INTUIT INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2020

13911890 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 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.
13/911,890 06/06/2013 Calum G. Murray INTU-137282 6719
138886 7590 04/17/2020
Patterson + Sheridan, LLP - Intuit Inc.
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
HAIDER, FAWAAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2020 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CALUM G. MURRAY, JON J. TUMMINARO, and
JEFFREY A. LANGSTON
____________________

Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JOHN F. HORVATH and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, 17, 18, and 22, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. Claims 4–8, 10, 14–16, and 19–21 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intuit Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
relating to “techniques for facilitating business interactions among entities in
a commerce network.” Spec. ¶ 2.2
Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows (with paragraph and sub-paragraph letters added):
1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating a
business interaction between a first entity and one or more
target entities independently of one or more applications used
by the first entity and the one or more target entities to access
an electronic commerce network, comprising:
(a) obtaining, at the electronic commerce network, an
artifact associated with the business interaction and at least one
unique identifier that identifies the one or more target entities
associated with the business interaction, stored using an
application of the one or more applications which is used by the
first entity;
(b) wherein the artifact comprises at least one of: an
invoice; a payment; an estimate; a receipt; an email; a message;
a chat; a purchase order; a review; and a document;
(c) wherein each of the one or more target entities
comprises an entity which is targeted by the business
interaction;
(d) wherein each of the one or more applications
comprises one of: a consumer application; a business
application; an external application; and a generic application,
and

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed July 26, 2017
(“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Dec. 21, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed May 31, 2018 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Apr. 19, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed June 6,
2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
3
(d) wherein the electronic commerce network has access
to the application used by the first entity;
(e) storing the artifact in an artifact repository;
(f) matching the at least one unique identifier to the one
or more target entities included in a model of the electronic
commerce network, the model comprising:
(i) a set of entities comprising at least one of: an
individual; an organization; and a representative of the
organization, wherein each entity is involved in a business
interaction with another entity within the network,
(ii) a set of interactions related to commerce
among the entities, wherein each interaction of the set of
interactions comprises an exchange of one or more artifacts,
and
(iii) a set of relationships among the entities
comprising at least one of: an explicit relationship declared by
an entity from the set of entities; an implicit relationship formed
by one or more of the interactions in the set of interactions; and
a latent relationship based on analysis of patterns associated
with the set of entities and the set of interactions in the model,
wherein each relationship between two entities involves a
business interaction between the entities;
(g) identifying in the model of the electronic commerce
network at least one application of the one or more applications
which is associated with the one or more target entities;
(h) generating a notification associated with the business
interaction, wherein the notification includes information to
access the artifact;
(i) routing the notification to the at least one application
associated with the one or more target entities; and
(j) enabling access for the at least one application
associated with the one or more target entities to the artifact
stored in the artifact repository.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
4
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, 17, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter, i.e., to a judicial
exception without significantly more. Final Act. 2–5.
ANALYSIS
A. Applicable Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“[l]aws 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)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “the elements of
[the] claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claim for an “inventive concept,” “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.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
5
In January 2019, the Patent Office issued guidance about this
framework. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).3 Under the Revised
Guidance, to decide whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we
evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of the abstract ideas listed in the
Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails to integrate the recited
abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong Two”). See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51, 54. If the claim is directed to an abstract idea,
as noted above, we then determine whether the claim has an inventive
concept. The Revised Guidance explains that when making this
determination, we should consider whether the additional claim elements
add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[]
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56.
With these principles in mind, we first analyze whether claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.4
B. Abstract Idea
The Examiner finds that the claims are directed to “the abstract idea of
facilitating business transactions,” which is a method of organizing human

3 See also USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (Oct.
17, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf.
4 Appellant argues independent claims 1, 11, and 17 together and presents
no separate arguments for the dependent claims. Appeal Br. 11–17. Thus,
we decide the appeal based on representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
6
activity or a fundamental economic practice. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3, 5. The
Examiner also finds that use of an “application” and “electronic commerce
network” does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking
the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and “requires no
more than the use of a generic computer to perform generic computing
functions.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 5.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are “‘directed to a patentable,
technological improvement over the existing . . . techniques’ and make use
of specific elements to ‘achieve an improved technological result in
conventional industry practice’” as did the claims in McRO5. Appeal Br.
11–12; Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant argues the claims recite a
technological improvement by facilitating business interactions between
entities using “different applications that may not be compatible with one
another.” Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2–4. According to Appellant, this
feature is enabled by a specifically defined “model of a commerce network,”
used in a particularly defined series of operations, which is analogous to the
“rules” in McRO and which improves the existing technological process “by
allowing for the automated routing of notifications regarding artifacts to
relevant applications and allowing the relevant applications to access the
artifacts regardless of the native compatibility of the applications.” Appeal
Brief 13–14; Reply Br. 4.
1. USPTO Step 2A, Prong One
Beginning with prong one of the first step of Alice, we must determine
“whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible

5 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
7
concepts,” including the abstract ideas enumerated in the Revised Guidance.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. One of the subject matter groupings identified as an
abstract idea in the Revised Guidance is “[c]ertain methods of organizing
human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices . . . ;
commercial . . . interactions (including . . . marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including . . . following rules or
instructions).” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
For our prong one analysis, we set aside, for consideration below, the
technological elements recited in claim 1, i.e., “computer,” “electronic
commerce network,” and “model of the electronic commerce network.” The
preamble of claim 1 recites a method for “facilitating a business interaction”
between a first entity and one or more target entities. Claim 1 recites the
steps of: (a) “obtaining . . . an artifact6 associated with the business
interaction and at least one unique identifier that identifies the one or more
target entities associated with the business interaction,” stored using an
application used by the first entity; (e) storing the artifact in an artifact
repository; (f) matching the unique identifier to the one or more target
entities; (g) identifying at least one application which is associated with the
one or more target entities; (h) generating a notification associated with the
business interaction, which notification includes information to access the
artifact; (i) routing the notification to the application associated with the one
or more target entities; and (j) enabling access for the application associated
with the one or more target entities to the artifact in the artifact repository.

6 Limitation (b) recites that the “artifact” comprises at least one of an
invoice, payment, estimate, receipt, email, message, chat, purchase order,
review, and document.
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
8
The recited identification steps or techniques in limitations (a), (f),
and (g) of “obtaining” an artifact and a unique “identifier,” “matching” the
identifier to a target entity, and “identifying” an application associated with
the target entity, respectively, describe activities for a “business interaction”
and, thus, are abstract. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52
(explaining that limitations describing “commercial interactions” are abstract
in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity); see also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (using a profile keyed to a user identity to track
financial transactions over the Internet and telephone networks is an abstract
idea); Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882,
887 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (steps of retrieving “a persistent device identifier
associated with the network access device,” “retrieving” information
associated with the identifier, “analyzing” the information, and “placing
directed media” based on the analysis recites an abstract idea).
Step (e) of “storing” the artifact is merely storing data; and, the steps
of “generating,” “routing,” and “enabling” recited in limitations (h), (i), and
(j), respectively, are merely analyzing, manipulating, and conveying data.
Federal Circuit cases have found limitations that simply retrieve, store,
manipulate, and convey data, like those in claim 1, are abstract. See, e.g.,
Electric Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(collection, manipulation, and display of data); Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“collecting data, . . . recognizing certain data within
the collected data set, and . . . storing that recognized data in a memory.”);
see also Bancorp Servs, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F. Supp.
2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266 (explaining that
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
9
“storing, retrieving, and providing data . . . are inconsequential data
gathering and insignificant post solution activity”).
Thus, the steps of claim 1 recite facilitating commercial or business
interactions that constitute a method of organizing human activity. See
Inventor Holdings LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The idea that a customer may pay for items ordered from
a remote seller at a third-party’s local establishment is the type of
fundamental business practice that, when implemented using generic
computer technology, is not patent-eligible under Alice.”); buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352–54 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (transaction
performance guaranty service by a safe transaction service provider for an
online commercial transaction recited a fundamental economic practice).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract idea of
“organizing human activity by facilitating commercial or business
interactions.”
2. USPTO Step 2A, Prong Two
Because we determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we turn to
prong two of the first step of the Alice analysis and consider whether claim 1
integrates this abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. In doing so, we consider whether there are
any additional elements beyond the abstract idea that, individually or in
combination, “integrate the [abstract idea] into a practical application, using
one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.”7 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.

7 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under step 2 of Alice (step 2B of the Revised Guidance). Solely
for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
10
The Examiner finds that the use of a “computer involves the use of
generic computing functions to implement the abstract idea” and that “the
claims do not provide additional limitations that would provide significantly
more than the abstract idea.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that the
claimed computer functions are “functioning in a standard mode of
operation” and that Appellant has not shown that “the particular arrangement
or functioning is somehow unique and solves some particular problem.” Id.
As discussed supra, the Examiner further finds that use of an “application”
and “electronic commerce network” does not provide meaningful limitations
beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment and “requires no more than the use of a generic computer to
perform generic computing functions.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 5.
As mentioned supra, Appellant argues the claims recite a
technological improvement by facilitating business interactions between
entities using “different applications that may not be compatible with one
another.” Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 2–4. According to Appellant, this
feature is enabled by a specifically defined “model of a commerce network,”
which is analogous to the “rules” in McRO and which improves the existing
technological process “by allowing for the automated routing of notifications
regarding artifacts to relevant applications and allowing the relevant
applications to access the artifacts regardless of the native compatibility of
the applications.” Appeal Brief 13–14; Reply Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, Appellant’s
argument that claim 1 is directed to a technological improvement by

evaluate it under step 1 of Alice (step 2A, prong two, of the Revised
Guidance). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
11
facilitating business interactions between business entities using “different
applications that may not be compatible with one another” is not persuasive
because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Appellant cites
paragraph 5 of the Specification stating that “a business owner and a
customer may use different business-accounting applications to manage
finances and/or financial transactions.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).
However, as the Examiner finds, “the claims recite that the applications
could be a variety of applications, including the same application, meaning
two users could be using the same application to facilitate a transaction.”
Ans. 3. Thus, Appellant’s argument is not convincing because claim 1 does
not require the applications used by the first entity and the target entity to be
“different” applications. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see
In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered
facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore
unpersuasive.”).
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that claim 1
recites a technological improvement and that the claim limitations reciting a
“model of a commerce network,” “identifying” in the model an application
associated with the target entity, “generating” a notification, “routing” the
notification to the application, and “enabling” access for the application to
the artifact are analogous to the “rules” in McRO. Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply
Br. 3–4. Appellant’s arguments are conclusory, and Appellant has failed to
demonstrate that claim 1 requires any asserted inventive programming,
requires any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer
components, i.e., a particular machine, that the claimed invention is
performed using other than generic computer components, or that the claim
results in the improvement of a computer or the functioning of a computer or
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
12
its components. Nor has Appellant identified any disclosure in the
Specification of any inventive techniques or specialized computer
components to perform the recited limitations of claim 1.
Nor are we persuaded that the limitations of claim 1 concerning the
model of a commerce network and its operation are analogous to the “rules”
in McRO. In McRO, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when
considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over
the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” and “uses the limited rules
in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological
result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allow
computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial
expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced
by human animators; and the rules are limiting because they define morph
weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. Id. at 1313. Here,
Appellant has not identified any analogous improvement that is attributable
to the claimed invention. Instead, claim 1 focuses on an improvement to the
abstract idea itself; it does not achieve an improved technological result.
Thus, we see no parallel between the limiting rules described in McRO and
the functional operations for facilitating business interactions between
entities, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we determine that the additional elements recited in
claim 1 do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“In this case, the claims are directed not to an improvement in
cellular telephones but simply to the use of cellular telephones as tools in the
aid of a process focused on an abstract idea. That is not enough to constitute
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
13
patentable subject matter.”); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(explaining that courts have identified “merely us[ing] a computer as a tool
to perform an abstract idea” as an example of when a judicial exception may
not have been integrated into a practical application). Further, consistent
with the Examiner’s findings, and in view of Appellant’s Specification (see
e.g., paragraphs 23–26), we conclude that claim 1 does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application, and thus is directed to the
judicial exception itself. In particular, we determine claim 1 does not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
3. USPTO Step 2B – Inventive Concept
Finally, we consider whether claim 1 has an inventive concept, that is,
whether any additional claim elements “‘transform the nature of the claim’
into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether the additional
claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or
“simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.”
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
14
As stated supra, the Examiner finds that the use of a “computer
involves the use of generic computing functions to implement the abstract
idea” and that “the claims do not provide additional limitations that would
provide significantly more than the abstract idea.” Ans. 4. The Examiner
also finds that use of an “application” and “electronic commerce network”
does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment and “requires no
more than the use of a generic computer to perform generic computing
functions.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that when considered as a whole, claim 1 recites
limitations which ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than
simply an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant also argues that the
challenge of facilitating a business interaction in an electronic commerce
network between a first entity and a target entity “independently” of the
applications used is addressed by “providing specific technical components
such as a specifically defined model of the electronic commerce network
which contains a set of entities, a set of interactions among the entities, and a
set of relationships among the entities,” as well as a “particularly defined
series of operations.” Id. at 14–15. According to Appellant, these elements
amount to “significantly more than ‘an idea of itself.’” Id. at 15. Appellant
further argues that, like the claims in BASCOM,8 claim 1 recites components
in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement. Id. at 15–17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As discussed supra,
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that claim 1 (or the Specification)
requires any asserted inventive programming, requires any specialized

8 BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
15
computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a
particular machine, or that the claimed invention is performed using other
than generic computer components. We note that Appellant’s Specification
states that the storage medium, code, and hardware modules or apparatus
used to implement the invention may include what is “now known or later
developed.” See Spec. ¶¶ 23–26. Nor has Appellant provided any
persuasive explanation or technical reasoning of why claim 1 presents
components in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement for
facilitating a business interaction between a first entity and a target entity.
Claim 1 is not analogous to the claims in BASCOM. In BASCOM, the
court determined that “an inventive concept can be found in the
nonconventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. Here, claim 1 does not specify that
the computer, the electronic commerce network, and the applications used
by the first and target entities must be arranged in a non-conventional
manner. To the contrary, claim 1 simply recites the electronic commerce
network, the contents of the model of the electronic commerce network, and
the operations it performs, and a computer for facilitating a business
interaction.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that use of an
“application” and “electronic commerce network” does not provide
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment and “requires no more than the use of a
generic computer to perform generic computing functions.” Final Act. 5;
Ans. 5.
Accordingly, considering claim 1 as a whole, we determine that the
additional elements recited in claim 1 do not provide “a specific limitation or
Appeal 2018-006326
Application 13/911,890
16
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Rather, these elements “simply append[] well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality.” Id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 does not have an inventive concept.
5. Conclusion
Because we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and
does not contain an inventive concept, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claims 11 and
17, and dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 18, and 22, which are not argued
separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, 17, 18,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9, 11–
13, 17, 18,
22
101 Eligibility 1–3, 9, 11–
13, 17, 18,
22

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