James S. Cox et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2019

15012922 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2019)

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.
15/012,922 02/02/2016 James S. Cox SVL920150141US1 8104
45725 7590 07/29/2019
Walder Intellectual Property Law PC
1701 N. Collins Blvd.
Suite 2100
Richardson, TX 75080
EXAMINER
HEIN, DEVIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES S. COX, JACOB R. DANKS,
ANTHONY J. DIGIORGIO, ALAN C. EDWARDS,
DAVID J. GATTIS, JONATHAN M. HARMON,
CHARLES W. HILL, TUSHAR KUMAR JAYANTILAL,
WILLIAM R. PATTERSON AND JAMES A. SEXTON1
___________

Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. JEFFREY S. SMITH and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6−11, 14,
16−20 and 25−29 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
2

Introduction
The invention is directed to a “data processing apparatus and method
and more specifically to mechanisms for performing personalized sequential
multi-modal patient communication based on historical analysis of patient
information.” Specification ¶1.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method, in a data processing system comprising a processor and
a memory comprising instructions executed by the processor to configure
the processor to implement a communication workflow engine, for
communicating with a patient, comprising:
collecting, by the communication workflow engine of the data
processing system, for each patient registry record in a patient registry
comprising a plurality of patient registry records, first data regarding
treatment of the corresponding patient and second data regarding
communications made with the corresponding patient;
analyzing, by the communication workflow engine, the first data and
second data for each patient registry record at least by parsing the patient
registry record and performing pattern analysis to identify first patterns of
communications followed by compliance events identified in the patient
registry record, and second patterns of communications that are not followed
by compliance events in the patient registry record, and scoring each
sequence of communication modes based on a number of occurrences of the
first patterns and a number of occurrences of the second patterns present in
the patient registry record for that sequence of communication modes, such
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
3

that a set of sequences of communication modes and corresponding scores
are generated for each patient registry record;
determining, by the communication workflow engine, a first sequence
of modes of communication that is a personal sequence of modes of
communication for a patient of interest based on a first set of sequences of
communication modes and corresponding scores generated by the analysis
of the first data and second data for the patient of interest;
determining, by the communication workflow engine, based on one or
more second sets of sequences of communication modes and corresponding
scores generated by the analysis of the first data and second data associated
with each of the patient registry records of one or more other patients across
all of the patient registry records, a second sequence of modes of
communication;
determining, by the communication workflow engine, a final sequence
of modes of communication based on a weighted comparison of a first
weighted score associated with modes of communication in the first
sequence of modes of communication and a second weighted score
associated with modes of communication in the second sequence of modes
of communication, wherein modes of communication in the first sequence of
modes of communication have a different weight factor than modes of
communication in the second sequence of modes of communication in the
weighted comparison; and
performing, by a communication system associated with the data
processing system, at least one communication between the communication
system and one or more communication devices associated with the patient
of interest using the determined final sequence of modes of communication,
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
4

wherein the at least one communication follows a sequence specified in the
final sequence of modes of communication.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 6−11, 14, 16−20 and 25−29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible
subject matter. Non-Final Action 3–8.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 5, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
March 5, 2018), the Non-Final Action (mailed July 12, 2017) and the
Answer (mailed January 12, 2018), for the respective details.
The Examiner determines, “Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 14, 16-20 and 25-29 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. [§] 101 because the claimed invention is directed to
a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.” Non-Final Action 3
(emphasis removed); see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 217 (2014) (describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”).
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Memorandum”). Under the Memorandum,
the Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
5

(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic principles and practice, commercial or legal
interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships,
interpersonal interactions, (c) mental processes; and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. 2018).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, 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 Memorandum.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as
our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification
with respect to the Memorandum.
Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2A, Prong One
“Appellants respectfully disagree with the allegations set forth in the
Office Action, submit that the claims clearly recite statutory subject matter,
and respectfully request that the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
6

§ 101 be overturned.” Appeal Brief 6. Appellants contend that claim 1
specifically recites the interaction between the data processing system and a
communication system such that the results are used to control the way in
which the communication system communicates with the patient by
specifically performing at least one communication between the
communication system and one or more of the patient’s communications
devices. Appeal Brief 9. Appellants argue, the claim discloses “specific
computing environment recitations that are reciting operations that can only
be performed in a computing environment” and therefore “the claims are not
‘directed to’ an abstract idea even if one were to consider them as containing
or including an alleged abstract idea.” Appeal Brief 9.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner’s determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Non-Final Action 3–7.
The Specification discloses:
[A] method is provided, in a data processing system comprising
a processor and a memory, comprising generating, by the data
processing system, a patient registry comprising a plurality of
patient registry records, each patient registry record being
associated with a corresponding patient and comprising personal
and medical information about the corresponding patient. The
method further comprises collecting, by the data processing
system, for each patient registry record, first data regarding
treatment of the corresponding patient and second data regarding
communications made with the corresponding patient.
Moreover, the method comprises determining, by the data
processing system, based on analysis of the first data and second
data associated with each of the patient registry records, a
sequence of modes of communication that is most likely to result
in a successful treatment of patients. In addition, the method
comprises initiating, by the data processing system, a plurality of
communications with a patient of interest using the determined
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
7

sequence of modes of communication based on the results of the
determination, wherein the plurality of communications follow
the sequence specified in the sequence of modes of
communication.
Specification ¶ 4 (emphasis added).

Claim 1 recites:
• analyzing, by the communication workflow engine, the first data and
second data for each patient registry record at least by parsing the
patient registry record and performing pattern analysis to identify first
patterns of communications followed by compliance events identified
in the patient registry record, and second patterns of communications
that are not followed by compliance events in the patient registry
record, and scoring each sequence of communication modes based on
a number of occurrences of the first patterns and a number of
occurrences of the second patterns present in the patient registry
record for that sequence of communication modes, such that a set of
sequences of communication modes and corresponding scores are
generated for each patient registry record;
• determining, by the communication workflow engine, a first sequence
of modes of communication that is a personal sequence of modes of
communication for a patient of interest based on a first set of
sequences of communication modes and corresponding scores
generated by the analysis of the first data and second data for the
patient of interest;
• determining, by the communication workflow engine, based on one or
more second sets of sequences of communication modes and
corresponding scores generated by the analysis of the first data and
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
8

second data associated with each of the patient registry records of one
or more other patients across all of the patient registry records, a
second sequence of modes of communication;
• determining, by the communication workflow engine, a final sequence
of modes of communication based on a weighted comparison of a first
weighted score associated with modes of communication in the first
sequence of modes of communication and a second weighted score.

The claim recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity in
managing personal behavior and managing interactions between people, as
well as, the abstract idea of employing mental processes to observe, evaluate
and render a judgment/opinion. See Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of
Abstract Ideas); see also Non-Final Action 4−5; see also Specification ¶ 1
(“mechanisms for performing personalized sequential multi-modal patient
communication based on historical analysis of patient information.”); see
also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”).
Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to
Step 2A, Prong One of the guidance. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(1)
(Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception).

Step 2A, Prong Two
Under Prong Two of the Revised Guidance, we must determine
“whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
9

into a practical application of the exception” it is noted that 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.” Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2).
Appellants argue:
[T]he claim specifically recites the interaction between the data
processing system and a communication system such that the
results of the operation of the data processing system, i.e. the
determined final sequence of modes of communication generated
by the data processing system, are used to control the way in
which the communication system communicates with the patient
by specifically performing at least one communication between
the communication system and one or more communication
devices associated with the patient. These are all specific
computing environment recitations that are reciting operations
that can only be performed in a computing environment.
Appeal Brief 9.
Thus, contrary to the claim in Electric Power Group, the present
claims clearly require a specific computing environment and
interaction of computing systems, and even an interaction of a
communication system with at least one communication device
associated with a patient based on the results generated by the
data processing system with which the communication system is
associated.
Appeal Brief 12.

The focus of the present claims is specifically to an improvement
in the functionality of the data processing system and
communication system with regard to the way in which the data
processing system is able to determine how to communicate with
a patient with a highest likelihood of success in soliciting a
compliance event from the patient, and controlling the
communication system to actually perform at least one
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
10

communication based on the determined final sequence of modes
of communication.
Appeal Brief 13−14.
Appellants’ Specification discloses in paragraph 25 (emphasis added):
[T]he mechanisms described herein may be implemented as
specialized hardware, software executing on general purpose
hardware, software instructions stored on a medium such that the
instructions are readily executable by specialized or general
purpose hardware, a procedure or method for executing the
functions, or a combination of any of the above.

We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The recited
limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer
or other technology or technical field. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55; cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, No. 2017-2257, 2019 WL
1716242, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) (“This invention makes the trader
faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution
to a technical problem.”). Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a
“claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even
assuming the technique claimed was “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even
brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent
eligible. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569
U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
Appellants argue:
[T]he analysis provided by the Federal Circuit in the Enfish case,
as well as the guidance set forth in the Enfish Memorandum,
should be applied to the claims of the present application. When
consistently applied, application of these guidelines would
require a finding that the presently pending claims are not
“directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A of the subject matter
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
11

eligibility guidelines but rather are directed to an improvement
in computer-related technology of cognitive treatment
recommendation implemented in a specifically configured
cognitive computing system, which is not similar to previously
identified abstract ideas. Thus, the claims are in fact directed to
statutory subject matter.
Appeal Brief 19.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the claims
utilize general purpose hardware as a tool to communicate with a patient
about collected personal and medical information. See Specification ¶25;
see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an
improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract
idea . . . the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database)
or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool.”).
Appellants contend:
Similar to McRO, the present case automates at least a
portion of communicating with a patient and in particular,
determining a sequence of modes of communication to use when
communicating with the patient and using that determined
sequence of modes of communication to actual perform at least
one communication between a communication system and one
or more communication devices associated with the patient. The
determination of the sequence of modes of communication
involves a complex analysis of patterns of communications and
corresponding compliance events, or lack thereof, to determine
sets of sequences of communication modes and corresponding
scores. These are techniques that are different from those that are
used in conventional communication systems and are specific to
a specifically configured computing environment of the claimed
invention. Thus, similar to the McRO patent, the present claims
are patent eligible because the claimed process uses different
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
12

techniques from those that have previously been accomplished
only manually.
Appeal Brief 20−21.
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” through the “use [of] limited
rules . . . 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 (internal
citations omitted).
We find no evidence of record here that the present situation is like the
one in McRO where computers were unable to make certain subjective
determinations, i.e., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which
could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The
Background section of the McRO ‘576 patent includes a description of the
admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior
method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303−06. There is no comparable
discussion in Appellants’ Specification or elsewhere of record.
Appellants contend:
Similar to the decision in Classen, the present claims clearly
recite a physical operation of actually performing, by a
communication system associated with the data processing
system, at least one communication between the communication
system and one or more communication devices associated with
the patient of interest using the determined final sequence of
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
13

modes of communication, wherein the at least one
communication follows a sequence specified in the final
sequence of modes of communication. Thus, similar to the two
statutory subject matter claims in Classen, the present claims
recite an operation or step involving a specific, tangible
application and thus, are statutory.

With regard to Content Extraction, the Federal Circuit described
the invention as a method of collecting data, recognizing specific
data in the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in
a memory. The decision in Content Extraction was based on the
Federal Circuit’s opinion that the recited steps in the claim of
Content Extraction were operations that had been performed by
human beings and banks for some time. To the contrary, the
present claims recite a plethora of operations that are not
operations that were performed by human beings or any other
entities in the industry, prior to the present invention as is clearly
evident from the lack of any prior art rejections and the fact that
Appellants have overcome all prior art rejections previously
applied. In other words, if all Appellants were claiming were
well-known manual processes performed by human beings or the
industry as a whole, then certainly there would be some prior art
or affidavit by the Examiner, or some other evidence that such
were the case.
Appeal Brief 22−23.
We find the claim in the instant application is more akin to the claims
the Federal Circuit found ineligible in OIP Technologies than the claims
found eligible in Classen because the claim merely gathers and collect
information in a well-known manner thus failing to provide a meaningful
limitation on the abstract idea. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1359, 1363−1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015);2 see also M.P.E.P 2106.05 (e).

2 Nor does the claims recitation of “present[ing] [offers] to potential
customers” and “gathering ... statistics generated during said testing about
how the potential *1364 customers responded to the offers” provide a
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
14

Accordingly, we find the claim is not distinguish from the claims the Federal
Circuit found ineligible in Classen. As the Federal Circuit has explained, a
“claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even
assuming the technique claimed was “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even
brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent
eligible. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569
U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
Subsequently, we detect no additional element (or combination of
elements) recited in Appellants’ representative claim 1 that integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2). For example, Appellants’ claimed additional elements (e.g.,
processor and memory) do not: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for
a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article
to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond

meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. These processes are well-
understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities that do not make
the claims patent eligible. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359; Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at
1298. Like the claims in Mayo, which added only the routine steps of
administering medication and measuring metabolite levels for the purposes
of determining optimal dosage, here the addition of steps to test prices and
collect data based on customer reactions does not add any meaningful
limitations to the abstract idea. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297–98; see also Alice,
134 S.Ct. at 2357 (“‘Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a
high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough ’ to supply an ‘inventive
concept.’”) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294); see also
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 (“[T]he steps of consulting and updating an
activity log represent insignificant ‘data-gathering steps,’ ... and thus add
nothing of practical significance to the underlying abstract idea.”) (citations
omitted).
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
15

generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§
2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h); see also Memorandum 55, notes 25, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31 and 32; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will
include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of
performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions
required by the method claims”).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the recited
judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2) (Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate
Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application).

Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2B
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72–73).
Appellant contends:
The Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
indicates that examples of “significantly more” than an abstract
idea being recited in the claims includes (1) improvement to
another technology or technical field, (2) improvement of the
functioning of the computer itself, (3) applying the judicial
exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, ( 4) adding a
specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine
and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that
confine the claim to a particular useful application, and (5)
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
16

meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment (these are
also reiterated on page 6 of the Office Action). The present
independent claims satisfy all 5 of these examples of claims
reciting significantly more than an abstract idea.
Appeal Brief 24−25
The Examiner finds:
[T]he claims do not include additional limitations that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the claims recite processes that are routine and
well-understood in the art of healthcare and data analytics and
simply implementing the process on a computer(s) is not enough
to qualify as “significantly more.” Specifically, the applicant is
taking the well-understood process of determining effective
modes of communication to promote successful treatment based
on patient data and implementing it on a computer, which does
not qualify as significantly more.
Non-Final Action 5.
We find that claim 1 does not include a specific limitation or a
combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial
exception itself. See Memorandum, Section III(B)(Step 2B: If the Claim Is
Directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an
Inventive Concept); see also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software,
Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the ‘inventive concept’ cannot
be the abstract idea itself”). Other than the abstract idea itself, the remaining
claim elements only recite generic computer components that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional. See Non-Final Action 5 (“The claims
do not include additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional
limitations of using patient records with medical data, personal data and
communication data represent insignificant conventional activities well-
Appeal 2018-004067
Application 15/012,922
17

understood in the industry of healthcare and data analytics.”); see also Alice,
573 U.S. at 226.
Accordingly, we conclude claims 1, 4, 6−11, 14, 16−20 and 25−29 are
directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity in managing
personal behavior and managing interactions between people, as well as, the
abstract idea of employing mental processes to observe, evaluate and render
a judgment/opinion; and further conclude, the claims do not recite
limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
We sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1, 4, 6−11, 14, 16−20
and 25−29.

DECISION
The Examiner’s patent ineligible subject matter rejection of claims 1,
4, 6−11, 14, 16−20 and 25−29 is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED