Ex Parte Upadhyaya et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2019

12254502 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/254,502 10/20/2008
74739 7590 03/14/2019
Potomac Law Group, PLLC (Oracle International)
8229 Boone Boulevard
Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
Anadi Upadhyaya
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.
2011-0161 USOl 1524
EXAMINER
OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2019 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):
patents@potomaclaw.com
bgoldsmith@potomaclaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AN ADI UPADHYAYA, TY HAYDEN, and
MANISH AGRAWAL
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 22-25, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a compensation system that tests setup
parameters through a verification. The verification generates an error output
if the parameters lead to undesirable results when operating the
compensation system. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of implementing a setup process for a
compensation system prior to deployment of the compensation
system, the method executed by a processor, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, by the processor, a plurality of setup
parameters for the setup process of the compensation system,
the plurality of setup parameters including:
a plurality of compensation plan setup parameters
that define properties of a compensation plan comprising
one or more components including a stock plan, a cost of
living adjustment, a merit adjustment, a company
performance adjustment, or a bonus plan, the properties
including at least one of a plan name, a plan description,
a plan status, a plan start date, or a plan end date, and
a plurality of budgeting setup parameters that
enable and configure a budget pool associable with at
least one component of the compensation plan;
testing, by the processor, the setup parameters through a
verification that determines whether there is an error in one or
more of the setup parameters;
displaying a first message in a graphical user interface
(GUI) if the budget pool for the compensation plan is not
created during the testing;
displaying a second message in the GUI if the budget
pool is not associated with at least one component of the
compensation plan during the testing; and
displaying a third message in the GUI if a budgeting style
is percent and a percent of eligible salary component is not
configured in the budget pool during the testing.
2
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 22-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4. 2
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea, namely a compensation system that verifies whether setup parameters
were correctly entered before a setup procedure is run. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
The Examiner adds that the claims do not include additional elements that
add significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely recite conventional
computer functions. Final Act. 3. Based on these determinations, the
Examiner concludes that the claims are ineligible under § 101. Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 8-13. According to Appellants, the Examiner not
only fails to account for the specific recited limitations that are not directed
to an abstract idea, but the recited limitations also add significantly more to
the purported abstract idea to render the claims eligible. See id. at 13-15.
ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-13,
15, 17-19, and 22-25 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue
turns on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so,
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
September 6, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 9, 2017
(supplemented June 30, 2017) ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer
mailed September 8, 2017 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed November
6, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
whether recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered
combination-transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible
application of that abstract idea.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S.
208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
4
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 192 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). That
said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks and citation
omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional
5
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
6
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that, contrary to Appellants' arguments (App.
Br. 15), the Examiner's failure to recite each dependent claim limitation and
address its patent-eligibility separately is not fatal to the rejection. See
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 'l Ass 'n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that, when all claims are
directed to the same abstract idea, addressing each claim of the asserted
patents is unnecessary). Aside from asserting that dependent claims 2-7, 9,
11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 22-25 were not analyzed with particularity by the
Examiner, Appellants present arguments for the claims as a group. See App.
Br. We select independent claim 1 as representative, and remaining claims
2-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 22-25 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Alice/Mayo Step One
Independent claim 1 recites a method that uses a processor to receive
setup parameters for a setup process of a compensation system. The
compensation plan comprises one or more components including a stock
plan, a cost of living adjustment, a merit adjustment, a company
performance adjustment, or a bonus plan. The setup parameters include
compensation plan setup parameters that define properties of the
compensation plan. The properties include at least one of a plan name, a
plan description, a plan status, a plan start date, or a plan end date. The
setup parameters further include budgeting setup parameters that configure a
budget pool associable with at least one component of the compensation
plan.
7
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
Using this processor, the setup parameters are tested through a
verification that determines whether there is an error in one or more of the
setup parameters. If the budget pool for the compensation plan is not
created during the testing, then the processor displays a first message in a
graphical user interface (GUI). If the budget pool is not associated with at
least one component of the compensation plan during the testing, then the
processor displays a second message in the GUI. If a budgeting style is
percent and a percent of eligible salary component is not configured in the
budget pool during the testing, then the processor displays a third message in
the GUI.
As shown in Appellants' Figure 2, Appellants' setup parameters are
entered before they are verified. Spec. ,r,r 17-34. Appellants' plan setup
parameters allow an administrator to define (1) compensation plan
properties, and (2) start and end dates of a compensation plan. Spec. ,r,r 18,
20. Budgeting setup parameters define budget pools that allow the
administrator to configure a budget for the compensation plan. Spec. ,r 24.
As shown in Appellants' Figures 3(a}-3(c), the setup parameters are
verified in a flow diagram once they have been entered. Spec. ,r,r 36-52. In
one embodiment, an administrator detects and corrects errors. Spec. ,r 35.
The validation shows specific errors for the compensation plan. Id. "An
'error' indicates a wrong setup that may lead to undesirable results (e.g.,
participation errors, no employees get processed, data is corrupted or will
cause things not to work properly, etc.)." Id.
Turning to claim 1, we first note that the claim recites a series of steps
and, therefore, falls within the process category of§ 101. Despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
8
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 21 7. To this end, we must determine whether ( 1) the claim recites a
judicial exception and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to a
compensation system that verifies whether setup parameters were correctly
entered before a setup procedure is run. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we ( 1) identify the
claim's specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts 3; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity4; or ( c) mental processes. 5
Here, receiving and testing setup parameters could be performed
mentally apart from the recited processor. Notably, a person could receive
3 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
4 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
9
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
setup parameters for a compensation system's setup process by merely
thinking about the setup parameters, or recalling such information. Using
this information, the person could then test the setup parameters through a
verification that determines whether there is an error in one or more of the
setup parameters. Notably, this latter step could be done by the person
merely remembering testing rules or criteria, and then mentally comparing
the setup parameters to those testing rules or criteria.
Furthermore, determining if (1) the budget pool for the compensation
plan is not created during the testing, (2) the budget pool is not associated
with at least one component of the compensation plan during the testing, and
(3) a budgeting style is percent and a percent of eligible salary component is
not configured in the budget pool during the testing could be performed
mentally apart from the GUI that displays messages. A person could merely
consider whether (1) the budget pool for the compensation plan is created
while mentally comparing the setup parameters to testing rules; (2) the
budget pool is not associated with at least one component of the
compensation plan while mentally comparing the setup parameters to testing
rules; and (3) a budgeting style is percent and a percent of eligible salary
component is not configured in the budget pool while mentally comparing
the setup parameters to testing rules.
Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these mental
processes, we must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated
into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or
uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
10
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
54--55. To this end, we (1) identify whether there are any additional recited
elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements
individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application. See id.
Notably, the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea are the
processor and the GUI for displaying messages. But these additional
elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when
reading claim 1 as a whole. First, we are not persuaded that the claimed
invention improves the computing devices' functionality or efficiency, or
otherwise changes the way those devices function.
This case is unlike Trading Technologies International v. CQG, Inc.,
675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished). There, the court held
eligible claims reciting a method for displaying and facilitating trading of
market information relating to a traded commodity, including dynamically
displaying an indicator in each of a GUI' s bid and ask display regions, the
regions positioned along a common static price axis. Trading Techs., 675 F.
App'x at 1002---06. The claimed invention in that case also displayed an
order entry region with locations for receiving trade order commands, and,
responsive to selecting a particular location, (1) commodity-related trade
order parameters were set, and (2) a trade order was sent to an electronic
exchange. Id. at 1003. Notably, the court held that claimed invention did
not simply display information on a graphical user interface, but rather
required a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with prescribed
functionality directly related to the interface's structure that addressed and
resolved a specifically-identified problem in the art and, therefore, was not
directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1004.
11
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
That is not the case here. Although the claimed invention displays
messages in a GUI under the three recited conditions, to the extent
Appellants contend that the claimed invention is directed to a specific,
structured graphical user interface paired with prescribed functionality
directly related to the interface's structure that addresses and resolves a
specifically-identified problem in the art as in Trading Technologies (see
App. Br. 11-12), there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention.
Where, as here, the claimed invention merely presents the results of
abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more
(such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), the claimed invention
is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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. Despite Appellants' contention to the contrary (App. Br. 11-12),
displaying the three messages under the recited conditions in a GUI merely
uses generic computing components to achieve that end and, therefore, does
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 223-24; see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that using generic computing
components like a microprocessor or user interface do not transform an
otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortgage Grader Inc. v.
First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(noting that components such an "interface," "network," and "database" are
12
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept
requirement); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP §
2106.05(±)).
To the extent Appellants attempt to analogize the claimed invention to
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 12-13), this argument is unavailing. There, the
claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered
information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of
synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the
recited process automatically animated characters using particular
information and techniques-an improvement over manual three-
dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 1316.
But, unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
invention here merely uses generic computing components to receive test
setup parameters, test the setup parameters, and display messages in a
GUI-a generic computer implementation that is not only directed to
fundamental data access and analysis functions, but also does not improve a
display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing McRO).
Although the claimed invention requires computer components, it is the
incorporation of those components-not a claimed rule-that purportedly
improves the existing process. Cf Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
13
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
To be sure, Appellants' disclosed error determination can indicate a
wrong setup that may lead to undesirable results such as data corruption or
causing "things to not work properly." Spec. ,r 35. As the Specification's
paragraph 52 explains, one such error can occur in connection with defining
dynamic calculations during setup where a wrong entry can result in
displaying inaccurate or unintelligible information. To the extent Appellants
contend that the recited testing somehow improves the computer's
functioning or improves another technology or technical field in light of
these error determinations, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention. Moreover, nothing in claim 1 precludes the
recited testing from being performed entirely mentally, apart from the
processor as noted previously.
In short, the claimed invention does not focus on improving
computers as tools, but rather on certain independently abstract ideas that
use computers as tools. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096
(noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or
user interface do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible
subject matter).
Second, displaying messages in a GUI is not only implemented by
generic computing components to achieve these ends, but it constitutes
insignificant extra-solution activity that is insufficient to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79 (citing
Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 and Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92); see also Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
14
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
Therefore, we do not find claim 1 recites additional elements that
improve (1) the computer itself or (2) another technology or technical field.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Rather, the
above-noted additional elements merely (1) apply the abstract idea on a
computer; (2) include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a
computer; or (3) use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05([)).
We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that, because the
claims were found to be allowable over the prior art, the ordered
combination of the claimed steps uses unconventional methods for
"implementing a setup process for a compensation system prior to
deployment of the compensation system." App. Br. 12 (citing McRO). The
mere fact that the Examiner has not presented a prior art rejection under
§§ 102 or 103 is irrelevant to eligibility under § 101. "[P]atent-eligibility
does not tum on ease of execution or obviousness of application. Those are
questions that are examined under separate provisions of the Patent Act."
Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89-90).
We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claimed
invention does not preempt the relevant technical field. See App. Br. 13
( citing Alice, Bilski, Myriad, Mayo, and McRO). Where, as here, the claims
cover a patent-ineligible concept, pre-emption concerns "are fully addressed
and made moot" by an analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework. See
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
15
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Step Two
Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, the additionally recited elements,
namely the processor and the GUI----considered individually and as an
ordered combination----do not provide an inventive concept such that these
additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
As noted above, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing
components to perform the recited abstract idea. Appellants' contention that
the recited elements, including testing received setup parameters and
displaying the three messages under the recited conditions, are not well-
understood, routine, and conventional (see App. Br. 14--15) is unavailing.
Apart from the processor and GUI, these limitations are not additional
elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed to the abstract idea
as noted previously. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (instructing that
additional recited element(s) should be evaluated in Alice/Mayo step two to
determine whether they ( 1) add specific limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the field, or (2) simply append
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Rather, the processor and GUI are the additionally recited elements,
whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Accord Final Act. 3; Ans. 4 (finding that the additional recited
elements recite generic computer structure whose functions are well-
16
Appeal2018-000896
Application 12/254,502
understood and conventional). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and
22-25 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19,
and 22-25 under§ 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-13, 15,
17-19, and 22-25.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17