Ex Parte Storey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2018

13443595 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/443,595 04/10/2012 Todd M. Storey 77558/00005 2954
27871 7590 03/14/2018
BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP
COMMERCE COURT WEST
199 BAY STREET, SUITE 4000
TORONTO, ON M5L 1A9
CANADA
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 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):
epatent @ blakes .com
j elena. zubac @ blakes .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD M. STOREY
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,5951
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-32, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 33-34 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is the inventor, Todd M.
Storey. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s described and claimed invention relates generally to a
method and system for designing, improving and/or launching a new or
existing product, and/or for obtaining feedback. See Spec. ^ 2.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method of conducting a design process for a new or
existing product or service, the method comprising:
making an offer available to a target group comprising a
plurality of individuals, the offer comprising an ownership
interest or alternate consideration related to the product or
service in exchange for directly participating in generating the
design of the product or service;
providing a user interface for enabling the plurality of
individuals in the target group to apply to become a participant
for the offer, the user interface being provided by a server
computer comprising a processor:
for each participant, enabling that participant to directly
participate in generating the design of the product or service by
providing selections for a plurality of options for at least one
corresponding feature of the design of the product or service, and
requesting desired selections for the options via the user
interface;
receiving the desired selections from each participant via
the user interface;
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 12, 2015
(“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 14, 2015 (“App.
Br.”) and Reply Brief filed August 15, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer mailed June 16, 2016, and the original Specification filed April 10,
2012 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
storing the received selections in a database accessible to
the server computer;
enabling the participants to submit at least one additional
option or alternative for features of the design of the product or
service via the user interface;
receiving at least one additional option or alternative from
at least one participant via the user interface;
performing a further iteration of the design process using
the server computer without manual intervention, by enabling the
participants to vote on the received additional option or
alternative in the design process via the user interface and
incorporating at least one additional option or alternative;
generating the design using the server computer without
manual intervention, by totaling the received selections from all
of the plurality ofparticipants for the options and incorporating
the features selected by a majority into the product or service
design to thereby generate the design based on the input from all
of the participants',
providing the ownership interest to at least one of the
participants; and
outputting design specifications to enable the product or
service to be created in accordance with the design.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li (US 2004/0143481 Al; published July 22, 2004)
(“Li”), in view of Glover et al. (US 2003/0004803 Al; published Jan. 2,
2003) (“Glover”), and further in view of Official Notice (as evidenced by
Johnson (US 2002/0082900 Al; published June 27, 2002) (“Johnson”)).
3
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 5-18) and Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 2-6), and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-18), and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2-11), and we concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief.
Rejection of Claims 1—32 under §101
Applicable Law
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: “[ljaws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CIS
Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012), “for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. For
4
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. The
“directed to” inquiry asks not whether “the claims involve a patent-ineligible
concept,” but instead whether, “considered in light of the specification,. . .
‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enflsh,
LLCv. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal
citations omitted). In that regard, we determine whether the claims “focus
on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” or are
“directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke
generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claim is
not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it is considered patent eligible
under § 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect,
Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
In other words, the second step is to “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.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72-73). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea
5
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
‘“cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a
particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post solution
activity.”’ Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal citation
omitted).
Appellant’s Arguments3
Appellant contends claim 1 is more than an abstract idea, and more
specifically, the Examiner has overlooked the role being played by the
server computer and user interface, where such a computer system is more
than a trivial aspect of the claimed method, and instead recites a specific
way to automate the creation of a design that incorporates design options
selected by multiple participants, via the computer system. See App. Br. 6-
7. In this regard, Appellant argues that the use of the server computer
enables the claimed process to be performed without manual intervention
and, further, the use of the server computer requires the ability to perform
iterations of the design process, which would be impractical without the
server computer. See Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant further argues claim 1 is
more than an abstract idea because the claim is similar to the claims at issue
in DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
as claim 1 recites a specific way to engage multiple participants to obtain
selections for features when can be included in design specifications and to
automate the generation of design specifications using the options selected
by a majority of participants. See App. Br. 6-7. Appellant further contends
claim 1 amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea, and more
3 Appellant argues claims 1-32 as a group, focusing on claim 1. See App.
Br. 8. We consider claim 1 to be representative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal and, therefore, we decide the rejection of claims 1-32 on
the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
specifically, claim 1 includes features directed to enabling participants to
suggest additional or alternative design features, iterating the design process,
and generating the design specifications without manual invention that
specify a particular way to generate the design that is embodied in a
technical solution that amounts to an inventive concept. See App. Br. 7-8.
Additionally, Appellant contends claim 1 does not seek to tie up an abstract
idea because claim 1 is directed to more than simply designing a product or
service and amount to a particular way to utilize a computer server to create
a design based on participant-selected options and features. See App. Br. 8.
Step One of Alice
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
identifying the characteristics of a new product and conducting a design
process using market research. See Final Act. 2. The Examiner further finds
as follows:
The claims are directed to an abstract idea which can be
described as “certain methods of organizing human activity ”,
which includes concepts relating to interpersonal and
intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or
transactions between people, social activities, and human
behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising,
marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing
human mental activity. Specifically, the instant claims are
similar to “managing an insurance policy” (the instant claims
manage a procedure for collecting and collating data concerning
a design)[.]
Also, the instant claims can be described as “an idea 'of itself”,
which include an idea standing alone such as an uninstantiated
concept, plan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking)
that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
using a pen and paper”. Specifically, the instant claims are
similar to “comparing new and stored information and using
rules to identify options” (where the new and stored data concern
7
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
the existing and suggested designs, and the rules allow for the
aggregation of the feedback into a single design).
Ans. 2-3 (emphasis added).
Considering the focus of claim 1 as a whole, in view of Appellant’s
Specification, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea—designing a product or service based on participant-provided
selections regarding options for the product/service. Consistent with the
Examiner’s findings, we find claim 1 is directed to a method of conducting a
design process for a product or service, comprising the steps of: (1) “making
an offer [comprising an ownership interest] available to . . . individuals”; (2)
“providing a user interface for enabling the . . . individuals ... to apply to
become a participant for the offer”; (3) “for each participant. . . providing
selections for . . . options for [a] corresponding feature of the design of the
product or service, and requesting desired selections for the options via the
user interface”; (4) “receiving the desired selections from each participant
via the user interface”; (5) “storing the received selections in a database”; (6)
“enabling the participants to submit [an] additional option or alternative for
features of the design of the product or service via the user interface”; (7)
“receiving [an] additional option or alternative from [a] participant via the
user interface”; (8) “performing a further iteration of the design process . . .
by enabling the participants to vote on the received additional option or
alternative in the design process via the user interface and incorporating [an]
additional operative or alternative”; (9) “generating the design ... by
totaling the received selections from all of [the participants] for the options
and incorporating the features selected by a majority into the product or
service design to thereby generate the design based on the input from all of
the participants”; (10) “providing the ownership interest to [a participant]”;
8
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
and (11) “outputting design specifications to enable the product or service to
be created in accordance with the design”. App. Br. 20 (Claims App.).
These various steps define collecting and analyzing participant-
provided information to generate a design specification for a product or
service. We see no meaningful difference between claim 1 and similar
claims that our reviewing court has found are directed to an abstract idea.
See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l
Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (“[t]he concept of data collection, recognition,
and storage is undisputedly well-known); Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims focus on the abstract
idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation,
839 F.3d 1138, 1150-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming that the claimed
invention is drawn to the abstract idea of translating a functional description
of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming that the invention is drawn to the abstract idea of
“creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data”).
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we also note that the steps
recited in claim 1 could be performed by a human with pen and paper. In
that regard, our reviewing court has held 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.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at
1146. “[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
9
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).4
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 recites a
specific way to automate the creation of a design that incorporates design
options selected by multiple participants, via the computer system. See App.
Br. 6-7. While claim 1 recites a “server computer” and “user interface,” and
further recites that several of the steps are either performed by the server
computer or via the user interface, the claim fails to recite the technical
details regarding how either the server computer or the user interface
performs the recited steps. Thus, the recitation of the aforementioned
“server computer” and “user interface” does not successfully rebut the
Examiner’s findings that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is
similar to the claims in DDR Holdings. See App. Br. 6-7. In DDR
Holdings, the disputed claims solved an Internet-specific problem with an
Internet-based solution that was “necessarily rooted in computer technology
in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks.” DDR Holdings, 773F.3datl257. That is not the case here.
Instead, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, claim 1 merely recites
functionality for automating a process of collecting participant-provided
design options for a product or service and analyzing the collected design
options to generate a design specification. Such recited functionality does
not overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
4 See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even
when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme
Court in Gottschalkv. Benson”).
10
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
networks. Instead, as described in Appellant’s Specification, the problem
the claimed invention is attempting to solve (i.e. limited enthusiasm of
participants to provide feedback; considerable time requirements and
expense to obtain feedback; etc.) is clearly not limited to the realm of
computer networks. See e.g., Spec. 3-7.
Step Two of Alice
Regarding step two of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds claim 1
does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the aforementioned abstract idea because the claim
merely recites the use of a generic computer performing generic computing
tasks. See Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds the automatic data
analysis feature recited in claim 1 does not amount to significantly more
than the aforementioned abstract idea because automatic data analysis is a
routine and conventional usage of a general purpose computer. See Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence or arguments that the recited limitations of claim 1 do
anything more than recite automatic data collection and automatic data
analysis functionality, where such functionality is well-understood, routine,
and conventional in the field of computer systems. Further, Appellant has
not identified any portions of Appellant’s Specification that describe the
corresponding structures for performing the recited functions of claim 1 as
involving technological changes or improvements. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the argued limitations do not add “significantly more” to the
abstract idea because they are “no more than generic computer components
executing generic computer functions.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent in-
11
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract
idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ is not enough for patent eligibility”)
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72 (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Furthermore, as the Court explained in Electric Power, “merely selecting
information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does
nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes,
whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based
category of abstract ideas.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1355.
Preemption
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that claim 1 does
not seek to tie up or otherwise preempt an abstract idea. See App. Br. 8.
While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to
disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo
framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully
addressed and made moot.
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“that the claims do not preempt all price
optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce
setting do not make them any less abstract”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, and dependent
claims 2-16 and 18-32, which are not separately argued, under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
12
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
Rejection of Claims 1—32 under §103 (a)
Appellant contends the combination of cited references fails to teach
or suggest
generating the design using the server computer without manual
intervention, by totaling the received selections from all of the
plurality of participants for the options and incorporating the
features selected by a majority into the product or service design
to thereby generate the design based on the input from all of the
participants,
as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 13, 15; see also Reply Br. 6. More
specifically, Appellant argues Li merely describes accumulating responses
that are used to influence future product offerings, and Li fails to teach or
suggest actually generating a design, let alone considering the input of a
number of participants and committing to a design based on the considered
input in exchange for ownership interest. See App. Br. 12. Appellant
further argues Glover fails to cure Li’s deficiency. See App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by this argument. Li teaches a method and
system that includes a web page configurator, where the configurator
enables users to customize a desired product (e.g., a motorcycle) by
selecting from various product options. See Li ^ 24, 34, 40. As the
Examiner correctly finds, Li further teaches the system establishes a
predetermined number of user-selected combinations as a threshold number,
and a specific combination of options is automatically placed on a list of
products to be made available for purchase in the future when the specific
combination is selected by the threshold number of users. See Final Act. 4
(citing Li]f 41); see also Ans. 7. Appellant’s argument fails to address the
Examiner’s finding. As we agree with the Examiner’s finding, we also
13
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Li and Glover teaches the
aforementioned limitation of claim 1.
Appellant also contends there is no motivation to combine Li and
Glover. See App. Br. 13-14, 16. More specifically, Appellant argues
Glover teaches away from Li and the claimed invention because, contrary to
Li’s explicit intention to provide a simple and cost-effective tool,
implementing Glover’s disclosed method would require various onerous
steps due to Glover’s disclosed requirement for a merchant to register with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) before being able to offer
equity as a reward to consumers. See App. Br. 13-14.
This argument is also not persuasive. The rejection is not based upon
a bodily incorporation of Glover’s system into Li’s system, and more
specifically, does not require the registration of a merchant with the SEC, as
disclosed in Glover. See Keller, 642 L.2d at 425 (citations omitted) (“The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also In re Nievelt,
482 L.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references
does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, the Examiner’s rationale for
combining references involves a simple substitution of a reward of stock
ownership (i.e., equity), as disclosed in Glover, for a reward of a random
prize, as disclosed in Li, where both Li and Glover teach providing a reward
to encourage or otherwise incentivize participants to engage in a desired
behavior. See Pinal Act. 5-6; see also Ans. 9. “[Wjhen a patent claims a
14
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere
substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination
must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007), citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51
(1966).
Appellant also traverses the Official Notice taken by the Examiner in
rejecting independent claim 1. See App. Br. 17. Even assuming arguendo
that Appellant’s traversal is timely {but see Ans. 19), Appellant’s arguments
are not persuasive of Examiner error. We note the Examiner has cited
Johnson as documentary evidence supporting the taking of Official Notice
that soliciting customer suggestions is known in the art. See Final Act. 5
(citing Johnson 9); see also Ans. 7. We further note claim 1 merely recites
“performing a further iteration of the design process ... by enabling the
participants to vote on the received additional option or alternative,” but
does not require the claimed “additional option or alternative” be suggested
by the user. Rather, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed
“additional option or alternative” can be an option or alternative suggested
by the system itself and selected by the user. As correctly found by the
Examiner, Li teaches a user selecting an additional motorcycle option
suggested by the system. See Ans. 6-7 (citing Li 37). Thus, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “additional option or alternative,” Li
teaches or suggests “performing a further iteration of the design process . . .
by enabling the participants to vote on the received additional option or
alternative,” as recited in claim 1. Further, even assuming arguendo that
claim 1 required the claimed “additional option or alternative” be suggested
by the user, as the Examiner correctly finds, Johnson teaches a system that
15
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
collects real-time information regarding preferences, biases, usage, and other
market trend information from users (see Johnson ^ 9), and thus, Johnson
teaches collecting options suggested by a user. Therefore, even under this
interpretation of “additional option or alternative,” the combination of Li and
Johnson teaches or suggests “performing a further iteration of the design
process ... by enabling the participants to vote on the received additional
option or alternative,” as recited in claim 1.
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 1 (see App Br. 9-18), and we are not persuaded by
them either. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 17, and
dependent claims 2-16 and 18-32, which are not separately argued, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).5
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5 Appellant traverses the Official Notice taken by the Examiner in rejecting
dependent claims 4-5, 20-21, and 33-34 but fails to provide any separate
arguments for patentability regarding these claims. See App. Br. 18.
Instead, Appellant merely relies upon its arguments regarding claim 1. See
id. As previously discussed, the Examiner has cited Johnson as
documentary evidence supporting the taking of Official Notice that soliciting
customer suggestions is known in the art. See Final Act. 6, 8. Thus, we are
not persuaded of Examiner error.
16
Appeal 2017-000290
Application 13/443,595
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