claimed subject matter
ineligible.
THE§ 103 REJECTION
The Examiner finds the combination of Gupta and Crocker teaches or
suggests every limitation recited in claim 1 and provides a reason for
combining the asserted teachings. Final Act. 5-9. Of particular relevance,
the Examiner finds Gupta's reputation profile manager 108 teaches or
suggests the recited "communication system," Gupta's reputation scores
teach or suggest the recited "user votes," and Gupta's online community 102
teaches or suggests the recited "vote receiving system," as recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 6-7 (citing Gupta ,r,r 52, 82, Figs. 1-2). The Examiner further
finds Gupta's plugin 802 that integrates reputation profile manager 108 with
14
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
online community 102 and the ability of reputation profile manager 108 to
manage displaying users' reputation profiles in online community 102
teaches or suggests "in order to register the user votes with the vote
receiving system," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7 ( citing Gupta ,r 82).
Among other arguments, Appellants contend Gupta does not teach
"automatically initiating communications from the communication system to
a vote receiving system ... to register the user votes with the vote receiving
system," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 24--25. Appellants argue Gupta
does not teach communicating with a vote receiving system "to register the
user votes" because Gupta's reputation profile manager 108 calculates the
reputation profile and then manages displaying the reputation profile to the
online community. App. Br. 24 ( citing Gupta ,r 82). More specifically,
Appellants assert Gupta fails to teach the automatically initiating step
because Gupta registers the contributions and feedbacks and creates a
reputation profile at the profile manager, which the Examiner finds teaches
the communication system, whereas the online community, which the
Examiner finds teaches the vote receiving system, only is able to view the
displayed reputation profile. App. Br. 24 ( citing Gupta ,r,r 52, 90).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's findings are
problematic. The Examiner finds Gupta's reputation scores teach the recited
"user votes." Final Act. 6 (citing Gupta ,r 52). However, as Appellants
point out, Gupta's reputation profile manager 108 receives and registers user
feedback and calculates a reputation score based on that feedback. App.
Br. 25 (citing Gupta ,r 52). Gupta's reputation profile manager 108 does not
receive the reputation scores. For that reason alone, the Examiner's findings
are inconsistent and unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence.
15
Appeal2017-006454
Application 13/048,333
Based on the findings and evidence before us, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious in view of Gupta
and Crocker. Independent claim 18 recites the same automatically initiating
step recited in claim 1 and, therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 18 as obvious in view of Gupta and Crocker for the same
reason. Dependent claims 5-17 and 20-23, depend from claims 1 and 18
and incorporate the automatically initiating step. Therefore, we are also
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-17 and 20-23 as obvious
in view of Gupta and Crocker. The Examiner does not find Klein, which is
additionally cited in the rejection of independent claims 30 and 31, cures this
deficiency. Claims 30 and 31 recite a similar limitation to the automatically
initiating step recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for the same reason, we are
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 30 and 31. Because this
issue is dispositive with respect to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5-
18, 20-23, 30, and 31, we do not address Appellants' other arguments.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5-18, 20-23,
30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5-18, 20-23,
30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(a)(l).
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
16