Ex Parte Sirica et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 2, 2018

13632629 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/632,629 10/01/2012 Roberto A. Sirica
45722 7590 07/05/2018
Howard IP Law Group
P.O. Box226
Fort Washington, PA 19034
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.
HARTFORD-221-US 5226
EXAMINER
TIEDEMAN, JASON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2018 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):
PA TENTS@PHD-IP.COM
DOCKET@PHD-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERTO A. SIRICA, SUSAN V. RYLANDER,
and GLEN-ROBERTS PITRUZZELLO
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-13, and 16-20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hartford Fire Insurance
Company. App. Br. 3.
2 Although claims 5-8 depend from cancelled claim 4, we nonetheless
presume that they were intended to depend from independent claim 1. We
likewise presume that claims 16 and 1 7 were intended to depend from
independent claim 11 despite their dependence from cancelled claim 14 and
their inconsistent preambles, namely claim 16 reciting the method of claim
14, but claim 17 reciting the system of claim 14.
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention processes received conditional payment demand
communications associated with multiple parties' payment obligations in
connection with an injury, such as payments associated with (1) a worker's
compensation insurance claim, and (2) a governmental program such as
Medicare. For example, if a worker is injured and receives treatment that is
paid for by Medicare, the Medicare program may recover payments from
any worker's compensation plan that was obligated to cover that treatment.
To process demands for such payments, a lien tracking tool is populated
with information based on the received governmental information and the
associated insurance claims, and a clinical assessment is arranged. Based on
the results of this assessment, the system determines whether a governmental
payment will be issued in connection with the insurance claim. See
generally Abstract; Spec. i-fi-f l-2, 13-28. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for improving data flow between
disparate computer platforms to receive and process conditional
payment demand communications, comprising:
an electronic document management (EDM) platform
including an EDM computer processor and an EDM memory;
a demand processing platform including a demand
processing computer processor, demand processing computer
memory, a lien tracking tool, and a conditional payment
spreadsheet tool; and
a clinical specialist computer system including a clinical
specialist computer processor and a clinical specialist computer
memory;
wherein the EDM memory stores program instructions
adapted to be executed by the EDM computer processor to:
2
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
receive Medicare secondary payer conditional
payment demand data from a Medicare secondary payer
recovery contractor, the Medicare secondary payer
conditional payment demand data corresponding to a
plurality of Medicare secondary payer demand
communications;
match each of the plurality of Medicare secondary
payer demand communications of the Medicare
secondary payer conditional payment demand data with a
claim and its associated claim file;
responsive to matching of a Medicare secondary
payer demand communications with the associated claim
file, generate dual notifications corresponding to the
matched conditional payment demand and claim file
data;
transmit a first of the dual notifications to a claim
handler device;
transmit a second of the dual notifications to a
Medicare operations team device; and
transmit the matched conditional payment demand
and the claim file data to the demand processing
platform;
wherein the demand processing computer memory stores
program instructions adapted to be executed by the demand
processing computer processor to:
receive the matched conditional payment demand
and claim file data from the EDM platform;
responsive to receipt of the matched conditional
payment demand and claim file data, populate the lien
tracking tool and the conditional payment spreadsheet
tool with the matched conditional payment demand and
claim file data;
transmit lien documents corresponding to the
matched conditional payment demand and claim file data
to a clinical specialist computer;
3
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
create entries in a clinical assessment queue to
automatically arrange for a clinical assessment to be
performed for each claim file of the matched conditional
payment demand and claim file data;
responsive to the creation of entries in the clinical
assessment queue, receive, from the clinical specialist
computer, clinical assessments, including a clinical
assessment for each claim file of the matched conditional
payment demand and claim file data;
update the lien tracking tool with the clinical
assessments;
determine, for each claim file of the matched
conditional payment demand and claim file data, whether
to generate an official response letter to dispute the
conditional payment demand communication or issue a
Medicare payment;
responsive to each of the determinations to
generate an official response letter to dispute the
conditional payment demand communication,
automatically generate the official response letter to
dispute the conditional payment demand communication,
and output a draft of the official response letter to a
printer; and
responsive to each of the determinations to issue a
payment corresponding to the conditional payment
demand communication, automatically issue the
Medicare payment corresponding to the conditional
payment demand communication;
generate a Medicare conditional payment analysis
display which displays one of a recommended
reimbursement amount or an explanation as to why
conditional payment is not recommended, for display on
a tablet device of one of a nurse or claim handler;
transmit the Medicare conditional payment
analysis display to a tablet device of the one of the nurse
or the claim handler; and
4
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
periodically generate, based on the lien tracking
tool, an outstanding lien report;
wherein the clinical specialist computer memory stores
program instructions adapted to be executed by the clinical
specialist computer processor to:
receive entries in a clinical assessment queue
thereby automatically arranging for clinical assessments to be
performed in connection with each claim file of the matched
conditional payment demand and claim file data, in accordance
with information in the conditional payment spreadsheet tool;
and
transmit, by the communication device, from the clinical
specialist computer clinical assessments based on the lien documents.
THE REJECTION3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3---6. 4
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea, namely determining and tracking whether to contest a lien on
an insurance plan by comparing new and stored information, and using rules
to identify options. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4, 14--15. According to the
Examiner, the claimed elements do not add significantly more to the abstract
3 Because the Examiner withdrew an indefiniteness rejection (Ans. 2), that
rejection is not before us.
4 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
October 7, 2015 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed April 8, 2016
(supplemented August 26, 2016) ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer
mailed November 3, 2016 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed January 3,
2017 ("Reply Br.").
5
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
idea to render the claimed invention patent-eligible because, among other
things, the claims recite generic computer structure and functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
the industry. Ans. 5-6.
Appellants argue that not only are the claims not directed to an
abstract idea, the claims add significantly more to the purported abstract idea
to render the claims patent-eligible. App. Br. 21-27; Reply Br. 38--45.
According to Appellants, the Examiner's characterization does not include
any hardware to implement the recited process, such as (1) the EDM
platform, (2) the demand processing platform, and (3) a clinical specialist
computer system, let alone include the requisite interactions among the
disparate computer systems to process hundreds of thousands of claims
timely and efficiently each quarter. App. Br. 26. The Examiner's
characterization is also said to lack the recited data flows between hardware
components. Id.
Appellants further contend that the claimed invention not only recites
limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in
the field, but also uses memory storage and computational resources
efficiently to accelerate processing time. App. Br. 36-38. According to
Appellants, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer
technology to overcome a technological problem, namely accelerated
demand letter generation caused by technology and increased computer
usage. App. Br. 45--46, 50. Appellants add that because the claimed
invention processes paper demand letters, it is more akin to a physical
process and, therefore, does not encompass an abstract idea. App. Br. 51-
6
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
52. Lastly, Appellants contend that there is no risk that the claims will pre-
empt an existing business practice. App. Br. 57-58; Reply Br. 49-51.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by concluding that it is
directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101? This issue turns on
whether the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea
and, if so, whether the claim's elements---considered individually and as an
ordered combination-transform the nature of the claim into a patent-
eligible application of that abstract idea.
ANALYSIS
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under§ 101, we apply
the Supreme Court's two-step test articulated in Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd.
v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, we determine
whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2354--55. If so, we then
proceed to the second step and examine the claim's elements-both
individually and as an ordered combination-to determine whether the claim
contains an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract
idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357.
Alice Step One
Applying Alice step one, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed
invention is directed to an abstract idea, namely determining and tracking
whether to contest a lien on an insurance plan by comparing new and stored
information, and using rules to identify options. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4, 14--
7
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
15. Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, (1) an EDM platform, (2) a demand
processing platform, and (3) a clinical specialist computer system. The
EDM platform can (a) receive Medicare secondary payer conditional
payment demand data corresponding to associated communications; (b)
match each communication with a claim and its associated claim file; ( c)
generate dual notifications corresponding to the matched conditional
payment demand and claim file data; ( d) transmit respective notifications to
a claim handler device and Medicare operations team device, respectively;
and ( e) transmit the matched conditional payment demand and claim file
data to the demand processing platform.
Responsive to receiving the data in step ( e ), the demand processing
platform populates a lien tracking tool and conditional payment spreadsheet
tool with this data. The demand processing platform also (1) transmits
corresponding lien documents to a clinical specialist computer, and (2)
creates entries in a clinical assessment queue to automatically arrange for a
clinical assessment for each claim file. The demand processing platform
then receives clinical assessments from the clinical specialist computer
responsive to this entry creation, and updates the lien tracking tool
accordingly.
For each claim file, the demand processing platform then determines
whether to (1) generate an official response letter to dispute the conditional
payment demand communication, or (2) issue a Medicare payment.
Responsive to the first determination, the demand processing platform
automatically generates the official response letter and outputs a draft to a
printer. Responsive to the second determination, the demand processing
platform automatically issues the Medicare payment.
8
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
The demand processing platform then generates a Medicare
conditional payment analysis display that displays either ( 1) the
recommended reimbursement amount, or (2) an explanation why conditional
payment is not recommended, where the display is for a nurse's or claim
handler's tablet device. The demand processing platform also generates
periodically an outstanding lien report based on the lien tracking tool.
Claim 1 adds that the clinical specialist computer system (1) receives
entries in a clinical assessment queue thereby automatically arranging for
clinical assessments to be performed in connection with each claim file of
the matched conditional payment demand and claim file data in accordance
with information in the spreadsheet tool, and (2) transmits clinical
assessments based on the lien documents.
In essence, the claimed invention processes received Medicare
conditional payment demands by (1) associating them with a claim file, (2)
assessing the demands, and (3) communicating the results of that
assessment. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 21-27;
Reply Br. 3 8-51 ), we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea that, in essence, is a fundamental economic and business
practice. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4, 14--15. Such fundamental economic
and business practices are often held to be abstract. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2356 (holding the concept of intermediated settlement is an abstract
idea directed to a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our
system of commerce") (citation omitted); see also buySAFE v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing cases where contractual
relations at issue constituted fundamental economic practices, and noting
that forming or manipulating economic relations may involve an abstract
9
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that claims directed
to "the mere formation and manipulation of economic relations" and "the
performance of certain financial transactions" have been held to involve
abstract ideas).
Furthermore, it is well settled that collecting information is within the
realm of abstract ideas---even when the information is limited to particular
content. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). It is also well settled that analyzing information by steps people
go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are
essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category. Id. at 1354.
And merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
Id.
Similar to the claims at issue in Electric Power, the claimed invention
here gathers, manipulates, analyzes, and presents information of a specified
content, but does not use any particular inventive technology for performing
those functions. That the information pertains to conditional payments and
other financial data is of no consequence here, for collecting and analyzing
information such information does not make the collection and analysis non-
abstract. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellants' reliance on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on pages 45 and 46 of the Appeal Brief is
unavailing. There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal,
10
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
expected manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website
apparently connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in
DDR generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented
(1) product information from the third party, and (2) visual "look and feel"
elements from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given this
particular Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention
did not merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from
the pre-Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer
technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer
networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellants' claimed
invention, in essence, processes received Medicare conditional payment
demands by (1) associating them with a claim file, (2) assessing the
demands, and (3) communicating the results of that assessment. Although
computer-based functionality is used to achieve this end, this computer-
based functionality is nonetheless directed to an abstract idea that, in
essence, is a fundamental economic and business practice. As in SAP
America, the claims here are not directed to specific improvements in the
way computers and networks carry out their basic functions, but rather an
improved financial analysis. See SAP America, 890 F.3d at 1022; see also
In re Chorna, 656 F. App'x 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished)
(holding ineligible claims directed to financial instruments valued using an
allocation formula, traded, and cleared as directed to an abstract idea). That
the Specification indicates that standard off-the-shelf computer technology is
usable to implement the claimed invention in paragraphs 19 and 33 to 35 of
the Specification only bolsters the notion that the claimed invention does not
11
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain
independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. See id. (quoting
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354).
Alice Step Two
Nor do the recited elements---considered individually and as an
ordered combination-transform the nature of claim 1 into a patent-eligible
application of the abstract idea to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than that idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
That the recited system is "for improving data flow between disparate
computer platforms" in claim 1 's preamble does not change our conclusion,
nor do the recited interactions and data flows between an (1) the EDM
platform, (2) a demand processing platform, and (3) a clinical specialist
computer system.
As the Examiner indicates, the claimed invention merely uses generic
computing components to perform well-understood, routine, and
conventional functions, including a variety of data manipulation functions
indicated by the Examiner on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer. Ans. 4--16. See
Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811F.3d1314,
1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface,"
"network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not
satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
("[T]he interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element);
buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 ("That a computer receives and sends the
information over a network-with no further specification-is not even
12
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
arguably inventive."). Indeed, these generic computing components merely
do that which can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper-
exclusive functions ineligible for patent protection under § 101. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2011). That the Specification's paragraph 18 defines the recited term
"automatically" as performing at least part of a step associated with a
process or service with little or no human intervention only bolsters the
notion that at least some human intervention is contemplated by the claimed
invention---even for functions performed automatically.
Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the recited
components add efficiency, any speed increase comes from the capabilities
of the generic computer components-not the recited process itself. See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could
be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")). Like the claims in
Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer
processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
In short, merely reciting these generic computing components cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Id. at 2358. In other words, merely reciting an abstract idea while adding the
words "apply it with a computer" does not render an abstract idea non-
abstract: there must be more. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nor does the
13
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
claimed invention improve the computer processor device's functionality or
efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions. Cf Enfzsh
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
That the claimed invention transfers data from one computing
component to another via a network does not change our conclusion. Cf
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1332-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(holding ineligible computer-aided method that sent application data
sequentially to plural remote funding source terminal devices); see also
Audatex North America, Inc. v. Mitchell Int 'l, Inc., 703 F. App'x 986, 987-
90 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible method for obtaining
automobile insurance claim valuation report by transmitting the report from
a valuation server to a web server before transmitting the report to the client
computer).
To be sure, the court in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) held that a claim directed to
using accounting information with which a network accounting record is
correlated to enhance the record was held eligible because the claim
involved an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a
distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which
previously required massive databases). Although the court recognized that
this solution used generic components, the recited enhancing function
necessarily required these generic components to operate in an
unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer
functionality. Id. at 1300--01. Notably, the recited enhancement in Amdocs
depended on not only the network's distributed architecture, but also on the
network devices and "gatherers" working together in a distributed
14
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
environment. Id. at 1301. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the court
noted the patent's emphasis on the drawbacks of previous systems where all
network information flowed to one location making it very difficult to keep
up with massive record flows from network devices and requiring huge
databases. Id. at 1300. The court also noted similar network-based
shortcomings that were overcome by similar unconventional distributed
solutions in other patents at issue. See id. at 1305---06.
That is not the case here. Although the claimed invention uses
conventional computing components that exchange data, there is no
persuasive evidence on this record to prove that these generic components
operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in
computer functionality as in Amdocs apart from Appellants' arguments
(Reply Br. 11-12, 17-18, 20-21, 24) that have little probative value. See In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Enzo Biochem,
Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Attorney
argument is no substitute for evidence."). That the claims recite no
minimum limit on the number of processed conditional payment demands or
a particular processing time period as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 20) only
further undercuts Appellants' arguments in this regard. In any event, the
fact that the claimed invention transfers data from one computing
component to another via a network does not add significantly more to the
abstract idea as noted previously. Cf Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1332-34; see
also Audatex, 703 F. App'x at 987-90.
That the claimed invention can process paper demand letters as
Appellants contend (App. Br. 51-52) is of no consequence here, for it is well
settled that using a generic scanner and computer to recognize and store data
15
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Content Extraction,
776 F.3d at 1348. We reach the same conclusion regarding the recited
spreadsheet tool, for such tools are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1340 (noting that Microsoft Excel 5.0
is a version of a well-known spreadsheet program that was in public use at
latest by early 1994). That the demand processing platform outputs a draft
of the official response letter to a printer likewise does not add significantly
more to the abstract idea, for it is well settled that printers are generic
computing components. See Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems &
Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that printer is a
standard component that is insufficient to transform abstract claims into
patent-eligible subject matter). Moreover, sending data to a printer and
tablet device as claimed is also insignificant extra-solution activity
insufficient to render the claim patent-eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F .3d
943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593
(2010). As noted previously, merely presenting the results of abstract
processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as
identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part
of such collection and analysis. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. That an
outstanding lien report is generated periodically under the terms of claim 1
also does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See SAP America,
890 F.3d at 1019-24 (holding ineligible claim reciting providing a report of
a resampled distribution).
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claims do
not preempt an existing business practice. App. Br. 57-58; Reply Br. 49-51.
Where, as here, the claims cover a patent-ineligible concept, preemption
16
Appeal2017-004320
Application 13/632,629
concerns "are fully addressed and made moot" by an analysis under the
Alice framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For the foregoing reasons, then, the recited elements---considered
both individually and as an ordered combination---do not contain an
"inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5-13, and 16-20 not
argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-13, and 16-20
under§ 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-13, and
16-20.
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
17