Shadi E. Albouyeh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2020

13418847 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 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.
13/418,847 03/13/2012 Shadi E. Albouyeh AUS920110325US1 1918
103751 7590 04/13/2020
IBM CORP - Rochester Drafting Center
11501 Burnet Road
Austin, TX 78758
EXAMINER
WONG, JEFFREY KEITH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2020 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):
rocdrctr@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHADI E. ALBOUYEH, BERNADETTE A. CARTER,
JON M. HARRIS, and TINTIN S. SOEMARGONO
____________________

Appeal 2018-0041871
Application 13/418,847
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 The citations herein refer to the Specification filed March 13, 2012
(“Spec.”), Final Office Action mailed December 16, 2016 (“Final Act.”),
Appeal Brief filed May 16, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 11, 2017 (“Ans.”), and Reply Brief filed February 7, 2018
(“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies International Business Machines Corp. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

2
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention relates “generally to computer gaming and, more
specifically, to techniques for modifying game play based upon health and
social information corresponding to a user.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 8, 15, and
21 are independent, and independent claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method, comprising:
Collecting a set information relating to a player of a computing
game prior to the playing of the computing game by the
player;
mapping the set of information to correlate a datum of the set of
information to a particular game element of the computing
game, wherein the datum is an indication of a decreased
ability of the player to play the computing game;
analyzing the datum and the game element to determine a need
to modify the game element;
in response to a determination of the need to modify the game
element, modifying the game element to decrease a skill
level associated with the computing game; and
implementing the modified game element in conjunction with a
playing session of the computer game.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (claim status identifier omitted).

Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

3
REJECTIONS
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 
1–21 101 Eligibility
1–3, 5, 8–10, 12,
15–17, 19 102(b) Hall-Tipping
3
4, 11, 18 103(a) Hall-Tipping, Munson4
6, 7, 13, 14, 20 103(a) Hall-Tipping, Conkwright5
21 103(a) Hall-Tipping, Vernal6

ANALYSIS
Eligibility
Principles of Law
35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent eligible if it is a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit
exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.” E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
To “distinguish[] patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts,” the Supreme Court, in Alice, reaffirmed the
two-step analysis previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v.

3 US 5,001,632, issued Mar. 19, 1991.
4 US 5,035,625, issued July 30, 1991.
5 US 2007/0066403 A1, published Mar. 22, 2007.
6 US 2011/0023129 A1, published Jan. 27, 2011.
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

4
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step of the analysis considers whether a claim is directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea. Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at
77). According to Supreme Court precedent, concepts determined to be
abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of
organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (id. at
219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)); mathematical formulas
(Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes
(Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
The Supreme Court has also made clear “[a] claim drawn to subject
matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it
uses a mathematical formula.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981).
In that same case, the Supreme Court cautioned 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. at 191 (citing Benson and Flook).
If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, we turn to the second step
of the Alice framework. The second step considers whether the claim recites
an inventive concept—an element or combination of elements sufficient to
ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea and
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 78, 79). “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. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing]
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

5
generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
USPTO Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 Revised
Guidance”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).7 “All USPTO personnel are, as
a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.”
Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update supra 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., (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice,
and (c) mental processes, (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. The evaluation under
Step 2A, Prong Two 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

7 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 (“October
2019 Update”), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_
oct_2019_update.pdf.
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

6
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(Section III(A)(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, 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) 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.

Rejection
Appellant argues claims 1–21 as a group. Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply
Br. 2–3. We select independent claim 1 as representative, and the remaining
claims stand or fall with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as patent
ineligible, the Examiner analyzes the claim using the Alice two-step
framework. Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 2–7. Pursuant to the first step, the
Examiner determines the claim is directed to the abstract idea of a method of
organizing human activities, namely “a method of managing the creating of
software via human interactions.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner also finds the
management scheme can be performed mentally. Id. In the Answer, the
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

7
Examiner more specifically explains that the recited “collecting,”
“mapping,” and “analyzing” steps are directed to the abstract idea of
“collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis.” Ans. 3 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner also determines that
the recited “modifying” and “implementing” steps are directed to the
abstract idea of “updating software parameters.” Id. at 3–4 (citing White
Knuckle Gaming, IP, LLC, v. Elec. Arts Inc., 2016 WL 3129133 (D. Utah
2016), aff’d without op. 683 F. App’x. 931 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Under the second step, the Examiner determines the claim does not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements perform the
basic functions of storing, retrieving, and processing data. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner also finds the claimed invention requires only a general purpose
computer. Ans. 5. The Examiner further determines the recited computer
limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a
computer. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5.
Step 2A, Prong One: Recitation of a Judicial Exception, e.g., an
Abstract Idea
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we
consider whether independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. For abstract ideas, we contemplate whether a
claim limitation or combination of limitations falls within the enumerated
groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance. Id.
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations: “[c]ollecting a
set [of] information relating to a player of a . . . game prior to the playing of
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

8
the . . . game by the player;” “mapping the set of information to correlate a
datum of the set of information to a particular game element of the . . . game,
wherein the datum is an indication of a decreased ability of the player to
play the . . . game;” “analyzing the datum and the game element to
determine a need to modify the game element;” “in response to a
determination of the need to modify the game element, modifying the game
element to decrease a skill level associated with the . . . game;” and
“implementing the modified game element in conjunction with a playing
session of the . . . game.” Appeals Br., Claims App. These limitations,
under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a method for
customizing a game for play by a player with decreased ability, which can
be both a mental process and one of certain methods of organizing human
activity.
In particular, the limitations of “[c]ollecting a set [of] information
relating to a player of a . . . game prior to the playing of the . . . game by the
player;” “mapping the set of information to correlate a datum of the set of
information to a particular game element of the . . . game, wherein the datum
is an indication of a decreased ability of the player to play the . . . game;”
and “analyzing the datum and the game element to determine a need to
modify the game element” relate to gathering information and analyzing it,
which could practically be performed in the human mind. October
2019 Update supra at 7. More specifically, collecting a set of information,
as recited, is an observation that could be performed in the human mind.
Correlating a datum of the set of information to a particular game element
and determining a need to modify the game element based on the datum and
the game element, as recited in the claim, are evaluations that can be
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

9
performed in the human mind. Concepts that can be performed in the
human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, are
mental processes, which is one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas
in the 2019 Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As these limitations
recite mental processes, they recite abstract ideas.
Furthermore, the limitations of “in response to a determination of the
need to modify the game element, modifying the game element to decrease a
skill level associated with the . . . game” and “implementing the modified
game element in conjunction with a playing session of the . . . game” relate
to managing the personal behavior or interactions of a player during the
social activity of gaming. Managing personal behavior, including social
activities, falls within the enumerated grouping of abstract ideas for certain
methods of organizing human activity. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52; October 2019 Update supra at 6. Thus, these limitations of
independent claim 1 recite an abstract idea.
In view of the foregoing, the “collecting,” “mapping,” “analyzing,”
“modifying,” and “implementing” limitations recite abstract ideas.
Independent claim 1, therefore, recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Having determined that independent claim 1 recites a judicial
exception, we next consider whether the claim recites any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. More specifically, we
evaluate any additional elements, individually or in combination, to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application,
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

10
using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and
the Federal Circuit and set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h). Id.
Apart from the limitations reciting abstract ideas, which we identify
above in accordance with the analysis under Step 2A, Prong One,
independent claim 1 recites a “computing” or “computer” game. Appeal
Br., Claims App. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, if an additional
element, alone or in combination, implements a judicial exception with, or
uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine, then the
additional element may integrate the judicial exception in a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. However, a general purpose computer that
applies a judicial exception via generic computer functions does not qualify
as a particular machine. MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I). Appellant argues “a
computer game can only be played on some sort of computing device and,
therefore, the computing device certainly plays a ‘significant part in
permitting the claimed method to be performed.’” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting
SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2010)). Independent claim 1, however, does not expressly recite a
computer or any computing component. To the extent a “computing” or
“computer” game implicitly recites a computer, such a recitation is at a high
level of generality, without any meaningful detail about the structure or
configuration of the computer. Accordingly, the recited “computing” or
“computer” game does not reflect a particular machine.
As also set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance, if an additional
element, alone or in combination, effects a transformation of a particular
article to a different state or thing, then the additional element may integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

11
Appellant argues the claimed subject matter is responsible for effecting a
transformation of the computing game to a different state or thing by
changing the actual play of the game. Appeal Br. 8. Indeed, independent
claim 1 recites modifying the game element to decrease a skill level
associated with the computing game. Id. at Claims App. Appellant,
however, acknowledges that the recited game element encompasses game
data. Id. at 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 26, Fig. 2 (reference numeral 154)); see also
Spec. ¶¶ 39–40. Data is not a physical article, and a change to data, without
more, does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different
state or thing. MPEP § 2106.05(c); In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, independent claim 1 does not include any additional
elements, alone or in combination, that effect a transformation of a particular
article to a different state or thing.
In determining whether a judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application, we also consider whether any additional element, alone
or in combination, reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer
or an improvement to another technology or technical field. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a). Appellant contends
“improvements that make a computer game, and therefore a computer itself,
more accessible for those with handicaps can certainly be characterized as
improving the functioning of the computer itself.” Appeal Br. 8 (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Reply Br. 2 (“[M]odifying a computer
game so that the game can be utilized by, for example, a handicapped
person, should definitely count as an improvement upon the computer
game.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We disagree. Simply making a
computer game more accessible is an improvement to the game, not to the
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

12
computer. The claimed invention affects the way the computer operates
only to the extent it implements the improved game. In other words, the
claimed invention uses a computer merely as a tool to implement the
improved game. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)(I). Accordingly, independent claim 1 does not include any
additional elements, alone or in combination, that reflect an improvement in
the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or
technical field.
For these reasons, independent claim 1 does not include any
additional elements, considered individually and in combination, that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Consequently,
independent claim 1, as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B: Well-understood, routine, and conventional
As independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception and does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, we consider
whether the claim includes any additional elements, alone or in combination,
that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. This step of the analysis
considers additional elements, as limitations reciting a judicial exception
cannot supply an inventive concept. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73 (requiring
“a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other
elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an
‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts
to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself” (emphasis
added)); BSG Tech. LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

13
the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive
concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible
concept.”); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(Moore, J., concurring) (“[A]nd Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the
numerous cases from [the Federal Circuit] which have held claims ineligible
because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract idea.).” The
additional elements recited in independent claim 1, considered alone and in
combination, simply append well-understood, routine, conventional
activities known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.
As set forth above, the recited “computing” and “computer” game is
an additional element. As we previously discuss, to the extent a
“computing” or “computer” game implicitly recites a computer, such a
recitation is at a high level of generality, without any meaningful detail
about the structure or configuration of the computer. Furthermore, the
computer does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the
computer, but instead is used merely as a tool to implement the computing
game. Thus, independent claim 1 does not include any additional elements,
alone or in combination, that represent something other than
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Conclusion for the Rejection
In view of the foregoing, independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more to transform the nature of the claim
into a patent-eligible application. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1, with claims 2–21 falling therewith.

Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

14
Anticipation Based on Hall-Tipping
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites “collecting a set of
information . . . prior to playing of the computing game;” “mapping the set
of information to correlate a datum of the set of information to a particular
game element;” “analyzing the datum and the game element to determine a
need to modify the game element;” and “in response to a determination of
the need to modify the game element, modifying the game element.”
Appeal Br., Claims App. To wit, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 require
modifying the game element in response to the datum of the set of
information collected before game play.
Appellant argues Hall-Tipping does not disclose modifying the game
element based on the datum of the set of information collected before game
play because Hall-Tipping’s exercise and video game device relies on an
aerobic activity level during game play to adjust a game element. Appeal
Br. 11. Appellant’s argument has merit.
Hall-Tipping discloses combining an exercise program with a video
game and using measured heart rate to control the speed of the video game
to ensure that the player does not overly exert himself or herself.
Hall-Tipping 1:64–68. More specifically, Hall-Tipping discloses:
An exerciser, prior to commencing a workout, inputs his age, and
the preferred duration of his warm-up and workout. According
to a preset formula, the controller [of the video game] sets upper
and lower heart rates for the duration of the exercise
routine. . . . Once the exerciser commences the exercise routine,
the controller continually checks the pulse of the exerciser
against the upper and lower optimal exercise heart rates for that
individual. If the heart rate of the exercising individual falls
outside the preset limits or bands at any time throughout the
exercise routine[,] the speed of the game is altered.
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

15
Id. at 4:35–46. Hall-Tipping further discloses that “should it be detected in
step 62 that the heart rate exceeds the optimal aerobic rate Pmax, the speed
of the villain decreases in relation to that of the source in step 66 . . . and a
message cautions the exerciser to slow down.” Id. at 6:64–7:1 (emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner relies on the upper and lower heart rates for the recited
datum. Ans. 8 (“In this case, the datum is the upper/lower heart rates of the
player based on the player’s age which indicates if the[] player possess a
decreased ability to play the computer game.”). Although Hall-Tipping’s
method determines the upper and lower heart rates prior to game play, the
method does not analyze the upper and lower heart rates to determine a need
to modify a game element such as the speed of a villain, but instead
determines a need to modify the villain’s speed based on continual checks of
the exerciser’s heart rate during play. Hall-Tipping 4:41–47, 6:59–7:1.
Thus, the Examiner has not shown sufficiently that Hall-Tipping discloses
modifying the game element in response to the datum of the set of
information collected before game play, as independent claims 1, 8, and 15
require.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15. We similarly do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17.

Obviousness Based on Hall-Tipping and Munson or Conkwright
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20 depend from independent
claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal Br., Claims App. The rejections of claims 4, 6,
7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20 suffer from the same deficiency as the rejection of
Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

16
independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Final Act. 6–8. Accordingly, we likewise
do not sustain the rejections of claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20.

Obviousness Based on Hall-Tipping and Vernal
Similar to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, independent claim 21
recites “modifying the scoring algorithm” in response to “a datum of the set
information” relating to a player. Appeal Br., Claims App. The Examiner
relies on Hall-Tipping to disclose these limitations. Final Act. 8–9.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Hall-Tipping’s upper and lower heart
rates for the recited datum. Id. at 9. As set forth above with respect to
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, Hall-Tipping’s method does not analyze the
upper and lower heart rates to determine a need to modify a game element,
but instead determines a need to modify the game element based on
continual checks of the exerciser’s heart rate during play.
Hall-Tipping 4:41–47, 6:59–7:1. Consequently, the rejection of independent
claim 21 suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15, and we likewise do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 21.

CONCLUSION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We
do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8–10, 12, 15–17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), nor do we sustain the rejections of claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13,
14, 18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2018-004187
Application 13/418,847

17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 101 Eligibility 1–21
1–3, 5,
8–10, 12,
15–17, 19
102(b) Hall-Tipping
1–3, 5,
8–10, 12,
15–17, 19
4, 11, 18 103(a) Hall-Tipping, Munson 4, 11, 18
6, 7, 13,
14, 20 103(a)
Hall-Tipping,
Conkwright
6, 7, 13,
14, 20
21 103(a) Hall-Tipping, Vernal 21
Overall
Outcome 1–21

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