International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2020

2020002087 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
15/452,219 03/07/2017 Sheraz Rashid SVL920160242US1_8150-0727 6234
112978 7590 09/16/2020
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
EXAMINER
JARRETT, SCOTT L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2020 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHERAZ RASHID, OMAR Z. RAZA, and ASIMA SILVA
____________

Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,
3–10, and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. We sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Rejection I), but we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Rejection II). As we sustain at least one rejection for
each claim on appeal, we AFFIRM.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” (e.g., “the inventor or all of the joint
inventors”) as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “International Business
Machines Corporation” is identified as the real party in interest. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 and
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

2
THE APPELLANT’S INVENTION
The Appellant’s invention “relates to the automated determination of
feedback for an event from event attendees.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) The event may be
a “conference” at which “a designated speaker of the event deliver[s] a
presentation” to the attendees.” (Id. ¶ 17.)
Measuring, analyzing, and monitoring the views, sentiments, and
opinions of groups can be of great importance to many industries,” such as
“retailers” and “marketing agencies.” (Nicolov3 ¶ 5.) For example, in a
media-presentation setting, “emotions are a key indicator of how well
viewers like or dislike a particular media item, and if they will watch it
again.” (Lee4 ¶ 12.) It follows, therefore, that a person coordinating an
event (i.e., an event coordinator) would want to receive meaningful feedback
from the attendees for commercial reasons. (See Spec. ¶ 19.) “Typically,”
this feedback “is obtained from surveys.” (Id. ¶ 1.)
With a typical survey approach, the event coordinator receives
“survey responses” from the attendees, and the event coordinator “analyze[s]
the survey responses to determine relevant feedback for the event.” (Spec.
¶ 1.) The event coordinator can, for example, provide “a report to the
presenter,” and “[t]he report can be used by the presenter to improve the
presentation.” (Id. ¶ 19.) Needless to say, the reported feedback is only as
good as the event coordinator’s analysis and the survey data on which it is
based. (See id. ¶ 1.) As such, the event coordinator would want to be sure
that his/her analysis of the survey data accurately reflects the sentiments of

3 US 2009/0306967 A1, published December 10, 2009.
4 US 2009/0088610 A1, published April 2, 2009.
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

3
the attendees with respect to the event. (See id.) Put another way, the event
coordinator would want to rely only upon “validated sentiments.” (Id. ¶ 2.)
In the Appellant’s invention, the attendees’ survey data is received in
the form of “sensor data” (i.e., the attendees are provided with devices which
transmit “biometric data”) and the survey-data analyzer is not a person but
rather a “processor.” (Spec. ¶ 12, see also id. ¶ 60.) The processor
“receives” the survey data (i.e., the sensor data) (id. ¶ 60), “generates
processed data” from the received data (id. ¶ 62), “determines the
sentiment(s) of attendees of the event from the processed data” (id. ¶ 64),
and is “capable of validating” the so-determined sentiments (id. ¶ 73).
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
(with bolding, italicizing, and underlining added)
1. A method of obtaining feedback for an event,
comprising:
receiving, using a processor, sensor data for a plurality
of attendees of the event;
determining, using the processor, sentiments, of the
attendees, for the event from the sensor data;
validating, using the processor, the sentiments of the
attendees based upon a comparison of the sensor data with
historical data for the plurality of attendees; and
outputting, using the processor, the validated
sentiments, wherein
a selected sentiment of a first attendee is validated based
upon a comparison of sensor data for the first attendee for a
period of time with sensor data for a second attendee for the
period of time.
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

4
REJECTION I
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–10, and 12–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without
significantly more. (Final Action 8.) In other words, the Examiner
concludes that the claims on appeal do not pass muster under the Alice
framework for patent eligibility. We have carefully considered the
Appellant’s arguments regarding the wrongness of this conclusion (see
Appeal Br. 7–10, see also Reply Br. 2–5), but we are unpersuaded thereby.
Thus, we sustain this rejection.
The Alice Framework
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme
Court provided a two-step framework to detect when an attempt is being
made to patent an abstract idea in isolation. (Id. at 217–18.) In Alice step
one, a determination is made as to whether the claim at issue is “directed to”
an abstract idea. (Id. at 218.) If the claim at issue is “directed to” an
abstract idea, Alice step two must be performed. (See Alice, 573 U.S. at
217–18.) In the second step of the Alice framework, a determination is made
as to whether “additional elements” in the claim, both individually and as an
ordered combination, contribute “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
(Id.)
The Office provides examiners with guidance (the “2019 § 101
Guidance”) for addressing whether a claim passes muster under the Alice
framework for patent eligibility. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).) This Guidance consist
of a two-pronged Step 2A (“Prong One” and “Prong Two”) and a Step 2B.
(Id. at 52.)
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

5
Analysis: Step 2A—Prong One
“In Prong One” of Step 2A, the 2019 § 101 Guidance tells examiners
to “evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception,” such as “an
abstract idea.” (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) The Guidance
“extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract
ideas,” and these concepts include “[c]ertain methods of organizing human
activity,” and, more particularly “fundamental economic practices,” “legal
and commercial interactions,” “advertising,” and “marketing.” (Id. at 52.)
The Examiner determines that independent claim 1 “recite[s] an
abstract idea—a fundamental economic practice—customer feedback—that
falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and commercial
interactions.” (Answer 4.)
As discussed above, the Appellant’s invention encompasses a
scenario in which feedback from the attendees is relied upon to enhance
commercial interactions (e.g., advertising and/or marketing). Independent
claim 1 recites steps that would be performed by an event coordinator in
such a scenario. For example, the event coordinator would receive “data”
(e.g., survey data) “for a plurality of attendees at the event,” and the event
coordinator would determine the “sentiments of the attendees” for the
event “from” the received data, the event coordinator would validate “the
sentiments of the attendees,” and the event coordinator would only output
“validated sentiments.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
To be sure, independent claim 1 does not just recite validating the
sentiments of the attendees. Claim 1 requires the validation to include “a
comparison” of the received data “with historical data for the plurality of
attendees.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Claim 1 also requires “a selected
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

6
sentiment of a first attendee” to be validated “based upon a comparison” of
the received data for the first attendee with the received data “for a second
attendee” during the same “period of time.” (Id.) But such historical and
attendee-to-attendee comparisons would be coherent parts of the event
coordinator’s pursuit of validated sentiments.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1
recites an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A, and, therefore
“requires further analysis in Prong Two.” (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54.)
Analysis: Step 2A—Prong Two
“In Prong Two,” the 2019 § 101 Guidance tells examiners to
“evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial
exception into a practical application of the exception.” (2019 § 101
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) More specifically, the Guidance tells
examiners to “evaluate integration into a practical application” by
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s),” and then “evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application.” (Id. at 54–55.)5
The Examiner identifies one additional element in independent
claim 1, namely a processor, and the Examiner determines that this claimed

5 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” (2019 § 101
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.)
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

7
computer component does not “integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.” (Final Action 9.) The Examiner explains that the claimed
processor is a “generic” computer component that “merely performs generic
computer functions,” and, therefore, “merely applies the abstract idea.” (Id.)
The Appellant argues that “the Examiner has not identified all of the
additional elements.” (Appeal Br. 8.) According to the Appellant, the
receiving and outputting steps set forth in independent claim 1 are
additional elements. (See id.) As discussed above, sans the processor, these
receiving and outputting steps would be performed by an event coordinator
to obtain feedback from attendees of an event for commercial reasons.
Thus, they are not additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea.
Also, according to the Appellant, the determining and validating
steps should be considered additional elements because they involve sensor
data. (See Reply Br. 3.) But claim 1 does not require the processor to
actually interact with a sensor, it merely requires the processor to somehow,
someway, receive sensor data. Thus, at the very most, the modifier “sensor”
generally links the claimed method to a survey environment equipped with
sensors. This does not, in and of itself, render the claim any less abstract.
(See 2019 § 101 Guidance, Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, at 55.)6
The Appellant argues that “the claimed invention improves upon prior
systems of providing automated feedback by validating the feedback
received.” (Appeal Br. 10.) The Appellant contends that a practical

6 For example, limiting claims “to the particular technological environment
of power-grid monitoring is, without more, insufficient to transform them
into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.” (Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).)
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

8
application is achieved by the “improved/validated feedback” which “is then
outputted and subsequently used as a basis for improving the presentation.”
(Id.) Thus, the Appellant is essentially saying that its invention provides an
event coordinator with additional information to facilitate commercial
interactions. But this facilitation does not improve the functioning of a
computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological
problem. To the extent that this facilitation provides an improvement, it
improves the event coordinator’s job performance, not the computer used as
a tool by the event coordinator.7
The Appellant also seems to stress that its “improved/validated
feedback” is accomplished “by comparing sensor data received from [the]
attendees with historical data,” and “comparing sensor data from one
attendee to sensor data from other attendees.” (Appeal Br. 10.) But, as
discussed above, such historical and attendee-to-attendee comparisons
would be coherent parts of an event coordinator’s pursuit of validated
sentiments. Insofar as the claimed comparisons have never before been
considered by an event coordinator, and/or insofar as the claimed
comparisons greatly improve the commercial feedback yielded by the event
coordinator’s analysis, this means that they amount to an improved

7 In the comparable commercial setting of trading commodities in an
electronic exchange, “providing a trader with additional information to
facilitate market trades” is “an abstract idea.” (Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019).) Likewise, providing “the
trader with improved efficiency and versatility in placing, and thus
executing, trade orders for commodities in an electronic exchange,” is
“focused on improving the trader, not the functioning of the computer.”
(Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
2019).)
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

9
commercial strategy. And an improved commercial strategy still lies in the
realm of abstract ideas.8
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the processor is the only
additional element recited in independent claim 1, and it does not
individually integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
That being said, the Guidance tells examiners that “[i]t is critical” that
they “consider the claim as a whole” during the Prong Two analysis. (2019
§ 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.) More particularly, “[w]hen evaluating
whether an element (or combination of elements) integrates an exception
into a practical application, examiners should give careful consideration to
both the element and how it is used or arranged in the claim as a whole.”
(Id.) Here, however, independent claim 1 does not require any specific
arrangement of the processor; and claim 1 only requires “using” the
processor to perform the receiving, determining, validating, and
outputting steps. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 1
does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application under
Prong Two of Step 2A, thereby “triggering the need for further analysis”
under Step 2B. (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.)
Step 2B Analysis
In Step 2B, the 2019 § 101 Guidance tells examiners to “evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination” to determine whether

8 An innovator cannot acquire patent protection for a commercial “advance”
(e.g., an advance in “finance”) “itself,” no matter how “groundbreaking” this
advance may be. (SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170
(Fed. Cir. 2018).)
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

10
“they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements
amount to significantly more than the exception itself).” (2019 § 101
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.) If a claim’s additional elements consist of a
conventional arrangement of conventional computer components performing
routine computer functions, they will not contribute significantly more to an
abstract idea, and the claim will not pass muster under the Alice framework.
(See Alice 573 U.S. at 223–24.)
Here, the Examiner determines that the additional element in
independent claim 1 (i.e., the processor) does not contribute significantly
more to the abstract idea. (See Final Action 9.) The Examiner explains that
the Specification conveys that the processor can be a “generic, off-the-shelf
computer component.” (Answer 9; see also Spec. ¶ 30–32, Fig. 2.) As
discussed above, the processor is not claimed in combination with any other
computer component.9
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention
“does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself” under
Step 2B, whereby “the claim is ineligible.” (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56.)
Summary
The Examiner correctly concludes that independent claim 1 does not
pass muster under the Alice framework for patent eligibility, and thus we

9 We nonetheless note that the Specification conveys that the attendee’s
sensor-carrying devices are conventional computer components “capable of
generating one or more different types of sensor data” (Spec. ¶ 21), and that
these devices communicate with the processor “via wired and/or wireless
communications links” (id. ¶ 23, see also Fig. 1).
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

11
sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Per the Appellant, “claims
3–10, and 12–20 stand or fall together with independent claim 1.” (Appeal
Br. 7.)
REJECTION II
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–10, and 13–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 “as failing to comply with the written description requirement.” (Final
Action 11.)10 More particularly, the Examiner concludes that the
Specification fails “to show possession” for a certain claim limitation. (Id.)
We have carefully considered the Appellant’s arguments regarding the
wrongness of this conclusion (see Appeal Br. 10–12, see also Reply
Br. 5–8), and we are persuaded thereby. Thus, we do not sustain this
rejection.
Written Description
“The test for the sufficiency of the written description ‘is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date.’” (Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d
671, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).) “The written description
requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired
result.’” (Id.) Instead, the important question “is whether the specification
shows possession by the inventor of how [the claimed function] is
achieved.” (Id. at 683.)

10 More specifically, the claims are rejected “under 35 U.S.C. [§] 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. [§] 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph.” (Final Action 11.)
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

12
The Office provides examiners with guidance (the “2019 § 112
Guidance”) for discerning whether a claim meets the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112 “where functional language is used to claim computer-
implemented inventions.” (Examining Computer-Implemented Functional
Claim Limitations for Compliance With 35 U.S.C. [§] 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57
(Jan. 7, 2019).) The 2019 §112 Guidance particularly addresses written-
description issues that arise when a claim “recite[s] only the idea of a
solution or outcome to a problem” and the specification “fail[s] to recite
details of how the solution or outcome is accomplished.” (Id.)
Analysis
The 2019 § 112 Guidance tells examiners that “the specification must
provide a sufficient description of an invention, not an indication of a result
that one might achieve,” or, more particularly, “how” the claimed function is
achieved. (2019 § 112 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 61.)
The Examiner determines that the appealed claims recite a functional
limitation in terms of a desired result. (See Final Action 13.) The limitation
at issue is “a selected sentiment of a first attendee is validated based upon a
comparison of sensor data for the first attendee for a period of time with
sensor data for a second attendee for the period of time.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.)
The Appellant argues that the claim limitation at issue recites “a
specific operation” (i.e., a validation based on the attendee-to-attendee
comparison of sensor data), “not a desired result.” (Reply Br. 6.) According
to the Appellant, the Examiner “has not identified anything about the
claimed limitations that ‘specif[ies] a desired result.’” (Id. at 5–6.) But the
Examiner’s rejection, as a whole, reveals that the “desired result” of concern
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

13
is the validation achieved by the attendee-to-attendee comparison. (See
Final Action 11–13; see also Answer 10–12.)
The Examiner determines that the Specification does not show
possession of how this desired result is achieved. (See Final Action 13.)
According to the Examiner, “[n]owhere” in the Specification “is there any
discussion of comparing first/second attendee’s sentiments or more
importantly validating a first attendee’s sentiment by comparing a first
attendee’s sensor data to any other attendee’s (second) sensor data as
claimed.” (Final Action 12.)
The Appellant argues that the Specification does sufficiently discuss
how a validation based on the attendee-to-attendee comparison of sensor
data is achieved. (See Appeal Br. 11–12.) We agree.
The Specification discusses how the sensor data is “timestamped” so
that it can be correlated with “particular times” and how sensor data is
“attributed to particular attendees based upon the providing device.” (Spec.
¶ 46.) The Specification discusses how the biometric data of a “selected
attendee” may “differ from the biometrics of one or more of the other
attendees.” (Id. ¶ 68.) The Specification discusses a determination of
whether this sensor-data difference “is attributable to [the] sentiment
expressed (or lack thereof) of the selected attendee.” (Id.) The Specification
discusses using the biometric data of an attendee (i.e., the selected attendee)
that “differs from that of the other attendees” to “validate the sentiment.”
(Id. ¶ 70.) And the Specification provides the following examples:
[T]he system may increase or decrease the confidence score for
sentiment attributed to the selected attendee based upon the
detected change or difference in biometric data compared to the
other attendees. In illustration, an increase in heart rate may be
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

14
attributed to disagreement of the selected attendee with
sentiments being expressed by the other attendees in the group
at that time, excitement, and so forth.

[T]he system is capable of determining that biometric data of an
attendee that does not match biometric data of others in a group,
e.g., while a discussion is taking place following the event,
indicates that the attendee with the mismatched biometrics was
not taking part in the conversation. In that case, any sentiments
determined for the attendee for that time or time period may be
disregarded or ignored.

(Spec. ¶¶ 70–71.) Thus, the Specification does much more than provide an
indication of a result that one might achieve, as it discusses, in detail, how
the claimed validation is achieved via the attendee-to-attendee comparison
of sensor data.
The 2019 § 112 Guidance tells examiners to “determine whether the
specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the
claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can
reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter
at the time of filing.” (2019 § 112 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 61.)
The Examiner determines that the Specification “fails to provide a
specific method, technique, algorithm, or examples as to how to a [sic]
selected sentiment of a first attendee is validated based upon a comparison
of sensor data for the first attendee with sensor data for a second attendee for
the time period as claimed.” (Final Action 12.) But the Appellant may
express an algorithm “in any understandable terms” including “prose” or a
“flow chart.” (2019 § 112 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 62.) Here, the record
does not reflect that the Examiner took the Appellant’s prose (see Spec.
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

15
¶¶ 37–88) and/or flow charts (see id., Figs. 3, 4) into account when
determining that the Specification lacked the prerequisite algorithm.
The Examiner determines that the Specification “does not provide a
disclosure of the computer” that performs “each claimed specialized
function.” (Answer 13.) However, the Examiner acknowledges that the
claims on appeal involve “a generic processor performing generic computer
functions.” (Final Action 5.) And, as pointed out by the Appellant (see
Reply Br. 6), “[t]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description
requirement varies” depending on “the complexity and predictability of the
relevant technology.” (2019 § 112 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 61.)
The Examiner also seems to have enablement-like concerns about the
sentiments derived from attendees’ heart rates and the comparisons
therebetween. (See Answer 11–12.) Particularly, the Examiner is concerned
that “[t]here are entirely too many variables,” and that one of ordinary skill
in the art would not know how this “actually work[s]” and/or how this is
“done.” (Id. at 11.) Inasmuch as the Examiner’s particular concerns are not
explicitly addressed in, and completely resolved by, the Specification (see
Spec. ¶¶ 69–72, 85), the prior art of record evidences the conventional
wisdom possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art with respect to deriving
sentiments from attendees’ heart rates (see e.g., Lee ¶¶21–23; Cunnington11
2:65–3:1, 7:18–23; Chang12 8:21–30). And “[i]nformation that is well
known in the art need not be described in detail in the specification.” (2019
§ 112 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 61.)

11 US 8,670,018 B2 issued March 11, 2014.
12 US 10,061,977 B1 issued August 28, 2018.
Appeal 2020-002087
Application 15/452,219

16
Consequently, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner does not
adequately establish that the Specification fails to convey possession of an
invention that achieves the claimed result (i.e., the validation achieved by
the attendee-to-attendee comparison).
Summary
The Examiner incorrectly concludes that the appealed claims do not
satisfy the written-description requirement, and, thus we do not sustain the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
CONCLUSON
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10,
12–20
101 Eligibility 1, 3–10,
12–20

1, 3–10,
13–20
112(a) Written
Description
1, 3–10,
13–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–10,
12–20

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

AFFIRMED