Ramsey Devereaux et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 19, 2019

14324546 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2019)

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.
14/324,546 07/07/2014 Ramsey Devereaux US-0959.09a 3571
130735 7590 07/19/2019
Fletcher Yoder PC / USAA
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
EXAMINER
CHAKRAVARTI, ARUNAVA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2019 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAMSEY DEVEREAUX, MICHAEL J. ALLEN,
SPENCER READ, DAVID S. FRANCK, WILLIAM CHANDLER,
DANIELA WHEELER, KATHLEEN L. SWAIN, and
CLEBURNE R. BURGESS
____________

Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,5461
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 21 and 25–30. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Appellants identify United Service Automobile Association as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
21. A sensor system for capturing data, the system
comprising:
a plurality of sensor devices each configured to capture
data corresponding to a different attribute of a property, each
sensor device having a transmitter with an associated IP address
coupled to a wireless network for transmitting the captured
data, wherein the plurality of sensor devices comprises an
appliance sensor device and a surveying sensor device, wherein
the appliance sensor device and the surveying sensor device are
configured to capture data in accordance with a frequency of
data capture;
a data storage component wirelessly coupled to each of
the plurality of sensors devices via the IP address of the
transmitter for each of the sensor devices, wherein the data
storage component aggregates captured data regarding different
attributes of the property received from each of the sensor
devices;
a communication component coupled to the data storage
component that encrypts and transmits the aggregated captured
encrypted data via the wireless network;
a server executing a computer management module, the
server coupled to the communication component, via the
wireless network, and configured to, upon execution of the
computer management module:
generate a first instruction to receive data
associated with one or more appliance items within the
property, wherein the first instruction alters the frequency
of data capture corresponding to the appliance sensor
device and commands the appliance sensor device for an
immediate reading;
upon transmitting the first instruction to the
appliance sensor device, receive captured encrypted data
from the appliance sensor device, wherein the appliance
sensor device measures a temperature value associated
with an appliance item of the one or more appliance
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

3
items while the appliance item is in operation and a cool
down value associated with a time corresponding to how
quickly the appliance item changes its temperature;
determine a first value for the appliance item
associated with the property based on the received
captured encrypted data from the appliance sensor device
satisfying a pre-determined threshold;
generate a second instruction configured to receive
captured data associated with a surveying sensor device,
wherein the second instruction alters the frequency of
data capture corresponding to the surveying sensor
device and requests an image capture of the property in
real time;
upon transmitting the second instruction to the
surveying sensor device, receive captured encrypted data
comprising the image of the property in real time;
determine a second value for the property based on
the determined first value for the appliance item within
the property and the image captured from the property by
the surveying device;
generate an electronic message comprising at least
one of the second value for the property and captured
encrypted data from the appliance sensor device; and
transmit the electronic message to a computing
device associated with the property.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 21 and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible
subject matter.
II. Claims 21 and 25–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wedig et al. (US 2014/0358592 A1, pub. Dec. 4, 2014)
(hereinafter “Wedig”) and Beier et al. (US 2006/0219705 A1, pub. Oct. 5,
2006) (hereinafter “Beier”).
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

4
RELATED CASES
We note that at the time the Appeal Brief was filed in the present case,
Notices of Appeal had been filed in at least three related U.S. patent
applications: 14/303,336 (Appeal 2018-001359), 14/273,889 (Appeal 2018-
004448), and 14/572,413 (Appeal 2018-009188). Appellants fail to cite
these cases as related Appeals as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(ii). We
remind Appellants and counsel to review pending proceedings before the
Board, so as to ensure that all related Appeals are identified.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Subject-Matter Eligibility
Under 35 U.S.C. § 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. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may, nevertheless, be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme
Court has interpreted § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools of scientific
and technological work, such that including them within the domain of
patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised upon
them. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013).
Of course, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply’” these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (internal citation
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

5
omitted). Accordingly, evaluating ineligible subject matter, under these
judicial exclusions, involves a two-step framework for “distinguish[ing]
between patents that claim the buildin[g] block[s] of human ingenuity and
those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby
transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The first step determines whether the claim is
directed to judicially excluded subject matter (such as a so-called “abstract
idea”); the second step determines whether there are any “additional
elements” recited in the claim that (either individually or as an “ordered
combination”) amount to “significantly more” than the identified judicially
excepted subject matter itself. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101, in accordance with judicial precedent. 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019
Revised Guidance”). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, a claim is “directed
to” an abstract idea, only if the claim recites any of (1) mathematical
concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental
processes — without integrating such abstract idea into a “practical
application,” i.e., without “apply[ing], rely[ing] on, or us[ing] 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.” Id. at 52–55. The considerations
articulated in MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106.05(a)–(c)
and (e)–(h) (“MPEP”) bear upon whether a claim element (or combination
of elements) integrates an abstract idea into a practical application. Id. at 55.
A claim that is “directed to” an abstract idea constitutes ineligible subject
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

6
matter, unless the claim recites an additional element (or combination of
elements) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
Although created “[i]n accordance with judicial precedent” (id. at 52),
the 2019 Revised Guidance enumerates the analytical steps differently than
the Supreme Court’s Alice opinion. Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance
addresses whether the claimed subject matter falls within any of the statutory
categories of § 101. Id. at 53–54. Step 2A, Prong One, concerns whether
the claim at issue recites ineligible subject matter and, if an abstract idea is
recited, Step 2A, Prong Two, addresses whether the recited abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application. Id. at 54–55. Unless such integration
exists, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, in order to determine whether any
additional element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly
more than the identified abstract idea. Id. at 56.
In the present Appeal, there is no dispute that independent claim 21
(the sole independent claim in this Appeal) satisfies of Step 1 of the 2019
Revised Guidance — i.e., that claim 21 is drawn to subject matter within the
scope of § 101.
In relation to Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the
Examiner identifies claimed features that, although paraphrased in the Final
Office Action (pages 2–3), correspond to the following limitations of claim
21: “receive captured encrypted data from the appliance sensor device,
[including] a temperature value associated with an appliance item . . . while
the appliance item is in operation and a cool down value associated with a
time corresponding to how quickly the appliance item changes its
temperature”; “determine a first value for the appliance item associated with
the property based on the received captured encrypted data from the
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

7
appliance sensor device satisfying a pre-determined threshold”; “receive
captured encrypted data comprising the image of the property in real time”;
and “determine a second value for the property based on the determined first
value for the appliance item within the property and the image captured from
the property by the surveying device.”
The Examiner states that “the claims describe concepts that the courts
have deemed abstract” and, after referring to an array of court decisions,
explains that the independent claims in this Appeal “merely perform — data
capture from sensor devices in order to determine the value of an item in a
property — which constitutes insignificant data gathering activities and
fundamental economic practice.” Id. at 3. In view of the Examiner’s
characterization of individual claim limitations (see id. at 4–6), we
understand that the Examiner regards “data capture from sensor devices” as
constituting “insignificant data gathering activities,” and that the Examiner
regards “determine the value of an item in a property” as constituting a
“fundamental economic practice” — i.e., an abstract idea (see id. at 3).
Indeed, the Examiner characterizes the claim 21 limitations of “determine a
first value for the appliance item associated with the property based on the
received captured encrypted data from the appliance sensor device satisfying
a pre-determined threshold” and “determine a second value for the property
based on the determined first value for the appliance item within the
property and the image captured from the property by the surveying device”
as describing the fundamental economic practice of determining the value of
items. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner’s position is consistent with the 2019 Revised
Guidance, which regards “fundamental economic principles or practices
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

8
(including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)” and “commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations)” as among the “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity”
that amount to the judicial exception of an abstract idea. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Examiner’s position is also consistent
with the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Versata Development Group., Inc. v. SAP
America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015), to the effect that
“determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies”
amounted to an abstract idea “in the same way that the claims in Alice were
directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in
Bilski [v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)] were directed to the abstract idea of
risk hedging.”
The Appellants do not present arguments disputing the Examiner’s
position. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection, with
respect to Step 2A, Prong One.
With regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised Guidance,
unless a claim that recites a judicial exception (such as an abstract idea)
“integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that
exception,” the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The analysis of such an “integration into a
practical application” involves “[i]dentifying . . . any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those
additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Id. at 54–55.
“[W]hether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

9
exception into a practical application should be evaluated on the claim as a
whole.” Id. at 55 n.24.
In relation to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Appellants argue that the
claimed subject matter “improve[s] an existing technology (e.g., sensor
management),” by “alter[ing] the frequency of data capture of a camera
sensor and an appliance sensor based on data previously analyzed by the
server” and “command[ing] the appliance sensor and the camera sensor to
immediately capture data and transmit the captured data to the server.”
Appeal Br. 6. Thus, the Appellants’ argument refers to the following
limitations of claim 21:
generate a first instruction to receive data associated with
one or more appliance items within the property, wherein the
first instruction alters the frequency of data capture
corresponding to the appliance sensor device and commands the
appliance sensor device for an immediate reading; [and]
generate a second instruction configured to receive
captured data associated with a surveying sensor device,
wherein the second instruction alters the frequency of data
capture corresponding to the surveying sensor device and
requests an image capture of the property in real time;
See id. The Appellants contend that these features provide specific
performance improvements:
As discussed in the Specification, controlling the
frequency of data capture of an electronic sensor improves the
sensor’s data collection efficiency. Controlling the frequency
of data capture of a sensor allows the sensor to monitor the
property without being in constant use or requiring excessive
cellular/internet bandwidth and unnecessary data transmissions.
For instance, the Specification discusses that altering frequency
of data capture of an electronic sensor provides technical
benefits such as reducing “cellular service backups” or reducing
“cellular charges” when a property does not have internet
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

10
access or has “non-functioning cellular service.” See
Specification, Pg. 21. For instance, a sensor that is constantly
capturing data requires high cellular data activity. Furthermore,
a sensor that is constantly collecting data may create an
unreasonable data back up if the internet service of the property
is not functioning properly. Both of the above-mentioned
scenarios present undesirable technical challenges. To solve
the above mentioned technical challenges, the claimed
invention provides an electronic sensor with a data capture
frequency that can be remotely controlled by the central server
(in contrast with an electronic sensor that is constantly
surveying the property and capturing data). For instance, claim
21 presents a scenario where a surveying sensor is instructed to
take images of the property in real time.
Reply Br. 3.
According to the Examiner, the claim limitations that provide for
altering the frequency of data collection do not effect a technological
improvement:
Taking temperature readings of an object or a room at regular
intervals does not result in improving the functionality of a
camera or smartphone or a thermometer or any other sensor
device. Using a sensor device is not sensor management.
Taking a photograph using a camera at frequent interval is not
improving the camera; changing the intervals of temperature
readings using a thermometer is not improving the a [sic]
temperature sensor device.
Answer 11. The Examiner further states that “the purpose of capturing data
from multiple sensors is to perform economic valuation of property”; thus,
“[t]he focus of the claims is not on any improvement in computers as tools,
but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Id.
at 12. See also id. at 13 (“Here, the claims use sensors to record data. They
do not improve sensors. There is no technological improvement in the
claims.”) In addition, the Examiner further explains:
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

11
Appellant[s’] invention does not describe any existing problems
with data collection with sensor devices that the claims are
intended to solve. The use of photographs, thermometers,
pressure gauges, etc., have been widely used for ages to obtain
data about physical properties. The current claims do not solve
any problem using them that was not possible before.
Similarly, the valuation of physical objects and properties based
on inspection has been carried out since the ages. This is not a
technical problem but a day to day business in real estate. Nor
do the claims provide any technical solutions (or even
mathematical formula) to determine valuation.
Id. at 13–14.
The Appellants properly point out that whether claim 21 creates a
technological improvement must be evaluated on the basis of the claim as a
whole, rather than simply whether individual sensors are improved or
whether the identified abstract idea of property valuation is improved. See
Reply Br. 2–4. The Appellants do not assert that any individual sensor is
improved; instead, the Appellants contend that manner of operating a sensor
(e.g., “alter[ing] the frequency of data capture”) creates improvements. Id.
Nor do the Appellants allege that the additional elements noted improve the
concept of valuation itself (which the Examiner identifies as the recited
abstract idea). Id. at 3–4. Indeed, in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188
(1981), the Supreme Court stated that “Arrhenius’ equation” — i.e., the
judicially excepted subject matter — “is not patentable in isolation, but
when a process for curing rubber is devised which incorporates in it a more
efficient solution of the equation, that process is at the very least not barred
at the threshold by § 101.” See also 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55 n.24 (“[W]hether an additional element or combination of elements
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

12
integrate the exception into a practical application should be evaluated on
the claim as a whole.”)
Nevertheless, the Examiner identifies an obstacle to the Appellants’
position that claim 21 provides a technological improvement: “Appellant[s’]
invention does not describe any existing problems with data collection with
sensor devices that the claims are intended to solve.” Answer 13. The
Appellants contend that page 21 of the Specification supports the assertion
that “altering frequency of data capture of an electronic sensor provides
technical benefits such as reducing ‘cellular service backups’ or reducing
‘cellular charges’ when a property does not have internet access or has ‘non-
functioning cellular service.’” Reply Br. 3. Yet, this portion of the
Specification does not address claim 21’s features of “alter[ing] the
frequency of data capture” with “sensor[s].” Rather than “data capture,” the
cited portion of the Specification discloses techniques for transmitting
packets of aggregated sensor data, whereby benefits may flow from doing so
“at prescribed time intervals”:
[D]ata packets collected from sensors 90 can be aggregated in
computing device 300 and sent as an aggregated packet to
management module 105 for subsequent analysis whereby data
packets may be transmitted at prescribed time intervals (e.g., a
benefit is to reduce cellular charges in that some insured 10
properties may not have Internet access or to send during low
internet usage hours).
Spec. 21, ll. 6–10. This portion of the Specification does not support the
Appellants’ position that any benefit attends the claimed “alter[ing] the
frequency of data capture” using “sensor[s].” Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the referenced elements of claim 21 effect a technological
improvement, or otherwise integrate the identified abstract idea into a
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

13
practical application, per Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised
Guidance. Therefore, the Appellants do not persuade us of an error in the
Examiner’s determination that claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Appellants
contend that the Examiner does not adequately support the determination
that the claims lack elements that amount to significantly more than the
identified judicial exception. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 5–7. In particular,
the Appellants contend that support is lacking for the Examiner’s position
that the limitations that call for “alter[ing] the frequency of data capture”
with “sensor[s]” fail to provide significantly more than the abstract idea. See
Reply Br. 5–7.
According to the Examiner, the recited “data capture” using
“sensor[s]” is “nothing more than insignificant data gathering activity.”
Final Action 4. Further, the claimed “alter[ing] the frequency” (of such
“data capture”) is among limitations that “recite no more than well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the
property and casualty insurance industry.” Answer 5.
“The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Notwithstanding any potential significance of the
periodic “data capture” using “sensor[s],” by itself, the Examiner has not
provided any support for the assertion that the combination of features in the
recited “alter[ing] the frequency of data capture” would have been well-
understood, routine and conventional, so as not constituting significantly
more than the identified abstract idea. Notably, “[t]he inventive concept
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

14
inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself,
was known in the art,” because “an inventive concept can be found in the
non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the
rejection of independent claim 21 — as well as claims 25–30 depending
therefrom — such that we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Obviousness
The Appellants contend that claims 21 and 25–30 stand rejected
erroneously, because the cited prior art does not teach claim 21’s “first
instruction to receive data associated with one or more appliance items
within the property, wherein the first instruction alters the frequency of data
capture corresponding to the appliance sensor device and commands the
appliance sensor device for an immediate reading.” See Appeal Br. 8–10;
Reply Br. 7–9. Specifically, the Appellants argue that the Wedig reference
“merely recites a thermostat that can transmit temperature data to a server,”
but “Wedig does not teach transmitting an instruction to the disclosed
thermostat to alter its frequency of data capture by commanding an
immediate reading.” Appeal Br. 9.
In relevant part, the “first instruction” of claim 21 “alters the
frequency of data capture corresponding to the appliance sensor device and
commands the appliance sensor device for an immediate reading.” That is,
the “first instruction” must both “alter[ ] the frequency of data capture” and
“command[ ] . . . an immediate reading” from the “appliance sensor device.”
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

15
The Specification supports this construction, in the disclosure of “command
generation engine 130” that may send commands to “sensors 90,” including
“an instruction to take an immediate reading,” “an instruction to take more
frequent readings (e.g., every hour rather than every six hours), an
instruction to take less frequent readings (e.g[.], every day rather than every
hour), and/or any permutations or derivations thereof as will be known by
those skilled in the art.” Spec. 25, l. 21 – 26, l. 6.
Wedig discloses the receipt of sensor readings, in response to a
specific request, which maps to the “immediate reading” of claim 21. See
Wedig ¶ 85 (“[S]ensor/sensory nodes may be programmed to send readings
only [in] response to receiving a request for the readings.”) Wedig also
discloses periodic sensor readings, having various frequencies. See id. (“In
some implementations, sensor readings may be received periodically. In
such a case, the frequency of received readings may be high enough to
provide substantially real-time readings or low enough to provide very low
data transfer while keeping a server up to date.”) Yet, Wedig does not
disclose claim 21’s feature of “alter[ing] the frequency of data capture
corresponding to the appliance sensor device” — let alone the combination
of this feature with the recited “command[ing] the appliance sensor device
for an immediate reading.”
Acknowledging such deficiency, the Examiner explains that it would
have been obvious to modify Wedig, so as to meet the identified limitation
of claim 21:
Wedig deals with detecting insurance risk factors like fire,
smoke, etc. Wedig discloses determining insurance risk by
taking sensor data at certain threshold levels — temperature,
gas concentration, increased humidity over a period of time, etc.
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

16
Examiner notes that a measurement to determine increase (or
decrease) of temperature, gas concentration, humidity, pressure,
etc., would have to be conducted more than once and at certain
intervals such as hourly, daily, etc. For example, it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skills that — if, after two
readings at one hour intervals, the temperature of an oven or the
water pressure inside a pipe shows an increase, then a third
reading may have to be conducted after another hour. If this
third reading were to show further increase then the frequency
of sensor readings may have to be altered and sensor readings
may have to conducted [sic] every 15 minutes to ensure there is
no fire hazard or risk of pipe explosion. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to alter the frequency of data capture for the
sensor devices in Wedig for an immediate reading of a risk
factor. Hence, Wedig teaches the limitation of “alters the
frequency of data capture corresponding to the appliance sensor
device and commands the appliance sensor device for an
immediate reading.”
Answer 16–17.
The Appellants do not dispute the propriety of the Examiner’s
modification of Wedig, resulting in the claimed features at issue.
Accordingly, the Appellants do not persuasively argue for error in the
rejection of independent claim 21. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an
applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”) (citing
Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-006013, at 9–10, 2010 WL 889747 (BPAI
2010) (precedential)).
Accordingly, because the Appellants do not present any separate
argument on behalf of any dependent claim, we sustain the rejection of
claims 21 and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-007484
Application 14/324,546

17
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21 and 25–
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21 and 25–30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED