KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2022

2021001997 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2022)

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. 15/577,969 11/29/2017 RALF HOFFMANN 2014P01672WOUS 1407 24737 7590 02/08/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER MYERS, CARLA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1634 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2022 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte RALF HOFFMAN, EVELINE DEN BIEZEN-TIMMERMANS, DIANNE ARNOLDINA MARGARETHA WILHELMINA VAN STRIJP, ANNE GODEFRIDA CATHARINA VAN BRUSSEL, MARCIA ALVES DE INDA, JANNEKE WROBEL, and JOANNES BAPTIST ADRIANUS DIONISIUS VAN ZON __________ Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 Technology Center 1600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and JOHN E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method of determining a prostate cancer progression state based on a gene expression profile. The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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 Koninklijke Philips N.V. (see Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 3 Statement of the Case Background “The present invention relates to the identification and use of gene expression profiles, signatures, or patterns of biomarker genes of interest (also referred to as marker genes) with clinical relevance to prostate cancer” (id. at 4). “[E]xpression analysis of these marker genes is used in providing a prostate cancer PDE index (PDE-Index) indicative for the presence and/or absence of prostate cancer and/or the prostate cancer progression state” (id.). “Physicians and/or pathologists can advantageously use the PDE-Index to confirm results obtained in other methods for diagnosing, identifying, prognosticating patients” (id.). The Claims Claims 1 and 5-8 are on appeal. Independent claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: determining, by processor circuitry, a prostate cancer progression state based on a gene expression profile including an expression level of at least two phosphodiesterase 4D (PDE4D) variants selected from the group consisting of PDE4D1, PDE4D2, PDE4D3, PDE4D4, PDE4D5, PDE4D6, PDE4D7, PDE4D8 and PDE4D9, and wherein none of the PDE4D variants serves as a reference gene; and wherein the gene expression profile is converted, by the processor circuitry, into at least one prostate cancer PDE index (PDE-Index) indicative for the prostate cancer progression state. The Issue The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (Final Act. 6-18). Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 4 The Examiner finds that “the claims recite the judicial exception of a law of nature/natural phenomenon. The claims recite the correlation between prostate cancer progression and the expression level of PDE4D5, PDE4D7 and PDE4D9” and the “claims also recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea and particularly mental processes” (Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds the claims “do not recite additional steps or elements that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application” because the claims only “automate the mental processes that are used to evaluate gene expression data obtained from a database and calculate a PDE-index” (id. at 11). The Examiner also finds the claims “do not recite additional steps or elements that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception(s)” (id.). We analyze the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s arguments below. The Alice Test The 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. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step 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 if there is a judicial exception. “If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.” Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 5 Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception, 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). Guidance The United States Patent and Trademark Office published guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”).2 Under the Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 216) and/or 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) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)- (c), (e)-(h)) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’” the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the 2 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50- 57 (January 7, 2019). Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 6 judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In so doing, we thus consider whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine and 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. (Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-56. Guidance Step 1 First, under “Step 1,” we consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories set forth in § 101, namely “[p]rocess, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Guidance 53- 54; see 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 1 recites a “method” and, thus, falls within the “process” category. Consequently, we proceed to the next step of the analysis. Guidance Step 2A Prong 1 Second, under “Step 2A Prong 1,” we evaluate “whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.” Guidance 54. In this case, claim 1 recites at least two judicial exceptions identified in the Guidance. First, claim 1 recites a natural correlation of PDE isoform expression and prostate cancer progression, specifically where the PDE- Index was designed based on “various PDE4D transcripts (out of currently nine annotated PDE isoforms PDE4D1 to PDE4D9) [that] were investigated for correlation of the putative prognostic gene marker PDE4D7” (Spec. 58:22-25). Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 7 Claim 1 also recites a mental process because the process may be performed by a human (Guidance 53). In this situation, the artisan would be able to mentally evaluate whether particular transcripts or sets of transcripts that compose the PDE-Index showed greater statistical association with prostate cancer expression using basic statistics (see Spec. 26:31-33 “expression results may be compared to already known results from reference cases or databases. The comparison may additionally include a normalization procedure in order to improve the statistical relevance of the results.”) The Federal Circuit has explained that the courts “continue to ‘treat[] analyzing information by steps people [could] go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.’” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Claim 1, steps incorporating these the judicial exceptions are combined with data gathering and analysis steps that are performed “by processor circuitry.” Both the determining and expression profile steps are directly drawn to the judicial exceptions of mental processes and natural correlations. Appellant contends “[c]onverting a gene expression profile, by processor circuitry, into at least one prostate cancer PDE index (PDE-Index) indicative for the prostate cancer progression state is not reciting a correlation between prostate cancer progression and the expression level of PDE4D5, PDE4D7 and PDE4D9” (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant asserts “this feature is not focused on merely observing or detecting a natural phenomenon” (id. at 14). Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 8 We find this argument unpersuasive because “if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. In claim 1, the “processor circuitry” is used to convert the natural correlation of particular gene expression information with prostate cancer into a PDE-index (see Spec. 4:30-32 “the gene expression profile is converted into at least one prostate cancer PDE index (PDE-Index) indicative for the presence and/or absence of prostate cancer and/or the prostate cancer progression state.”) This use of a processor to translate the correlation data simply applies a computer to the natural phenomenon. But “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72. Therefore, we find that claim 1 recites the judicial exception of a law of nature. Appellant also contends: even if the PDE-Index calculated from the expression levels was “indicative for the prostate cancer state,” which the Examiner asserts, Appellant’s claim 1 involves or is based on “the gene expression profile is converted, by the processor circuitry, into at least one prostate cancer PDE index (PDE- Index) indicative for the prostate cancer progression state ..” (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant contends “the phrase ‘none of the PDE4D variants serves as a reference gene’ cannot be practically performed in the human brain” and that “converting the gene expression profile into at least one prostate cancer PDE index needs a processor circuitry and thus cannot be performed by a pen and paper” (id. at 12; see id. at 15). We find this argument unpersuasive for several reasons. First, Appellant provides no evidence challenging the Examiner’s finding that the Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 9 claimed “steps merely require the use of a generic computer to perform mathematical functions that could otherwise be performed mentally” (Final Act. 9). As the Examiner has established a prima facie case that the claims are drawn to mental processes, “the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with rebuttal evidence or argument.” In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2018). No such evidence has been presented. Nor does Appellant provide any evidence that the process cannot practically be performed by pen and paper, other than the mere recitation requiring “processor circuitry.” In contrast, the Specification suggests that no processor is required as a “formula, which would be known to the person skilled in the art, would be used to standardize expression data to enable differentiation between real variations in gene expression levels and variations due to the measurement processes” (Spec. 27:32 to 28:1). Second, claim 1 obtains specific information, analyzes that information using “processor circuitry”, which outputs the PDE-index information. Claim 1 may obtain useful information, but claim 1 does not improve the computer itself or any other device. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.”). And Appellant does not identify any teaching in the Specification that evidences the process in claim 1 functions to improve either the computer or other physical components of the system. Instead, claim 1 simply uses performs a mental process using “processor circuitry.” The use of such “processor circuitry” does not convert the ineligible mental process judicial exception into a patent eligible invention. Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 10 Third, we find the diagnostic mental process in claim 1 analogous to that in SmartGene, where the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to “comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify medical options” did not satisfy Alice step one. See SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed. App’x 950, 951-52, 955-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential). As in Smartgene, the “processor circuitry” recited in claim 1 does not rely on an inventive device or technique for displaying information or new computer systems or techniques, but rather relies on a mental process to “help establish better diagnosis, prognosis, etc. to find the best treatment for a patient” (Spec. 4:14-15). This mental process is not patent eligible. See SmartGene, 555 Fed. Appx. at 954 (holding claims were patent ineligible because they did “no more than call on a ‘computing device,’ with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely.”). We conclude, in agreement with the Examiner, that claim 1 recites the judicial exceptions of a law of nature and mental process. 3. Guidance Step 2A Prong 2 Having determined that claim 1 recites judicial exceptions, we proceed to “Step 2A Prong 2” of the Guidance, which requires that we evaluate whether “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “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 Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 11 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id.; see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. The Guidance specifies that this evaluation is conducted by first “[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), [then] ‘evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.’” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Appellant contends “the specification describes certain technological advantages”, specifically citing the Specification’s teaching that: Therefore, the PDE-Index provides a very helpful parameter for personalized medicine relating to the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of prostate cancer patients. The PDE-Index may be used alone or in combination with other means and methods that provide information on the patients’ personal disease status or disease stage. Physicians and/or pathologists can advantageously use the PDE-Index to confirm results obtained in other methods for diagnosing, identifying, prognosticating patients. (Appeal Br. 24; citing Spec. 5). Appellant “submits that the asserted judicial exceptions, which Appellant does not agree with, are integrated into a practical application in claims” (id. at 24). We are not persuaded because “[a]n inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 is therefore not eligible as instructing the artisan to apply the Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 12 natural law correlating gene expression levels and prostate cancer progression using “processor circuitry” that analyzes gene expression data using a formula to obtain a “PDE-index for the prostate cancer progression state.” Moreover, Digitech stated that “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the process of converting the gene expression profile manipulates existing information to generate additional information, here into a prostate cancer PDE index, and therefore is not patent eligible. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Specification expressly relies upon known methods for measuring gene expression levels like mRNA hybridization, amplification or microarray analysis (see Spec. 7:4-21; 37:33-40:7). The Specification also relies on known “processor circuitry” (see Spec. 57:4 -58:19 “The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices.”) Claim 1 lacks any physical or structural component that integrates the judicial exceptions of natural laws or mental processes into any practical application that improves the “processor circuitry” itself. Step 2A Prong 2 requires that only “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” be considered. Guidance, 84 Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 13 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 (emphasis added). As discussed above, the mental process and natural law exceptions based on the correlation between gene expression levels of PDE4D and prostate cancer progression rate fall under the judicial exceptions to § 101. Appellant does not provide any rebuttal evidence, whether in the form of references, a Declaration, or other disclosure, demonstrating that the ordinary artisan was unaware that gene expression levels could be analyzed and associated with diseases. Indeed, the Specification supports our understanding by teaching a prior art reference discloses a method for diagnosing or detecting malignant, hormone sensitive prostate cancer comprising the step of determining the expression level of the phosphodiesterase 4D variant PDE4D7. The document also discloses the use of a PDE-Index to effectively discriminate between benign and malignant diseases, in which the expression of PDE4D7 is normalized against PDE4D5 as an internal control. (Spec. 2:29-33). Thus, not only is determining expression levels and creating a PDE-index based on those expression levels already known, but the Specification evidences the natural law correlating these was also known in the prior art. We note that “add[ing] insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” is insufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application (Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55). Data gathering steps typically constitute such insignificant extra-solution activity. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79 (concluding that additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that mere data gathering is insufficient to confer patent eligibility). Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 14 Moreover, “generally link[ing] the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” is insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. See Parker, 437 U.S. at 595 (determining that limiting an ineligible alarm limit calculation to specific process variables in a chemical process was insufficient for patent eligibility). Thus, limiting the method of claim 1 by requiring “processor circuitry” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the above reasons, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. 4. Guidance Step 2B Having concluded that claim 1 recites judicial exceptions but does not integrate them into a practical application-i.e., that the claim is “directed to” those exceptions (Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54)-we finally turn to whether the claim provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements beyond the exceptions, individually and in combination, amount to “significantly more” than the exceptions themselves. Id. at 56. According to the Guidance, “[a]dd[ing] a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” may indicate an inventive concept is present. Id. Conversely, “simply append[ing] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,” typically indicates an inventive concept is absent. Id. Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 15 Appellant contends “there is no specific evidence as required by the Memorandum to conclude that the features of claims 1 and 5-8 are well- understood, routine, conventional activity” (Appeal Br. 29). We find this argument unpersuasive because, as already discussed above, we and the Examiner note that the Specification itself demonstrates that the use of expression levels of phosphodiesterases and a PDE-index associated with prostate cancer were known (see Spec. 2:29-33; cf. Ans. 24). The Specification also evidences that measuring gene expression levels and “processor circuitry” were also well known (see Spec. 7:4-21; 37:33-40:7; 57:4-58:19). Appellant provides no evidence rebutting the Examiner’s findings that features of the claims were well-understood, routine and conventional (see Ans. 24). Appellant, at best, points to the natural correlation, but the judicial exception need not be previously known. And as discussed above, we find that the only “additional” elements recited in claim 1 is the mental process and law of nature associated with the correlation of PDE4D expression levels and prostate cancer progression state. The use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously known in the industry is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. Thus, for the reasons explained above, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality,” and, thus, fails to present an “inventive concept” because the claim does not recite additional elements that provide “significantly more” Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 16 than the recited judicial exceptions. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as ineligible subject matter under § 101. As a result, we also sustain the rejection of claims 5-8 under § 101. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Claims 5, 7, and 8 Appellant repeats the argument that the methods of claims 5, 7, and 8 cannot be practically performed in the human mind, that these claims recite additional elements, and are therefore integrated into a practical application (see Appeal Br. 17 and 20-24). We remain unpersuaded by these arguments for the same reasons as given above and as explained by the Examiner. Claim 6 Appellant separately argues that claim 6 further recites “identifying, by the processor circuitry, an individual as eligible to receive a prostate cancer therapy . . . and treating the individual eligible to receive the prostate cancer therapy” (Spec. 20). Appellant asserts claim 6 integrates the invention because “as recited in Appellant’s claim 6, may avoid unnecessary surgery or other treatments that are dangerous due to side-effects and may find the best treatment for a patient” (Appeal Br. 27). We find this argument unpersuasive as claim 6 is more similar to those held ineligible in Mayo than they are to those held eligible in Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Unlike Appellant’s claim 6 on this record, Vanda’s claims were “directed to a specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at a specific doses to achieve a specific outcome.” Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1136. Further, Appellant’s [c]laim 6 lacks a step that recites more than treating a patient based on Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 17 the correlation of PDE4D expression levels and prostate cancer progression state. This is unlike the claims in Vanda which “recite more than the natural relationship . . . Instead, they recite a method of treating patients based on this relationship that makes iloperidone safer by lowering the risk of QTc prolongation.” Id. “Here, by contrast, the invention is not focused on changing the physiological state of the patient to treat the disease. The claimed invention is focused on screening for a natural law.” INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc., 782 Fed. Appx. 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Instead, the claim 6 drug treatment “administering step was akin to a limitation that tells engineers to apply a known natural relationship or to apply an abstract idea with computers.” Vanda, 887 F.3d at 1134. As our reviewing court explained: In Vanda, the inventors recognized the relationship between iloperidone dosage and the patient’s CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, but that was not what they claimed. Similarly, the inventor here recognized the relationship between oxymorphone and patients with renal impairment, but that is not what he claimed. Rather, he claimed an application of that relationship-specifically, a method of treatment including specific steps to adjust or lower the oxymorphone dose for patients with renal impairment. The claims are thus directed to more than just reciting the natural relationship. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 919 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Therefore claim 6 does not recite elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that is more than the abstract idea itself. Appeal 2021-001997 Application 15/577,969 18 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-8 101 Eligibility 1, 5-8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED