Nancy Kho et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 18, 2021

2021001531 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 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.
12/634,485 12/09/2009 Nancy Ellen Kho RSW920090079US1 7630
75949 7590 08/18/2021
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONYA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2021 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):
patents@fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NANCY ELLEN KHO, JUDY J. PIPER, and
MARY ELLEN ZURKO
____________________

Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 20–26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2020). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to providing schedule related information to
external entities enabling providers of products and services to make offers
to potential consumers. (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 20, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
20. A computer program product for a user client device on
which a user has a computerized calendar system for managing
schedule related information and for providing the schedule
related information to external entities, said computer program
product comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having computer readable program code embodied therewith,
the computer readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code configured to store
schedule data of the user on a memory, said schedule data
corresponding to a calendar service and including a number of
events that said user has placed on an electronic calendar, a user
being a person who may place an event on the electronic
calendar, wherein each said event calls for a number of
products or services that will be purchased by said user in
connection with that event;
computer readable program code configured to, with said
user client device, selectively expose, via a network server in
communication with said calendar service on said user client
device, at least a portion of said schedule data to an entity other
than a user, wherein said schedule data is only exposed to said
entity if said user selects an option for a specific calendar event
indicating that schedule data regarding that specific calendar
event is to be exposed to said entity other than said user,
wherein said portion of said schedule data exposed to said
entity comprises a number of keywords associated with a
specific event on said user's electronic calendar, wherein said
number of keywords specify a product or service that a user
will purchase in connection with that event;
computer readable program code configured to enable
said entity to communicate an offer specifically to said user via
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
3
said user client device that has been customized for said user
based on said schedule data to provide a number of said
products or services in connection with a corresponding event
on said user's electronic calendar, wherein said entity is a
provider of a product or service specified by said number of
keywords, and said offer comprises a customized solicitation to
provide said product or service to said user for a specific price
in connection with a corresponding event on said user's
electronic calendar;
computer readable program code configured to
communicate said offer to said user through an electronic
calendar application in which said user keeps said electronic
calendar, further comprising making an entry on a date on a
calendar view of said electronic calendar to indicate that an
offer has been made by said entity for a product or service
called for by an event scheduled on that date; and
computer readable program code configured to enable
said user to accept said offer and complete a purchase through
said electronic calendar on said user client device.
REFERENCES
No prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal.
REJECTIONS
Claims 20–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final
Act. 5.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is
reviewable de novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
4
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
1) Legal Principles
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 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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we
first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 218–19 (“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, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding . . . rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
5
(id. at 183 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
Supreme 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 Supreme Court also 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. (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 (internal 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. (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.
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
6
The USPTO published Revised Guidance on the application of § 101.
USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under that Revised
Guidance, 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) (“Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (“Prong Two”) (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, do we 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 Revised Guidance.
2) Analysis
Claims 20–26: Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellant presents arguments to claims 20–26 as a group. (Appeal
Br. 10.) Appellant argues that the claims “do not stand or fall together”
since Appellant presents “separate arguments for various independent and
dependent claims” with “separate headings and subheadings.” (Id.) These
arguments, however, are not separately made by Appellant. Instead,
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
7
Appellant argues claim 20. Because Appellant has not presented separate
arguments for patentability, we select independent claim 20 as the
representative claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments
thereto. (Id.) Thus, we address in detail the appeal of the § 101 rejection of
independent claim 20 with which the § 101 rejection of claims 20–26 stand
or fall. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Revised Guidance Step 1
Step 1 of the Revised Guidance asks whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. See Revised Guidance. Claim 20 recites “[a]
computer program product for a user client device on which a user has a
computerized calendar system for managing schedule related information
and for providing the schedule related information to external entities.”
Appellant does not argue the Examiner erred in concluding claim 20 falls
within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (Appeal Br.
14.) We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion because claim 20 falls within
the process and manufacture categories. (Final Act. 5.)
Revised Guidance Step 2A(i) (“Prong One”)
Under Step 2A(i) of the Revised Guidance, we determine whether the
claims recite 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). See
Revised Guidance.
The Examiner maintains that independent claim 20 is directed to
communicating offers based on calendar information, which falls into the
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
8
category of a method of organizing human activities (Final Act. 5.) The
Examiner further maintains the “steps of storing data, exposing a calendar to
a different entity and presenting an offer are a textbook case of automating a
process that can or has been previously performed by a person.” (Id.)
We refine the Examiner’s determination of the abstract idea to
identify that claim 20 recites the following limitations in the computer
program product for a user client device on which a user has a
computerized calendar system for managing schedule related information
and for providing the schedule related information to external entities, the
computer program product comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
having computer readable program code embodied therewith,
the computer readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code configured to
store schedule data of the user on a memory, said
schedule data corresponding to a calendar service and
including a number of events that said user has placed on
an electronic calendar, a user being a person who may
place an event on the electronic calendar, wherein each
said event calls for a number of products or services that
will be purchased by said user in connection with that
event;
computer readable program code configured to,
with said user client device, selectively expose, via a
network server in communication with said calendar
service on said user client device, at least a portion of
said schedule data to an entity other than a user, wherein
said schedule data is only exposed to said entity if said
user selects an option for a specific calendar event
indicating that schedule data regarding that specific
calendar event is to be exposed to said entity other than
said user, wherein said portion of said schedule data
exposed to said entity comprises a number of keywords
associated with a specific event on said user's electronic
calendar, wherein said number of keywords specify a
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
9
product or service that a user will purchase in
connection with that event;
computer readable program code configured to
enable said entity to communicate an offer specifically to
said user via said user client device that has been
customized for said user based on said schedule data to
provide a number of said products or services in
connection with a corresponding event on said user's
electronic calendar, wherein said entity is a provider of a
product or service specified by said number of keywords,
and said offer comprises a customized solicitation to
provide said product or service to said user for a specific
price in connection with a corresponding event on said
user's electronic calendar;
computer readable program code configured to
communicate said offer to said user through an
electronic calendar application in which said user keeps
said electronic calendar, further comprising making an
entry on a date on a calendar view of said electronic
calendar to indicate that an offer has been made by said
entity for a product or service called for by an event
scheduled on that date; and
computer readable program code configured to
enable said user to accept said offer and complete a
purchase through said electronic calendar on said user
client device.
Appeal Br. 23–24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). These
limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a
method and manufacture for a user client device on which a user has a
computerized calendar system for managing schedule related
information and for providing the schedule related information to
external entities. We additionally note the claimed method and
manufacture provide no details of the user client device, electronic
calendar, or network server.
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
10
We find the italicized language of independent claim 20 sets forth a
method and manufacture of providing schedule related information to
external entities, allowing entities to communicate an offer based on the
schedule data, entering a calendar date, and a user accepting the offer. The
claimed invention retrieves this additional information and uses the
information. This is similar to the claims in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL,
Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that “[s]tanding
alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without
disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract
idea,” and observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical
human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a
meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding
practice that is the focus of the [patent-ineligible] claimed invention”).
Accordingly, we conclude claim 20 recites a method and manufacture
of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
people, which is one of the certain methods of human activities identified in
the Revised Guidance, and thus, an abstract idea. Revised Guidance 52.
Claim 20 recites various limitations consistent with this
characterization, and the Specification further supports this characterization:
By allowing users (120) to publish their trip information
along with information about desired services, businesses may
be able to better target potential customers by creating
specialized deals and packaged services to specific individuals.
In addition, the user (120) does not need to spend a great
amount of time searching for acceptable rates and services.
(Spec. ¶ 32.)
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
11
The Specification further discloses a generic “server” with little detail
regarding the interface between the stored calendar information and the
entities accessing and using the calendar information. (Spec. ¶¶ 30, 51.)
From this high level of description in the Specification, we find
Appellant’s Specification merely identifies a generic computer processor
that performs the function of exposing calendar database information and
interacting with a user to provide offers for future travel plans.
Under the Revised Guidance, judicial exceptions include certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). We find the Examiner has shown the claimed invention
is directed to organizing human activity as described in the Revised
Guidance. Moreover, we find the Examiner’s analysis based on the
Examiner’s statement of the abstract idea supports the Examiner’s
conclusion of a lack of patent-eligible subject matter.
As a result, on the record before us, the invention as recited in
representative independent claim 20 is directed to certain methods and
manufacture of organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal
interactions and managing personal behavior and, thus, is directed to an
abstract idea.
Revised Guidance Step 2A(ii) (“Prong Two”)
Under the Revised Guidance, if a claim recites a judicial exception, in
Step 2A(ii) we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated
into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
12
practical application. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
We find the computer readable program code configured to: “store
schedule data of the user on a memory,” “with said user client device,
selectively expose, via a network server in communication with said
calendar service on said user client device,” “enable said entity to
communicate an offer,” “communicate said offer to said user through an
electronic calendar application,” and “enable said user to accept said offer”
to be directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The court also guides that data gathering is a classic example of
insignificant extra-solution activity. This step simply gathers data for other
method steps and is, thus, insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g.,
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an
otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory’” (alterations in original) (quoting In
re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).); see also Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (Identifying “add[ing] insignificant extra-solution activity
to the” abstract idea as an example of when an abstract idea has not been
integrated into a practical application.).
We find that the Examiner made specific findings and conclusions in
the Examiner’s Answer with regards to these additional elements as they
relate to Step 2B of the Alice analysis. (See generally Ans. 5–7.)
Considering the claim as a whole, interaction of all the steps using the
available data, “electronic calendar,” “offer” and “acceptance” at “a user
client device,” and an unspecified location “via a network server” does not
apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way such that the claim as a
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
13
Furthermore, adding one abstract idea to another abstract idea, such as
eCommerce, does not render the claim non-abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract
idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render
the claim non-abstract”); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 2106.04(II) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) (“During
examination, examiners should apply the same eligibility analysis to all
claims regardless of the number of exceptions recited therein”). Thus, we
determine that the abstract idea, viewed as one overarching abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, is not integrated into a practical application.
As a result, on the record before us, the invention as recited in
representative independent claim 20 is additionally directed to certain
methods and manufacture of organizing human activity such as a
commercial or legal interactions and managing personal behavior and, thus,
is directed to an abstract idea.
Appellant contends:
[T]he claimed subject matter provides that a user’s
electronic calendar is modified by a vendor, when permitted by
the user, to include a customized offer for a product or service
that the user needs for an upcoming event on the electronic
calendar. In this way, the functionality of the electronic calendar
is augmented and improved for the user. The calendar becomes,
not just a repository for recording appointments, but also a
marketplace for receiving and accepting customized offers to
complete a purchase that meets specific needs at those events.

(Appeal Br. 14.) We find that merely providing computer readable program
code configured to: schedule related information to external entities, allow
entities to communicate an offer based on the schedule data, enter a calendar
date and user acceptance, does not further limit the abstract idea and merely
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
14
provides insignificant extra-solution activity with respect to Step 2A(ii)
(“Prong Two”). See also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F. 3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that “relying on a computer to
perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to
render a claim patent eligible” (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (“use of a
computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue
simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept)). See Univ. of Fla.
Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., No. 2018-1284, 2019 WL
921859, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2019) (noting that although the claimed
invention may “result in life altering consequences . . . is laudable, [] it does
not render [the claims] any less abstract”).
Appellant further contends:
the claimed subject matter is in the field of electronic calendars
and improves the usefulness of the calendar to the user.
However, the claimed subject matter also provides an
improvement in the field of eCommerce, apart from calendaring.
With the claimed subject matter, the vendors described above
now have a new marketplace in which the opportunity exists to
provide customized offers to potential customers who have
already been identified as having a scheduled need for the offered
product or service.
(Appeal Br. 21.)
Additionally, Appellant contends:
the claimed subject matter is “[e]ffecting a transformation or
reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.”
Specifically, the claimed subject matter is altering the electronic
calendar to create, as noted above, a new marketplace in which
to offer and purchase products and services. The database of the
electronic calendar is transformed to include and provide this
additional functionality.
(Id.)
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
15
We disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant’s claimed
invention does not improve the technology involved, but uses technology to
publish calendar information and communicate offers for acceptance. The
claimed invention at most uses existing technology to assist the prospective
travelers to make more informed decisions. We find the technology of the
claimed invention would be no different than providing a travel agent with
information on upcoming travel plans and receiving offers for services
meeting the requirements. Here, it is the mere availability of additional
relevant information, the other entity’s use of this information, eCommerce,
and the traveler’s selective use of whatever information/offers are available.
Furthermore, we find the claimed limitations to be directed to use of
available information in the same manner as certain methods and
manufacture of organizing human activity such as managing personal
behavior in combination with a commercial or legal interactions.
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the Revised Guidance, 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:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is 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.
Here, the Examiner maintains:
[T]he elements that could be considered significantly
more are recited at a high-level of generality such that in
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
16
conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no
more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a
generic computer component- (non-transitory computer
readable storage medium); mere data gathering/post solution
activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such
as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions
so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental
process,-(electronic calendar and client device) and iv.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use, -(memory).
(Ans. 6–7.)
Appellant generally contends that under Step 2B of the Alice analysis:
Limitations that may be enough to qualify as
“significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial
exception include:
– Improvements to another technology or technical field
– Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
– Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a
particular machine
– Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
article to a different state or thing
– Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-
understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding
unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular
useful application
– Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment
(Appeal Br. 20.)
Finally, Appellant contends that:
If a claim is novel and unobvious over the prior art, that
claim must include “a specific limitation other than what is
well-understood, routine and conventional in the field.”
(Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Fed.
Reg. Vol. 79, No. 241, p. 74624) (emphasis added). Where this
is the case, this is evidence that the claim recites significantly
more than a mere abstract idea under current USPTO Guidance.
Appeal 2021-001531
Application 12/634,485
17
(Id. at 22.)
As shown above, the Specification provides a high-level description
of the functions being performed by no more than generic computer
hardware. (Final Act. 6.) As a result, Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding a lack of subject matter eligibility.
As a result, we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion of a lack of patent-
eligible subject matter of independent claim 20 and dependent claims 21–26
not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20–26 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20–26 101 Eligibility 20–26
RESPONSE
Because we have sustained at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
all claims on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
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