INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

2019006143 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2020)

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.
14/327,124 07/09/2014 Douglas A. Wood AUS920140128US1 8560
134677 7590 06/01/2020
Terrile Cannatti & Chambers, LLP
IBM - POU
PO Box 203518
Austin, TX 78720
EXAMINER
LINDSEY III, JOHNATHAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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@dockettrak.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DOUGLAS A. WOOD
____________

Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 7–20, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “automating the layout of a space
layout based upon organization requirements and space constraints,” e.g.,
space planning for a commercial office space. Spec. ¶ 1; see id. ¶¶ 2–3.
Claims 7 and 13 are independent. Claim 7, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
7. A system comprising:
a processor;
a data bus coupled to the processor; and
a non-transitory computer-usable medium embodying
computer program code, the computer-usable medium being
coupled to the data bus, the computer program code used for
automating the layout of a space and comprising instructions
executable by the processor and configured for:
receiving a first set of organization structure data
associated with an organization structure, the organization
structure data defining how activities are directed to
achievement of organization aims, the activities
comprising task allocation, coordination and supervision,
the first set of organization structure data being received
by an integrated workplace management system (IWMS),
the organization structure data comprising data associated
with an organization structure of an organization, the
organization structure data comprising space entitlement
rules of the organization, the space entitlement rules
comprising whether an organizational role is entitled to an
office, a minimum area for the space associated with the
organizational role, a placement of the space associated
with the organizational role and a feature associated with
the organizational role;
receiving a first building information model (BIM)
comprising a first set of space constraint data associated
with a first space, the first BIM being received by the
IWMS;
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

3
processing the first set of organization structure data
and the first set of space constraint data to automatically
generate a first space layout corresponding to the first
space, the processing performed by the IWMS; and,
storing the first space layout in a BIM, the BIM
comprising a shared knowledge resource for information
about the first space layout, the BIM representing the first
space layout as a combination of objects, each object of
the combination of objects within the BIM having
associated geometry, relations and attributes, the BIM
allowing extraction of different views of the first space
layout, each of the different views being based on a single
definition of each object instance.
Appeal Br. 8–9 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 7–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2–9; Ans. 4–12.
Claims 7–9, 13–15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nagy,2 Hassanain,3 Liggett,4 and Rasane.5 Final
Act. 10–22.
Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nagy, Hassanain, Liggett, Rasane, and the Examiner’s
Official Notice. Final Act. 22–23.

2 Nagy et al., US 2013/0246108 A1 (pub. Sept. 19, 2013).
3 Mohammad A. Hassanain, Analysis of factors influencing office workplace
planning and design in corporate facilities, 6 J. Building Appraisal 183
(2010).
4 Robin S. Liggett, Automated facilities layout: past, present and future, 9
Automation in Construction 197 (2000).
5 Rasane et al., US 2013/0169681 A1 (pub. July 4, 2013).
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

4
OPINION
Rejection 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, or [a] new and useful
improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court
has long interpreted § 101 to “contain[] an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 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, 573 U.S. at 217. The first
step in this analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to one of those patent-ineligible concepts,” e.g., to an abstract idea. Id.
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas include certain methods of
organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (id.
at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)); mathematical
formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental
processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). If it is determined
that the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step of
the analysis requires consideration of 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, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

5
at 78, 79). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. at 221 (alterations in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). In other words, the claims must contain an
“inventive concept,” or some element or combination of elements “sufficient
to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72–73). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
at 221.
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).6 “All
USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected
to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
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 activity such as fundamental economic
practices, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong 1”); and

6 In October 2019, in response to received public comments, the PTO issued
a further memorandum clarifying the Revised Guidance. USPTO
Memorandum, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (Oct. 17,
2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (“October 2019 Update”).
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

6
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong 2”).7
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then (under
“Step 2B”) 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, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines that the claims recite mental processes and,
thus, an abstract idea. Ans. 4. The Examiner further determines that the
abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, and that the claims
do not contain an inventive concept or include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Ans. 5, 8;
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that the claims recite insignificant extra-
solution activity, do not reflect an improvement in a technical field or
computer-related technology, and amount to no more than mere instructions

7 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(Section III.A.2).
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

7
to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Ans. 5, 8;
Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that the claims “are generally directed to the
practical application of automating the layout of a space using an integrated
workplace management system” (Appeal Br. 3) and “include far more than a
per se recitation [of] mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human
activity or mental processes” (Reply Br. 2).
Step 2A, Prong 1
We agree with the Examiner that the claims recite a judicial
exception, i.e., an abstract idea. See Ans. 4. Specifically, we agree that the
claims recite mental processes. See id.
For example, independent claim 7 recites “processing the first set of
organization structure data and the first set of space constraint data to
automatically generate a first space layout corresponding to the first space.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this “processing” limitation
covers performance of the limitation in the mind (as does the corresponding
limitation in independent claim 13), but for the recitation of generic
components. That is, other than the “processor,” “non-transitory computer-
usable medium embodying computer program code . . . comprising
instructions executable by the processor,” and “integrated workplace
management system (IWMS)” recited in claim 7 and similar components
recited in claim 13 as performing the recited step, nothing in the claims
precludes that step from being performed in the human mind. For example,
but for the recitation of the “processor,” “non-transitory computer-usable
medium,” and “IWMS,” claim 7 encompasses mentally processing the first
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

8
set of organization structure data and the first set of space constraint data to
generate a first space layout corresponding to the first space.
Accordingly, the claims recite mental processes and, thus, an abstract
idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Because the claims recite an abstract idea, we next look to whether the
claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Claim
limitations that indicate integration into a practical application include
additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at
55. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” the
judicial exception. Id. at 51.
We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations recited in
the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical
application. See Ans. 5. For example, claim 7 additionally recites,
receiving a first set of organization structure data
associated with an organization structure, the organization
structure data defining how activities are directed to achievement
of organization aims, the activities comprising task allocation,
coordination and supervision, the first set of organization
structure data being received by an integrated workplace
management system (IWMS), the organization structure data
comprising data associated with an organization structure of an
organization, the organization structure data comprising space
entitlement rules of the organization, the space entitlement rules
comprising whether an organizational role is entitled to an office,
a minimum area for the space associated with the organizational
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

9
role, a placement of the space associated with the organizational
role and a feature associated with the organizational role; [and]
receiving a first building information model (BIM)
comprising a first set of space constraint data associated with a
first space, the first BIM being received by the IWMS.
These “receiving” limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as
general steps of gathering the various information considered in generating
the first space layout) and amount to insignificant pre-solution activity.
Claim 7 further recites “storing the first space layout in a BIM.” This
“storing” limitation is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a
general step of storing the generated first space layout) and amounts to
insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that the “receiving” and “storing” limitations “describe data
gathering and data output,” amounting to insignificant extra-solution
activity. See Ans. 5; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(g).
We further agree with the Examiner that the claims otherwise merely
recite generic computer components that similarly fail to integrate the
recited abstract idea into a practical application. See Ans. 6–7; Final Act. 5–
6. For example, claim 7 recites a “processor,” “data bus,” “non-transitory
computer-usable medium embodying computer program code . . .
comprising instructions executable by the processor,” and “integrated
workplace management system (IWMS).” These limitations are recited at a
high level of generality, i.e., as generic components performing generic
computer functions of computer processing, storage, and communication.
As the Examiner points out, the claims merely apply the abstract idea using
generic computer components and indicate a field of use or technological
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

10
environment (i.e., computer software). See Ans. 7; Final Act. 6; Spec. ¶ 1;
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(f), (h). The claim
limitations do not include any particular machine that is integral to the claim.
See Ans. 7; Final Act. 6; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(b).
We also agree with the Examiner that the claims do not recite a
technological improvement in addition to the abstract idea. See Final Act. 7.
As discussed above, the recited “processor,” “data bus,” “non-transitory
computer-usable medium embodying computer program code . . .
comprising instructions executable by the processor,” and “integrated
workplace management system (IWMS)” are merely generic computer
components performing generic functions of computer processing, storage,
and communication. The claims “do not require an arguably inventive set of
components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that
would generate new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive
programming.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Although Appellant argues that the claims are directed to
“automating the layout of a space using an integrated workplace
management system” (Appeal Br. 3), the claims simply recite an existing
practice—space planning—with the benefit of generic computer technology.
As the Federal Circuit has explained, “mere automation of manual processes
using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in
computer technology” (Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859
F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), particularly where, as here, “the focus of
the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on
certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools” (Elec.
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

11
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see
also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“At best, the claims describe the automation of the fundamental
economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the use of
generic-computer functions.”)). Thus, the claims do not reflect an
improvement in computer functionality or to any other technology or
technical field. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–3; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55;
MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Even in combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See
Ans. 7.
Step 2B
Turning to Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, we determine that there
are no specific limitations beyond the judicial exception, i.e., the abstract
idea, that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. For example, claim 7 additionally recites,
the BIM comprising a shared knowledge resource for
information about the first space layout, the BIM representing
the first space layout as a combination of objects, each object of
the combination of objects within the BIM having associated
geometry, relations and attributes, the BIM allowing extraction
of different views of the first space layout, each of the different
views being based on a single definition of each object instance.
We find nothing unconventional in these limitations describing the building
information model (BIM). See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 4 (listing various examples of
building information models), 41 (“Skilled practitioners of the art will be
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

12
aware that known BIM design tools allow extraction of different views from
various implementations of a BIM for drawing production and other uses.
Furthermore, these different views are automatically consistent, being based
on a single definition of each object instance.”).
The additionally recited “processor,” “data bus coupled to the
processor,” “non-transitory computer-usable medium embodying computer
program code . . . [and] coupled to the data bus,” “instructions executable by
the processor,” and “integrated workplace management system (IWMS)” are
mere recitations of generic computer components performing generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and
thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Spec.
¶¶ 3 (“Known approaches . . . include the implementation of an integrated
workspace management system (IWMS) . . . .”), 18 (listing various types of
computer readable storage media), 20 (listing various computer readable
programming languages), 22 (“These computer readable program
instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer,
special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing
apparatus . . . .”), 25 (generally describing a “processor unit” coupled to a
“system bus” in the computer). As indicated by the Examiner, those
additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the
abstract idea using generic computer components. See Ans. 8. Mere
instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer do not provide
an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24.
Reevaluating the extra-solution activity of “receiving a first set of
organization structure data” and “receiving a first building information
model (BIM)” (see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (stating that a
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

13
conclusion under Step 2A that an additional element is insignificant extra-
solution activity should be reevaluated in Step 2B)), we find nothing
unconventional in these steps of gathering the various information
considered in generating the first space layout. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 3
(discussing typical considerations in space planning, such business and
space requirements).
Appellant has not shown that the claims on appeal add any specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine,
and conventional in the field. Appellant also provides no evidence of how
the ordered combination is unconventional or amounts to significantly more
than the abstract idea to which the claims are otherwise directed.
Accordingly, considering the claim elements individually and as an
ordered combination, we agree with the Examiner that there are no
meaningful claim limitations that represent sufficiently inventive concepts to
transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the
abstract idea. See Ans. 8.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 7–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 7–9, 13–15, 10, and 20
The Examiner determines that independent claims 7 and 13 are
unpatentable over Nagy, Hassanain, Liggett, and Rasane. Final Act. 10–18,
20–21. Appellant argues,
[N]owhere within Nagy and Hassanain is there any disclosure or
suggestion processing organization structure data by an
integrated workspace management system (IWMS) to
automatically generate a first space layout corresponding to the
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

14
first space, the organization structure data comprising data
associated with an organization structure of an organization, the
organization structure data comprising space entitlement rules of
the organization, much less the space entitlement rules
comprising whether an organizational role is entitled to an office,
a minimum area for the space associated with the organizational
role, a placement of the space associated with the organizational
role and a feature associated with the organizational role, as
required by claim 7 and 13. This deficiency of Nagy and
Hassanain is not cured by Liggett or Rasane, taken alone or in
combination.
Appeal Br. 4–5.
These types of conclusory statements, lacking evidence or
explanation, are unpersuasive because Appellant does not substantively
address the Examiner’s findings or rationale, i.e., does not provide
substantive arguments that compare and distinguish the disputed claim
limitations from the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited
references. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (explaining that, on appeal to the Board, Appellant has the burden
to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection); Ex parte Belinne, No.
2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843 at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative)
(finding Appellant did not show error in the Examiner's rejection where the
Examiner made extensive specific fact finding with respect to each of the
argued claims and, in response, Appellant restated elements of the claim
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

15
language and simply argued that the elements were missing from the
reference). Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding of
obviousness based on the combination of Nagy, Hassanain, Liggett, and
Rasane.
For the same reasons, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s remaining
arguments with respect to independent claims 7 and 13, in which Appellant
similarly merely recites or paraphrases the claim language and alleges that it
is not taught by the cited references, alone or in combination. See Appeal
Br. 5–6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 8, 9, 14, 15, 19,
and 20, which are not argued separately.
Claims 10 and 16
Dependent claims 10 and 16 recite, inter alia, “performing
comparison operations to compare the first space layout to the second space
layout, the performance of the comparison operations generating a first set
of space utilization metrics respectively associated with the first space layout
and the second space layout.” The Examiner finds that, “[u]nder the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the limitation recites steps to
evaluate space layouts according to one or more metrics such as cost or
efficiency” and takes Official Notice that “it is old and well known in the
computer arts to determine the costs and/or efficiency of space layouts.”
Final Act. 23. The Examiner then concludes that “it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to derive a metric indicating
cost or efficiency for each space layout in order to enable building planners
Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

16
to objectively compare the space layouts.” Id.
Appellant argues,
[W]hile it may be well known to determine costs or efficiency of
space layouts, it is not well known to perform comparison
operations to compare a first space layout to a second space
layout where the second space layout is generated from a second
BIM (building information model) comprising a second set of
space constraint data associated with a second space. It is also
not well known to generate a set of space utilization metrics
associated with the first space layout and the second space layout
based upon the comparison operations.
Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner does not adequately explain, and it is not apparent to
us, where “performing comparison operations” is taught or suggested in the
combination of Nagy, Hassanain, Liggett, Rasane, and the Examiner’s
Official Notice, where “the performance of the comparison operations
generat[es] a first set of space utilization metrics respectively associated
with the first space layout and the second space layout.” While the
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to derive a metric for each
space layout in order to enable a comparison of the space layouts (see Final
Act. 23), the claim limitation requires that performance of the comparison
operations generates the space utilization metrics.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of dependent claims 10 and 16.

Appeal 2019-006143
Application 14/327,124

17
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–9, 13–15, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–20 is
affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–20 101 Eligibility 7–20
7–9, 13–15,
19, 20
103 Nagy, Hassanain,
Liggett, Rasane
7–9, 13–15,
19, 20

10, 16 103 Nagy, Hassanain,
Liggett, Rasane,
Official Notice
10, 16
Overall
Outcome
7–20