Jeffrey J. Bonasso et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

12042451 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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.
12/042,451 03/05/2008 Jeffrey J. Bonasso END920070507US1 3391
46583 7590 01/14/2020
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064
EXAMINER
RIFKIN, BEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 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):
docketing@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
secretaries@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY J. BONASSO, SARA GIORDANO, RAHUL GUPTA,
KATHRYN MARIETTA-TONDIN, JANIS A. MORARIU,
DEVANG D. PATEL, AMY S. PURDY, MICHAEL REED,
AMY B. SANDER THRASHER, and ANTONELLA VACCINA1
____________

Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 We use “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. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 (all pending claims,
claims 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 22, and 23 were previously cancelled). See App. Br.
50–55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 12, 20, and 25 are independent. We select claim 20, which
is directed to a method, as illustrative:
20. A method for deploying an application for immersive
learning comprising: providing a computer infrastructure being
operable to:
receive and store a customized set of templates;
present the set of templates to a knowledge worker via a
graphical user interface;
capture knowledge of the knowledge worker via the
graphical user interface using selectable icons associated with
one of the set of templates comprising a hierarchical format,
wherein each selectable icon is associated with a different task
with associated feasible actions;
convert icon selections of a user into standardized XML
form;
embed external resources into the one of the set of
templates;
determine a knowledge model using the knowledge
captured from the knowledge worker;
transfer the knowledge model to a designer via a schema
having a standardized XML format including objects for an
immersive environment;
receive scenario-specific details in the form of media and
graphics, which are added to the knowledge model; present the
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

3
knowledge model to the knowledge worker and the designer for
verification;
automate an XLM feed of the knowledge model to a
gaming engine;
determine a game model for the immersive environment
from the knowledge model, the game model having a gaming
scenario using the standardized XML format, the gaming
scenario exposing and defining logical situations based on the
captured knowledge; and
generate an interactive instructional game within the
immersive environment based on the gaming scenario and the
captured knowledge using the gaming engine.

Prior Art
Borton US 2001/0047274 A1 Nov. 29, 2001
Callender US 2002/0119433 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Simon US 6,498,920 B1 Dec. 24, 2002
Hayes-Roth US 2003/0028498 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Findlay US 2006/0105825 A1 May 18, 2006
Dimitruk US 2002/0133384 May 20, 2008
Azad Bolour, Notes on the Eclipse Plug-In Architecture, Bolour
Computing (July 3, 2003).

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 stand provisionally rejected
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1–25 of copending Application No. 12/042434.
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

4
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9–13, 16–21, and 24–282 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes, Findlay, Simon, and Borton.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hayes, Findlay, Simon, Borton, and Callender.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hayes, Findlay, Simon, Borton, and Bolour.

ANALYSIS
§ 101 Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28
The Examiner determines that the claims “are directed to a gaming
engine and knowledge recorder . . . to create a game,” which “constitutes an
abstract idea lacking significantly more.” Final Act. 7–8; see Alice Corp. 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”).3 Under the Memorandum,

2 The Examiner’s heading lists claims “1–4, 7, and 9–28” as rejected under
§ 103—erroneously including claims previously cancelled—and includes
some previously cancelled claims in the body of the rejection. Appellant
notes the error and addresses only the pending claims. App. Br. 32. We
consider the Examiner’s error in this regard harmless.
3 In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

5
the Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(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.
Appellant contends each of independent claims 1, 12, 20, and 25, as
well as dependent claim 8, are not directed to an abstract idea because these
claims do not recite a mathematical algorithm nor a fundamental economic
or commercial practice, but rather, address the challenge of building
interactive computer games which is necessarily rooted in computer

Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (jointly referred to
as “the 2019 Guidance”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (October 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the
availability of the October update).
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

6
technology. App. Br. 14, 18, 21, 25, 29; Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Instead, pursuant to Step
2A of the Memorandum, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that
the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Final Act. 7–8; Memorandum,
Section III(A) (Revised Step 2A).
Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Memorandum
Step 2A, Prong One
The Specification discloses:
FIG. 1 shows an illustrative environment 10 for managing the
processes in accordance with the invention. To this extent, the
environment 10 includes a computer infrastructure 12 that can
perform the processes described herein. In particular, the
computer infrastructure 12 includes a computing device 14 that
comprises a Knowledge Recorder 16a and an Instructional
Design Tool 16b, both implementing and using a standardized
XML schema. The standard XML schema makes it possible to
communicate efficiently and effectively across the different
tools and platforms in accordance with the invention.
Spec. ¶ 21. The Specification also discloses:
The computing device 14 can comprise any general purpose
computing article of manufacture capable of executing
computer program code installed thereon (e.g., a personal
computer, server, handheld device, etc.). However, it is
understood that the computing device 14 is only representative
of various possible equivalent-computing devices that may
perform the processes described herein. To this extent, in
embodiments, the functionality provided by computing device
14 can be implemented by a computing article of manufacture
that includes any combination of general and/or specific
purpose hardware and/or computer program code. In each
embodiment, the program code and hardware can be created
using standard programming and engineering techniques,
respectively.
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

7
Id. at ¶ 29.
Claim 20 recites:
20. A method for deploying an application for immersive
learning comprising: providing a computer infrastructure being
operable to:
receive and store a customized set of templates;
present the set of templates to a knowledge worker via a
graphical user interface;
capture knowledge of the knowledge worker via the
graphical user interface using selectable icons associated with
one of the set of templates comprising a hierarchical format,
wherein each selectable icon is associated with a different task
with associated feasible actions;
convert icon selections of a user into standardized XML
form;
embed external resources into the one of the set of
templates;
determine a knowledge model using the knowledge
captured from the knowledge worker;
transfer the knowledge model to a designer via a schema
having a standardized XML format including objects for an
immersive environment;
receive scenario-specific details in the form of media and
graphics, which are added to the knowledge model; present the
knowledge model to the knowledge worker and the designer for
verification;
automate an XLM [sic] feed of the knowledge model to a
gaming engine;
determine a game model for the immersive environment
from the knowledge model, the game model having a gaming
scenario using the standardized XML format, the gaming
scenario exposing and defining logical situations based on the
captured knowledge; and
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

8
generate an interactive instructional game within the
immersive environment based on the gaming scenario and the
captured knowledge using the gaming engine.
These steps comprise managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). For example, the steps of “present the set of
templates” and “capture knowledge of the knowledge worker” allow an
experienced knowledge worker to capture and transfer knowledge and skills
to train a novice knowledge worker. See Spec. ¶ 20. The steps of “convert
icon selections,” “embed external resources,” “determine a knowledge
model,” and “transfer the knowledge model to a designer” allow an
instructional designer to use the knowledge of the expert to model an
instructional game. See Spec. ¶ 25. The steps of “automate an XML feed of
the knowledge model,” “determine a game model,” and “generate an
interactive instructional game” allow a novice knowledge worker to acquire
knowledge using an instructional game. See Spec. ¶ 20. Thus, the claim
recites the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”
such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. See
Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see also Spec. ¶¶ 5–
8, 17–20.
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 Memorandum, we must determine “whether
the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

9
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).
Appellant argues that the claims in the instant application address “a
challenge (building interactive computer games) which is necessarily rooted
in computer technology. App. Br. 14 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). App. Br. 14. We do not
find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. We find Appellant’s claims are
distinguished from those claims that our reviewing court has found to be
patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a
computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding
that claims reciting a computer processor for serving a “composite web
page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily
rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA
Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to
“an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent
eligible). In the present case, we determine the claims present no similar
technical improvements.
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
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

10
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).
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,
921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader
faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution
to a technical problem.”). Further, we do not find Appellant’s arguments
persuasive because the claims utilize general purpose hardware, such as a
mobile device, and networking as a tool to market merchants’ offers. See
Specification ¶¶ 21–31; 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.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d at
1370 (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or
efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise
abstract idea.”).
Subsequently, we detect no additional element (or combination of
elements) recited in claims 1, 8, 12, 20, and 25 that integrates the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2).
For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g., a knowledge
model, a game model, and an interactive instructional game) do not: (1)
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

11
improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; (2) are not
applied with any particular machine (except for generic hardware); (3) do
not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4)
are not applied in any meaningful way beyond 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).
Accordingly, we determine the claims do 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 Memorandum
Step 2B
Next, we determine whether the claims include 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
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012)).
Appellant contends that:
claim 1 recites a computer platform including: (1) a gaming
engine "configured to generate an interactive instructional game
within an immersive environment based on the scenario-
specific details and the captured knowledge in the schema", (2)
a knowledge recorder, and (3) an instructional design tool. The
knowledge recorder includes a configuration and management
component enabling a service provider to load, update and
customize a set of templates, and an interview session tool. The
interview session tool is configured to: "present the set of
templates to a knowledge worker via a graphical user interface;
capture knowledge of the knowledge worker using selectable
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

12
icons in a first template from the set of templates comprising a
decision tree based structure, wherein each selectable icon leads
to a different scenario; convert icon selections of a user into
standardized XML form; embed external resources into the first
template; and determine a knowledge model using the
knowledge captured from the knowledge worker, wherein the
captured knowledge is recorded in a schema that is transferable
using a standardized XML format." Moreover, the instructional
design tool is configured to "enable an instructional designer to
incorporate scenario-specific details in the form of media and
graphics with the captured knowledge, and save the scenario-
specific details using a standardized XML format" and
"automate an XML feed of the scenario-specific details and the
captured knowledge in the schema to the gaming engine".
App. Br. 15–16. According to Appellant,
the combined limitations of claim 1 amount to more than
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. For
example, the capturing of knowledge through multiple
selectable icons that each lead to a different scenario and the
converting of the selectable icons to XML format for feeding to
a gaming engine with additional embedded external resources is
not merely the implementation of an abstract idea using a
computer. . . . For example, the automatic feeding of converted
selected icons and scenario-specific details in XML format to a
gaming engine for generating an interactive computer game is
not conventional.
Id. at 16.
The Examiner finds the claims:
do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the
claim limitations amount to no more than taking in of data,
manipulating it, and displaying it to a user (see Int. Ventures v
Cap One Financial).4

4 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

13
Final Act. 8; see Ans. 44–48.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the
additional claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional,
and are properly based upon a factual determination as specified in the
Berkheimer Memorandum,5 Section III (A)(2). The Examiner supports the
determination by noting that courts have recognized the claimed computer
functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are
claimed in a generic manner. See Final Act.8.
Appellant also contends that the elements of claims 1, 12, 20, and 25
are an ordered combination because the elements refer to previous elements
via antecedent basis. Reply Br. 7–8, 10, 13, and 15–16 (citing BASCOM
Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit found that installing a filtering tool
at a specific location, remote from end users, with customizable filtering
features specific to each end user was a non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of the additional elements. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1352.
Appellant has not persuasively shown that the ordered combination of the
elements of claims 1, 12, 20, and 25 do anything more than gather data,
manipulate data, and present data to the user. See Ans. 44.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

5 Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, April 19, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

14
Double patenting rejection
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 stand provisionally rejected
on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1–25 of copending Application No. 12/042434.6
Appellant contends that “the Examiner has not addressed ‘capturing
knowledge of the knowledge worker using selectable icons.” App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds that the “use of ‘icons’ to capture input such as
knowledge is a well-known feature in computer programming art.” Ans. 41.
Appellant contends that the “Examiner has not pointed to any evidence
showing that using selectable icons in the manner recited in claim 1 is ‘a
well-known feature in computer programming art,” and that the “rejection is
in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellant for the reasons given by Appellant in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs. The Examiner, in the double patenting rejection,
has not cited evidence to support the finding that using selectable icons was
a well-known feature. We do not sustain the double patenting rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28.

§ 103 Rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28
For the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, we adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the
Final Action and Examiner’s Answer. We agree with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Final Action and the

6Now U.S. Patent No. 10,095,805.

Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

15
Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following arguments from the Reply
Brief to complete the record.
Appellant contends that “capture knowledge . . . using selectable icons
. . . wherein each selectable icon leads to a different scenario” as claimed is
not taught by Hayes’s teaching of arranging icons on an electronic diagram
to specify the flow and parameters of an interaction. Reply Br. 16 (citing
Hayes ¶¶ 24–25). The Examiner finds that using icons to create a flow
diagram as taught by Hayes meets this limitation. Ans. 48–49. The
Examiner further finds that Hayes teaches using icons or buttons to enter
data, move through programs, and enter different editors or programs. Ans.
49 (citing Hayes ¶¶ 25, 170–174, 505, 508, 569, and 631). Appellant
contends that the cited paragraphs of Hayes disclose selectable buttons, not
selectable icons. Reply Br. 16. Appellant has not provided a definition of
“selectable icons” as claimed that excludes selectable buttons as taught by
Hayes.
Appellant contends that the combination of Hayes, Findlay, Simon,
and Borton does not teach “convert icon selections of a user into
standardized XML form” as claimed. Reply Br. 17. The Examiner finds
that Hayes’s disclosure of storing data for learning objects and dialog
templates in XML documents teaches “convert icon selections of a user into
standard XML form.” Ans. 49–50. We agree with the Examiner, that using
icons to enter data into the system of Hayes, and storing the data in an XML
document, teaches “convert icon selections of a user into standard XML
form” as claimed.
Appellant contends the combination does not teach “automate an
XML feed of the scenario-specific details and the captured knowledge in the
Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

16
schema to the gaming engine; and wherein the gaming engine is configured
to generate an interactive instructional game within an immersive
environment based on the scenario-specific details and the captured
knowledge in the schema” as claimed. Reply Br. 17. Appellant’s contention
is based on the premise that the combination does not teach (a) capturing
data from templates with selectable icons that lead to different scenarios, nor
(b) converting the selection of icons into XML, which we find unpersuasive
for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant contends that the combination does not teach “present the
scenario-specific details and the captured knowledge in the schema to the
knowledge worker and the instructional designer for verification” as
claimed. Reply Br. 18. The Examiner relies on Simon to show that
presenting knowledge to a user in order to verify that the knowledge was
created and edited correctly was known in the prior art. Ans. 51–52 (citing
Simon, col. 6, ll. 6–29). We agree with the Examiner. To the extent that the
claim recites presenting the details for verification to two people, rather than
only one person, Appellant has not shown that presenting details to two
people rather than only one person was “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
We sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–13, 16–21, and 24–28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2018-005326
Application 12/042,451

17
DECISION
The Examiner’s double-patenting rejection is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103 are
affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 7–13,
16–21, 24–
28
101 eligibility 1, 3, 4, 7–
13, 16–21,
24–28

1, 3, 4, 7–13,
16–21, 24–
28
Non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting
1, 3, 4, 7–
13, 16–21,
24–28
1, 3, 4, 7, 9–
28
103(a) Hayes, Findlay, Simon,
and Borton
1, 3, 7, 9–
13, 16–21,
and 24–28

4 103(a) Hayes, Findlay, Simon,
Borton, and Callender
4
8 103(a) Hayes, Findlay, Simon,
Borton, and Bolour
8
Overall Outcome: 1, 3, 4, 7–
13, 16–21,
24–28

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED