Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2020

2020001911 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 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.
14/336,469 07/21/2014 Todd True MCP5234USNP 6962
27777 7590 11/18/2020
JOSEPH F. SHIRTZ
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
ONE JOHNSON & JOHNSON PLAZA
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ 08933-7003
EXAMINER
SUTCH JR., NORMAN DONALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2020 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):
jnjuspatent@corus.jnj.com
lhowd@its.jnj.com
pair_jnj@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD TRUE, KARIN TAYLOR, JEFF SILVA,
and JOHNNY HSU
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–2, 5, 8, 9, and 14. See Non-Final Act.
1. 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 Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a product selection packaging and method
of use thereof. Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. Product selection packaging for two or more OTC
pharmaceutical products, comprising:
(a) at least an enclosure for a first OTC pharmaceutical
product, an enclosure for a second OTC pharmaceutical product,
and an enclosure for each of any subsequent OTC
pharmaceutical products; and
(b) at least four product selection indicia integrated with
the enclosure for the first OTC pharmaceutical product, at least
four product selection indicia integrated with the enclosure for
the second OTC pharmaceutical product, and at least four
product selection indicia integrated with the enclosure for any
subsequent OTC pharmaceutical products, wherein the at least
four product selection indicia are located within a longitudinal 2-
dimensional panel on a portion of the enclosure, wherein said
portion takes up less than 1/3 of a 2-dimensional surface face of
the enclosure, wherein said 1/3 portion is at the bottom of the 2-
dimensional surface face, wherein each product selection indicia
assists the consumer with determining whether or not the first
OTC pharmaceutical product, the second OTC pharmaceutical
product, or any subsequent OTC pharmaceutical products is most
appropriate for the consumer's purchase or use, wherein each of
the at least four product selection indicia are different from one
another, and wherein each of the at least four product selection
indicia for the first OTC pharmaceutical product correspond to
each of the product selection indicia for the second OTC
pharmaceutical product, which in tum correspond to each of the
product selection indicia for any subsequent OTC
pharmaceutical product;
wherein at least one of the at least four product selection
indicia is selected from the group consisting of location of
symptoms, symptoms treated, time of day for use,
drowsy/non-drowsy, flavor, dosage form and combinations
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
3
thereof, wherein at least one of the at least four product selection
indicia is selected from the group consisting of brand, logo, color
and name of OTC pharmaceutical, wherein the product selection
indicia is selected from the group consisting of an alphanumeric
graphic, a pictorial graphic, a color and combinations thereof,
wherein at least one of the at least four product selection indicia
is a pictorial graphic showing one or more locations of action of
said OTC pharmaceutical product.

8. Use by a consumer of at least two product selection packaging
in a method for assisting a consumer at a point of sale with determining
whether or not a first OTC pharmaceutical product, a second OTC
pharmaceutical product or any subsequent OTC pharmaceutical product is
most appropriate for their purchase or use wherein the consumer:
a) observes product selection packaging for at least a first OTC
pharmaceutical product, product selection packaging for a second
OTC pharmaceutical product, and product selection packaging for any
subsequent OTC pharmaceutical product, wherein each of said
product selection packaging comprises at least four product selection
indicia on an enclosure for said first OTC pharmaceutical product,
said second OTC pharmaceutical product, and any subsequent
OTC pharmaceutical products, respectively, wherein said at least four
product selection indicia are located within a longitudinal 2-
dimensional panel on a portion of the enclosure, wherein said portion
takes up less than 1/3 of a 2-dimensional surface face of the enclosure,
wherein said 1/3 portion is at the bottom of the 2-dimensional surface
face, wherein the product selection indicia is ordered from right to left
in said longitudinal 2-dimensional panel, wherein at least one of the at
least four product selection indicia is selected from the group
consisting of location of symptoms, symptoms treated, time of day for
use, drowsy/non-drowsy, flavor, dosage form and combinations
thereof, wherein at least one of the at least four product selection
indicia is selected from the group consisting of brand, logo, color and
name of OTC pharmaceutical, and wherein said at least four product
selection indicia are relevant to appropriate selection or deselection of
an OTC pharmaceutical product;
(b) chooses an applicable response for each of said at least four
product selection indicia, wherein said applicable response is selected
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
4
from appropriate for their purchase or use and not appropriate for their
purchase or use;
(c) considers said response for each of said at least four product
selection indicia to determine whether or not the first OTC
pharmaceutical product, the second OTC pharmaceutical product, or
any subsequent OTC pharmaceutical products, is most appropriate for
its purchase or use;
(d) employs its considerations to select the first OTC
pharmaceutical product, the second OTC pharmaceutical product, or
any subsequent pharmaceutical product for purchase;
(e) purchases the-selected OTC pharmaceutical product; and
(f) uses the purchased OTC pharmaceutical product to treat a
disease or condition.
Appeal Br. 18–20 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Unger US 6,093,027 July 25, 2000
Adler US 2006/0163103 A1 July 27, 2006
Berry US 7,322,474 B2 Jan. 29, 2008
Reference U2
(“Claritin”)
FDA Consumer Health Information (Avoid
Maalox Mix-Ups), available at
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/
ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/
UCM200773.pdf

Reference V
(“Holman”)
K. Holman, Aging population raises
question, bottles or blister packs?; available
at https://www.containerandpackaging.com/
blog/2012/02/ aging-population-raises-the-
question-bottles-or-blister-packs/
Feb. 7 2012
Reference W
(“AWS”)
American Welding Society, Graphic
Symbols for Precautionary Labels, Aug

2 In the case of future appeals, the Examiner should properly name the
references for identification in the record, rather than refer to the references
as “Reference U,” “Reference X,” which require reference to form 892.
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
5
2012; available at https://app.aws.org/
technical/facts/ fs14-201208.pdf
Reference X
(“Architecture
Domain”)
Architecture Domain, Questions &
Answers: Which languages are written
right-to-left (RTL)?, available at
http://www.i18nguy.com/ temp/rtl.html
Aug. 3, 2003
Reference Y
(“Maalox”)
Consumer Health Information; Avoid
Maalox Mix-Ups; Feb 2010; available at
www.fda.gov/consumer
Feb. 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Non-Final Act.
4.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Claritin, Holman, and AWS. Non-Final Act. 8.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Berry, Unger, Claritin, Holman, and Adler. Non-Final Act. 12.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Claritin, Holman, Architecture Domain, and Maalox. Non-Final Act. 18.
OPINION
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. Section 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
6
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219
(“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr,
450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
7
indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of

3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
8
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018))
(“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, 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 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.

Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
9
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.

Abstract idea
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Non-Final Act.
4. Appellant addresses claims 8 and 9 as a group (see Appeal Br. 7–10) and,
as a result, we treat claim 8 as representative. Turning to Step 2A, Prong 1,
the claimed invention is for product selection packaging. Spec., p. 3, ll. 9-
10.
Claim 8 includes the following limitations:
a) observes product selection packaging for at least a first OTC
pharmaceutical product, product selection packaging for a second
OTC pharmaceutical product, and product selection packaging for
any subsequent OTC pharmaceutical product, wherein each of said
product selection packaging comprises at least four product selection
indicia on an enclosure for said first OTC pharmaceutical product,
said second OTC pharmaceutical product, and any subsequent
OTC pharmaceutical products, respectively, wherein said at least four
product selection indicia are located within a longitudinal 2-
dimensional panel on a portion of the enclosure, wherein said
portion takes up less than 1/3 of a 2-dimensional surface face of the
enclosure, wherein said 1/3 portion is at the bottom of the 2-
dimensional surface face, wherein the product selection indicia
is ordered from right to left in said longitudinal 2-dimensional panel,
wherein at least one of the at least four product selection indicia is
selected from the group consisting of location of symptoms, symptoms
treated, time of day for use, drowsy/non-drowsy, flavor, dosage form
and combinations thereof, wherein at least one of the at least four
product selection indicia is selected from the group consisting of
brand, logo, color and name of OTC pharmaceutical, and wherein
said at least four product selection indicia are relevant to appropriate
selection or deselection of an OTC pharmaceutical product;
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
10
(b) chooses an applicable response for each of said at least four
product selection indicia, wherein said applicable response is selected
from appropriate for their purchase or use and not appropriate for
their purchase or use;
(c) considers said response for each of said at least four
product selection indicia to determine whether or not the first OTC
pharmaceutical product, the second OTC pharmaceutical product, or
any subsequent OTC pharmaceutical products, is most appropriate
for its purchase or use;
(d) employs its considerations to select the first OTC
pharmaceutical product, the second OTC pharmaceutical product, or
any subsequent pharmaceutical product for purchase;
(e) purchases the-selected OTC pharmaceutical product; and
(f) uses the purchased OTC pharmaceutical product to treat a
disease or condition

Claim 8 recites an abstract idea grouping listed in the 2019 Eligibility
Guidance: “mental processes.” See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52, 53 (listing “[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the
“enumerated groupings of abstract ideas” (footnote omitted)). The guidance
explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in
their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic
computer component performs the acts. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”); 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.”), quoted in 2019 Eligibility
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
11
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-
implemented method for “‘anonymous loan shopping’” was an abstract idea
because it could be “‘performed by humans without a computer’”); quoted in
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
The method recited in claim 8 executes steps that people can perform
in their minds, such as “observ[ing] product selection packaging” and
“choos[ing] an applicable response for each of said at least four product
selection indicia,” which Appellant does not appear to dispute (“claim 8
requires that a consumer conduct mental steps.”). Appeal Br. 8.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2, the remaining elements recited in claim
8, however, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In
addition to the steps discussed above, claim 8 recites that the user “(e)
purchases the-selected OTC pharmaceutical product; and (f) uses the
purchased OTC pharmaceutical product to treat a disease or condition.”
The Revised Guidance states that an element that “applies or uses a
judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease
or medical condition” may integrate a recited judicial exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The
Revised Guidance cites in part to Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. WestWard Pharm.,
887 F.3d 1117, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018) in support of this proposition. Id.
In Vanda, the claims at issue involved a method of treating persons with
schizophrenia, where the method first required performing a genetic test to
determine the person’s ability to metabolize iloperidone and other drugs
(i.e., the patient’s “CYP2D6 metabolizer genotype”), and then administering
a particular dose of iloperidone based on the results of the test; a lower dose
of iloperidone is administered to patients with lower CYP2D6 activity
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
12
comparing with those with normal CYP2D6 activity to avoid a potentially
harmful side effect of the drug. Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1121, 1134. The court
determined that the claims “are not directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter” because they included specific steps to treat a particular
disease. Id. at 1134.
The Federal Circuit has affirmed the eligibility of other claims that
similarly recite an actual treatment step. The claims in Endo Pharm. Inc. v.
Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2019), were held
to be eligible because they were drawn to a method of treating pain in an
impaired patient, comprising “providing a solid oral controlled release
dosage form,” while also requiring measurement of a creatinine clearance
rate of the patient and administering a lower dosage “in dependence on
which creatinine clearance rate is found.” The court determined that the
claims are patent-eligible because they are directed to a method of using
oxymorphone to treat pain with a dosage regimen, even though these steps
are based on the results of kidney function testing. See id. at 1353–54.
More recently, in Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm. Inc. v. Mylan Pharm.,
Inc., No. 2019-1172 (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2020) (non-precedential), claims
to a method of treating or preventing metabolic diseases comprising “orally
administering to the patient” a recited class of drugs (DPP-IV inhibitor) was
determined to be eligible. The court explained that “consistent with this
court's decision in Vanda . . ., the claims are directed to a particular method
of treatment under step one and are therefore patent eligible.” Slip. op at 6.
Like the claims in Vanda, Endo, and Boehringer, Appellant’s claim 8
recites a method of treating a patient by using “the purchased OTC
pharmaceutical product to treat a disease or condition,” where the OTC
product is purchased based on various symptoms.
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
13
The Examiner did not consider the administering step of Appellant’s
claims to meaningfully limit the additional elements beyond the mental
steps. See Ans. 23. But given the ways that such selection and administration
are described in Appellant’s Specification (see Spec. 8), we are persuaded
that such administration is indeed significant to a method of treatment and
limits the recited mental comparison step to an active method.
Thus, claim 8 integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9
under § 101.

Section 103 Rejections
Claim 1
Appellant states, generally, that neither Claritin nor Holman teach or
suggest the following limitations of claim 1:
at least four product selection indicia located within a
longitudinal 2-dimensional panel on a portion of the enclosure,
wherein the portion takes up less than 1/3 of a 2-dimensional surface
face of the enclosure, wherein the 1/3 portion is at the bottom of the 2-
dimensional surface face;
at least one of the at least four product selection indicia is a
pictorial graphic showing one or more locations of action of said
OTC pharmaceutical product.

Appeal Br. 12. Yet, Appellant does not persuasively explain why this is the
case, nor is there a Reply Brief responding to the Examiner’s findings and
explanations in the Answer.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, which consists of a
conclusory statement unsupported by evidence from the record, is
insufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie conclusion of
obviousness. Our reviewing court has explicitly held that “[37 C.F.R. §]
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
14
41.37 require[s] … more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 1.
Claims 8 and 9
Appellant argues that Berry requires a user to manipulate each product
selection. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also argues Unger requires the user
interact more than simply observing product selection packaging. Id. at 14.
Additionally, Appellant argues that “[l]ike Berry et al., the suitability of the
purported invention of Adler et al. for a particular consumer's needs would
not be readily evident from the packaging without extensive scrutiny.” Id. at
15. Yet, as the Examiner determines, and we agree, Appellant’s arguments
are not commensurate in scope with the claim language, which does not
recite anything about scrutiny. See Ans. 32. Nor do the claims preclude user
interaction with aspects of the packaging. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by these arguments, and we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Appellant argues that Architecture Domain
“does not disclose product selection packaging that contains a first product
selection indicia directed to a location of symptoms indicated in a color
associated with a need state and second product selection indicia directed to
one or more symptoms indicated the same color as the first product selection
indicia as claimed.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant also argues that Maalox,
“which discloses flavor as an option, also does not disclose or
suggest the invention as claimed.” Id.
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
15
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Answer provides additional
findings, analysis and explanation in support of the Examiner’s finding that
Architecture Domain and Maalox teach the disputed limitations. Compare
Ans. 33–35 with Final Act. 18–19. Appellant does not respond to the
Examiner’s findings, and consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”). Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection
of claim 14.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
More specifically, we reverse the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Claritin, Holman, and AWS.
We affirm the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Berry, Unger, Claritin, Holman, and Adler.
We affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Claritin, Holman, Architecture Domain, and Maalox.
Appeal 2020-001911
Application 14/336,469
16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 9 101 8, 9
1, 2, and 5 103 Claritin, Holman,
and AWS
1, 2, 5
8, 9 103 Berry, Unger,
Claritin, Holman,
and Adler
8, 9
14 103 Claritin, Holman,
Architecture
Domain, and
Maalox
14
Overall
Outcome:
1, 2, 5, 8, 9,
14

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