Siemens Aktiengesellschaft

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2020

2019003024 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/761,075 07/15/2015 Derrick Southerland 2012P26822WOUS 2467
28524 7590 07/24/2020
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
EXAMINER
JOHANSEN, JOHN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2020 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):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DERRICK SOUTHERLAND, YI DONG, RYAN KINGSLEY,
and JAMES W. CORNETT
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–17, and 19, which are all the
claims pending in this application. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to “simulating a programmable logic
controller (PLC)” and “a graphic user interface for the user to configure a
sequence of changes in input values.” Spec ¶¶ 1, 5. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for automated input simulation in
simulating a programmable logic controller (PLC), the PLC
being connected with sensors and actuators which communicate
with or are field devices for controlling an industrial machine or
process, the method comprising:
generating, on a display, a graphical user interface with
sensor and set point input options including a sensor
measurement relating to the PLC being simulated;
receiving, with a processor, a sequence of set points,
sensor readings, or set points and sensor readings from the input
options of the graphical user interface including a value of the
sensor measurement of the PLC being simulated, the sequence
including timing;
simulating, with the processor, operation of the
programmable logic controller as a function of the sequence,
the operation simulated in real-time; and
displaying, on the display, an indication of the operation
m real-time during the simulating.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rule US 2005/0256591 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
Breidford US 7,544,506 B2 June 9, 2009
Wang US 2012/0022849 A1 Jan. 26, 2012

Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

3

Son et al., Automatic simulation model generation for simulation-
based, real-time shop floor control, University of Arizona, Computers in
Industry 45 (2001) 291-308, pp. 291–308.
Stefanovic et al., A LabVIEW-Based Remote Laboratory Experiments
for Control Engineering Education, University of Kragujevac, Serbia,
received 21 October 2008; accepted 2 February 2009, pp. 1–14.
Rejections
1. Claims 1–4, 6–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception to patentable subject matter without
significantly more. Final Act. 6–10.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14–17, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang, Breidford, and Son. Final
Act. 11–20.
3. Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang, Breidford, Son, and Rule. Final Act. 20–23.
4. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang, Breidford, Son, and Stefanovic. Final Act. 23–25.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
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
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

4
ideas” are not patentable. 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. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to
the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to
mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

5
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 (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.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

6
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Consistent with the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019
Update, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) 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.

USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

7
Prong One of Step 2A
The Examiner summarizes the claims as being directed to “collecting
available information on the computer equipment and room, analyzing the
model with CFD, and displaying the results of the model on a general
purpose computer,” which are comparable to other abstract ideas identified
by courts in Electric Power Group4 as “the collection, analysis, and display
of available information in a particular field.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner
finds that the claimed subject matter relates to “performing mathematical
operations on a general purpose computer as well as organizing information
through mathematical correlations.” Final Act. 8. Appellant argues that the
claims are “directed to an improvement of technology” by reciting “a
method for automated input simulation in simulating a PLC, the PLC being
connected with sensors and actuators which communicate with or are field
devices for controlling an industrial machine or process.” Appeal Br. 4
(citing Spec. ¶ 15).
Under prong one of step 2A, we first look to whether the claim recites
any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, or
mental processes). 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54. To this end,
treating independent claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites:
 (1) “generating, on a display, a graphical user interface with
sensor and set point input options including a sensor
measurement relating to the PLC being simulated”;

4 Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

8
 (2) “receiving, with a processor, a sequence of set points, sensor
readings, or set points and sensor readings from the input
options of the graphical user interface”;
 (3) “simulating, with the processor, operation of the
programmable logic controller as a function of the sequence,
the operation simulated in real-time”; and
 (4) “displaying, on the display, an indication of the operation m
real-time during the simulating.”
Claim 16 recites instructions that are stored on a non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium, for performing functions similar to
those recited in claim 1. These limitations are directed to collecting,
analyzing, organizing information through mathematical relationships. For
example, the limitation “receiving, . . . a sequence of set points . . . including
a value of the sensor measurement of the PLC being simulated” is a data
gathering step that may be performed by the human mind. The limitation
“simulating, . . . , operation of the programmable logic controller as a
function of the sequence, the operation simulated in real-time” is a
calculation step involving mathematical relationships that may also be
performed by the human mind.
Mental processes are a category of activities that the Guidance
recognizes as constituting an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 5 Mathematical relationships are also a category of

5 If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human
using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible
under § 101. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372–73; see also Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While
the Supreme Court has altered the § 101 analysis since CyberSource in cases
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

9
activities that the 2019 Revised Guidance recognizes as constituting an
abstract idea. See id. “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract
idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Additionally, as acknowledged by Appellant, “claim 1 recites a method for
automated input simulation in simulating a programmable logic controller
(PLC)” (Reply Br. 3), which constitutes an “improvement” in automating
the process of data collection/manipulation and is not a patentable
improvement in computer technology. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Credit Acceptance Corp. v.
Westlake Services, LLC, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The “‘mere
automation of manual processes using generic computers’ . . . ‘does not
constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.’” Trading
Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting
Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055).
Thus, under prong one of step 2A, we determine the claims recite an
abstract idea.
Prong Two of Step 2A
The Examiner makes the following findings:
It is noted that the claimed embodiment does not improve the
functioning of the computer, further the claimed embodiments

like Mayo and Alice, we continue to ‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category’”
(brackets in original) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354);
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be
unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

10
do not amount to a composition of matter. The claimed
embodiments do not being performed on a particular machine,
there are no specialized computer hardware or sensor inputs
that are being utilized that would constitute a custom machine.
Final Act. 9 (emphases added).
Appellant argues “the claims recite novel and non-obvious
steps/functions which clearly constitute(s) significantly more than the
alleged abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellant, the
Specification provides support for the recited simulation by stating
“Simulators allow the user to modify an input in order to determine a result
in the output. This allows the user to simulate the action of physical inputs
at a rate based on the user’s ability to enter a change. However, manual
changing of the value of the input is time consuming.” Appeal Br. 5
(quoting Spec. ¶ 3).
Under prong two of step 2A of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we
determine whether the claim as whole integrates the recited abstract idea into
a practical application of the abstract idea. 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 more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the judicial exception. To evaluate whether the claims integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application, we identify whether there are
any additional elements recited beyond the abstract idea, and evaluate those
additional elements individually and in combination.
Some exemplary considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit indicate that an additional element that integrates an abstract
idea into a practical application can include (i) an improvement in the
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

11
functioning of a computer or to another technological field, (ii) an
application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine,
(iii) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing, or (iv) a use of the judicial exception in some other meaningful way
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Reviewing the claim limitations as a whole, we determine claim 1
does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. In particular, the claim limitations “programmable
logic controller (PLC),” “display,” and “processor” merely link the recited
abstract idea to the technological environment of sensors and computers. As
to the aforementioned limitations, neither the claim nor the Specification
indicates any improvements to the functionality of the recited components.
Instead, as claimed, the recited components are used in their ordinary
manner to implement the series of steps for displaying a graphical user
interface, receiving sensor readings and simulating operation of the PLC
based on sensor measurements and displaying the results. See also Ans. 3–
4. Thus, the usage of the recited components improve the underlying
abstract idea rather than the underlying computer itself or another
technology.
Further, the claim limitations “generating, on a display, a graphical
user interface with sensor and set point input options including a sensor
measurement relating to the PLC being simulated” and “displaying, on the
display, an indication of the operation in real-time during the simulating”
functions of claim 1 merely presents converting data from the sequence of
set points and sensor readings to another without altering the data itself,
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

12
which does not provide significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Courts have found such data gathering and presenting steps to be
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943,
963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593
(2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution
activity).
Step 2B of the Guidance
The Examiner further finds
The claims are not 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; specifically the claimed
embodiments are just executing numerical methods on a general
purpose computer without any special hardware configurations.
Finally there are no other meaningful limitations beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment, for example linking the
computational result to an apparatus which is then controlled by
the output of the numerical simulation.
Final Act. 9–10 (emphases added).
Appellant argues the claims include specific limitations other than
what is well-understood, routine, and conventional by automating the
simulation, as described in paragraph 3 of the Specification. See Appeal
Br. 5; Reply Br. 3–4.
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we analyze the claims
to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the
additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Considerations that are evaluated with respect to step 2B include
determining whether the claims as a whole add a specific limitation or
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

13
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field.
We determine that claim 1 limitations “programmable logic controller
(PLC),” “display,” and “processor,” as recited in claim 1, operate in a well-
understood, routine, and conventional manner. For example, Appellant’s
Specification describes that the recited programmable logic controller (PLC)
could be a PLC that controls a cooling fan or a number of different PLCs
may be simulated. Spec. ¶¶ 20, 23, 25. Appellant’s Specification provides
examples of the disclosed display as “monitor, printer, or other display
device” or “monitor, LCD, plasma, projector, printer, or other display
device” for displaying indications of control signals. Spec. ¶¶ 58, 76.
Appellant’s disclosure further describes the recited processor as “a computer
or other device different than the PLC simulates operation of the PLC.”
Spec. ¶ 46. Additional elements recited in other independent claim 16
include a computer readable storage medium and instructions executable by
a processor, which are described as “user programs [that] are stored as
STEP7 projects” and “a graphic processing memory, video random access
memory, system memory, random access memory, cache memory, hard
drive, optical media, magnetic media, flash drive, buffer, database,
combinations thereof, or other now known or later developed memory
device for storing data.” Spec. ¶ 73, 67. We find this description to be
consistent with the well-understood, routine, conventional uses of the
aforementioned claim limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and also claims 2–4, 6–15, 17, and
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

14
19, for which Appellant does not make any additional arguments. See
Appeal Br. 4–5.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
generating, on a display, a graphical user interface with
sensor and set point input options including a sensor
measurement relating to the PLC being simulated;
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). Claim 16 recites similar limitations.
The Examiner finds the combination of Wang and Breidford teaches
or suggests the aforementioned limitation of claim 1, where Wang discloses
certain portion of the limitation, and where Breidford discloses other portion
of the limitation. More specifically, as found by the Examiner, Wang
discloses
generating . . . with sensor and set point input options including
a sensor measurement relating to the PLC being simulated; (In
paragraph 0046 Wang teaches inputing a virtual sensor
input, i.e. simulated sensor measurement “. . . The
input/output model is one of plant models, which operates
virtual facilities in response to a PLC output signal, detects
the operation result by means of a virtual sensor, and
transmits the detected result as a PLC input signal . . .”)
Final Act. 11. As further found by the Examiner, Breidford discloses “a
graphical user interface . . . including timing being displayed (In Fig. 23
Breidford teaches the use of set point options and the measurement
from a temperature sensor as demonstrated in the plot).” Final Act. 12.
As additionally found by the Examiner,
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to make this modification in order to allow user
the ability to tune thermal profiles and develop custom
profiles as disclosed by Breidford in column 11 lines 59–63
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

15
“. . . the Thermal Cycler Graphic Interface allows the
Scientist or Technician to develop and tune thermal profiles
for assay development. Custom profiles can be developed
for different heating and cooling requirements . . .”
Final Act. 13.
Appellant argues that “Wang and Breidford are not analogous art and
are not from the same field of endeavor. Wang relates to the field of
programmable logic controllers, whereas Breidford relates to an integrated
heat exchange system on a microfluid card.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
asserts Figures 9 and 10 of Breidford disclose “a controller, which can be for
example a thermal control (see Breidford, col. 8, line 67)” and concludes
“Breidford does not relate to any logic controller or PLC.” Appeal Br. 7; see
also Reply Br. 4.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Breidford’s disclosure of a
Thermal Cycler Graphic Interface “allows the Scientist or Technician to
develop and tune thermal profiles for assay development” and produce
custom profiles for different sensor input or reading related to heating and
cooling requirements. See Ans. 6 (citing Breidford 11:62–63). We also
agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Breidford discloses a controller
for obtaining temperature/soak times that could be adjusted based on a
required profile and used to simulate the process outcome. See Ans. 6
(citing Breidford 9:59–10:25).
Additionally, the Examiner properly explained that “Wang is relied
upon to teach generating sensor and set point input options relating to the
programmable logic controller (PLC) while Breidford is relied upon to teach
a modified graphical user interface to display and receive different set
points, including timing.” Ans. 5. That is, Breidford addresses the problem
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

16
of presenting the sensor readings on a display, whereas Wang teaches the
specific source of the readings as a PLC. Therefore, Appellant’s argument
only addresses the references individually rather than the combination of
references, as set forth by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Thus, as found by the Examiner, it is the combination of Wang and
Breidford, based on the specific teachings for addressing similar problems,
that teaches or suggests the displaying limitation of claim 1. In fact, if a
technique has been used to improve one device and a person of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond
his or her skill. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of the remaining claims because they
are not separately argued by Appellant.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–17,
19
101 Eligibility 1–4, 6–17,
19

1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
9–12, 14–
17, 19
103(a) Wang, Breidford,
Son
1, 2, 4, 6, 7,
9–12, 14–
17, 19

3, 8 103(a) Wang, Breidford,
Son, Rule
3, 8
Appeal 2019-003024
Application 14/761,075

17
13 103(a) Wang, Breidford,
Son, Stefanovic
13
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–17,
19

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