John Simms et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2021

2021001100 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2021)

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.
15/626,506 06/19/2017 John Simms 3915
84403 7590 08/09/2021
Dennis Clarke
6717 Corner Lane
McLean, VA 22101
EXAMINER
CLARE, MARK C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2021 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 JOHN SIMMS, NOEL SIMMS, and JOHN SIMMS JR.
____________

Appeal 2021–001100
Application 15/626,506
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
John Simms, Noel Simms, and John Simms Jr. (Appellant2) seeks
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 16–21, the only
claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of scheduling and tracking deliveries
and pick-ups. Specification 1:5.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 16, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
16. A method of
delivery by a delivery agent
to and/or pick-up-from at least one of a plurality of
locked storage containers
of at least one item purchased or ordered from a source
thereof by a customer,
each locked storage container being associated with a
corresponding customer,
wherein an auction is conducted,
said auction comprising the steps:

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed October 13, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December
2, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 18, 2020),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 24, 2020).
2 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 John
Simms, Noel Simms, and John Simms Jr (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

3

(a) preparing invitations to bid for the delivery and/or pick-up
of the at least one item ordered or purchased by said customer to
and/or from the at least one locked storage container,
(b) distributing the invitations to bid to a pool of delivery
agents,
(c) evaluating the bids received from the pool of delivery
agents;
and
(d) selecting a delivery agent, wherein each of said steps (a)
through (d) of said auction are performed by the source of said at
least one purchased or ordered item.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Simms US 6,933,832 B1 Aug. 23, 2005
MacKenzie US 2010/0250446 A1 Sept. 30, 2010
Jamthe US 2015/0310388 A1 Oct. 29, 2015
Obiadi US 2017/0090484 A1 Mar. 30, 2017

Claims 16–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 16–18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simms, Jamthe, and MacKenzie.
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simms, Jamthe, MacKenzie, and Obiadi.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

4

The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the claim
limitations are described or are otherwise predictable by the art.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Simms
01. Simms is directed to receiving goods or other items, purchasing
goods, scheduling and tracking deliveries, receiving deliveries or
ordered items utilizing a specialized device, making and
processing payment, inventorying items scheduled for delivery
and items delivered and making information about deliveries
available through a variety of means. Simms 1:10–16.
02. Simms describes scheduling and tracking deliveries, of receiving
deliveries utilizing a specialized device, of making and processing
payment, of inventorying items scheduled for delivery and items
delivered and of making information about deliveries available
through a variety of means. Users of the method may be entities
desiring to make deliveries and/or to receive deliveries. Users of
the method may schedule delivery, track shipment and delivery,
make secure delivery by means of a specialized appliance, make
and confirm payment, inventory items scheduled for delivery and
delivered. Simms 2:39–50.
Jamthe
03. Jamthe is directed to a local couriers network. Jamthe para. 1.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

5

04. Jamthe describes the local delivery system notifying local
couriers from the couriers network of a request and permit those
couriers to bid on the job of delivering the requested item to the
user when a user requests an item listed in the on-line trading
platform and indicates that they would like to purchase the item
utilizing the local delivery service (e.g., a one-hour delivery by a
local courier). The bids may be presented to the user, via a user
interface (UI), together with the information about respective
couriers, such that the user may select one of the couriers from the
list. Jamthe para. 12.
05. Jamthe describes concierge service system configured to
communicate the shopping request from those submitted by a
local shopper to the network of local couriers, and to receive bids
from the couriers, together with other information from respective
profiles of the couriers. Jamthe para. 17.
06. Jamthe describes a communications module configured to obtain,
from couriers represented by the respective selected courier
identifications, bids for delivery of the item identified in the
purchase request and provide the bids to the user, e.g., via a user
interface, such that the user can select a courier identification
based on their respective bids. Jamthe para. 25.
MacKenzie
07. MacKenzie is directed to a freight commerce system and method
and, more specifically, to a freight commerce system that includes
real time geo-based information. MacKenzie para. 1.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

6

08. MacKenzie describes some variant of an auction for services to
allow actors to bid for services. For example, a shipper may
provide preferences as to a particular shipment and the freight
commerce system may be configured to list the particular
shipment in an electronic forum for auction. Upon using the
freight commerce system to find loads, carriers fitting the
preference profile may bid to carry the shipment for the shipper.
The freight commerce system may be configured to allow the
shipper to review the bids, credentials (e.g., experience, rating,
licenses, and so forth) and preferences of the carrier before
accepting a bid. MacKenzie para. 45.

ANALYSIS
Claims 16–21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 16, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

7

claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

8

STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 16 recites preparing, distributing, and evaluating bid invitation data,
and selecting delivery agent data. Preparing data is creating data.
Distributing data is transmitting data. Evaluating and selecting data are
rudimentary data analysis. Thus, claim 16 recites creating, transmitting, and
analyzing data. None of the limitations recites technological implementation
details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any
and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 16 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

9

or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 16 recites the concept of
managing commercial deliveries. Specifically, claim 16 recites operations
that would ordinarily take place in advising one to auction a delivery agent
contract. The advice to auction a delivery agent contract involves preparing
invitations to bid, which is an economic act, and evaluating the bids, which
is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example,
claim 16 recites “preparing invitations to bid,” which is an activity that
would take place whenever one is conducting an auction. Similarly, claim 1
recites “evaluating the bids,” which is also characteristic of commercial
auctions.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to the recited
steps. Final Act. 15. The preamble to claim 16 recites that it is a method of
delivery wherein an auction is conducted. The steps in claim 16 result in
managing commercial deliveries by auctioning a delivery agent contract
absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for
doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations (a)–(d) recite generic and
conventional creating, transmitting, and analyzing of bid data, which advise
one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus
recite advice for auctioning a delivery agent contract. To advocate
auctioning a delivery agent contract is conceptual advice for results desired
and not technological operations.
The Specification at 1:5 describes the invention as relating to
scheduling and tracking deliveries and pick-ups. Thus, all this intrinsic
evidence shows that claim 16 recites managing commercial deliveries. This
is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

10

This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial
deliveries is a commercial interaction. The concept of managing
commercial deliveries by auctioning a delivery agent contract is one idea for
arranging for such deliveries. The steps recited in claim 16 are part of how
this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. In re Morsa, 809 F. App'x 913,
916 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (directed to the concepts of targeting advertisements for
a user, and using a bidding system to determine how the advertisements will
be displayed).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of creating, transmitting, and
analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 16, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data creation, transmission, and
analysis and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).
As such, claim 16 recites creating, transmitting, and analyzing data, and not
a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

11

From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 16 recites
managing commercial deliveries by auctioning a delivery agent contract,
which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of
organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an
abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 16 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “
‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Step (a) is a pure data gathering step.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step (b)
recites basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

12

storing data. Steps (c) and (d) recite generic computer processing expressed
in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no
more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how
the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process
physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing
technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 16 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial deliveries by auctioning a delivery agent contract as
performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice
on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes
necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular
implementation.
Claim 16 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 16+ pages of specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing commercial deliveries by auctioning a delivery agent contract
under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement
in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 16 at issue amounts to
nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing
commercial deliveries by auctioning a delivery agent contract using some
unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to

8 The Specification describes a delivery system computer for the scheduler.
Spec. 11.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

13

transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other 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.
We conclude that claim 16 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial deliveries by advising one to auction a delivery agent
contract, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving
or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions,
which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that
constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 16 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

14

the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for creating, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to electronic
data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All
of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer
activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec.
Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See
also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

15

these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 16 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data creation-transmission-
analysis is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting,
offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment
recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 16 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 16 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

16

are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial deliveries by advising one to
auction a delivery agent contract, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
Appellant does not set out any specific arguments, but instead asks us
to look to “pages 2 and 15-18 of the specification and Figs. 8-10 which
outline in detail the significant advance and improvement over the prior art
provided by the rejected claims.” Appeal Br. 10. We reviewed these pages,
but do not find anything that would disturb our analysis above. The claims
are broader than the Specification. “In these circumstances, the mismatch
between the specification statements that Yu points to and the breadth of
Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

17

claim 1 underscores that the focus of the claimed advance is the abstract idea
and not the particular configuration discussed in the specification that
allegedly departs from the prior art.” Yu v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-1760, 2021
WL 2385520, at *2 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2021).

Claims 16–18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Simms, Jamthe, and MacKenzie
The main issue argued is whether the art describes or renders
predictable the wherein clause limitation of “each of said steps (a) through
(d) of said auction are performed by the source of said at least one purchased
or ordered item.” Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 3. Initially, we determine
that the issue is not a technological one, but a managerial issue, viz., which
of the parties to a transaction performs the steps. Such an issue is just that,
managerial, and any of the parties is a predictable actor for the transaction
steps depending on the management issues involved. So the party who acts
upon the steps cannot be a patentable distinction. As the Examiner
determines, “it does not matter which of the disclosed networked platforms
perform the recited steps; the result is the same whether the source of the
item performs the auction itself or whether said source contracts delivery
operations out to a third party.” Ans. 9.
To the extent Appellant argues whether the art describes steps (a)–(d),
we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis and reach similar legal
conclusions.

Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

18

Claims 19 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Simms, Jamthe, MacKenzie, and Obiadi
This rejection is argued on the basis of the prior rejection arguments.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 16–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 16–18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simms, Jamthe, and MacKenzie is proper.
The rejection of claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Simms, Jamthe, MacKenzie, and Obiadi is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 16–21 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–21 101 Eligibility 16–21
16–18, 20 103 Simms,
Jamthe,
MacKenzie
16–18, 20
19, 21 103 Simms,
Jamthe,
MacKenzie,
Obiadi
19, 21
Overall Outcome 16–21

Appeal 2021-001100
Application 15/626,506

19

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED