VineSleuth, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

13627738 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
13/627,738 09/26/2012 Michael J. Tompkins 29DV-164298 7004
69849 7590 09/30/2020
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
GIULIANI, GIUSEPPI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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):
SheppardMullin_Pair@firsttofile.com
svpatents@sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL J. TOMPKINS
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15–21, 23, 24, 27,
and 28. See Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 26, 2012 (“Spec.”); Non-
Final Office Action, mailed May 11, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief,
filed June 14, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer, mailed
September 6, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Vinesleuth, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for wine ranking and
recommendations. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
[a] receiving, for each of a plurality of predetermined
wines, a set of taster-based intensity values associated with a
wide range of wine descriptors, the wide range of wine
descriptors being used to assist in describing each of the plurality
of predetermined wines, the set of taster-based intensity values
being generated from subjective intensity values provided by a
set of tasters, each wine descriptor of the wide range of wine
descriptors being assigned at least one taster-based intensity
value of the set of taster-based intensity values;
[b] storing the set of taster-based intensity values assigned
to the wide range of wine descriptors within a wine database as
a wine core matrix;
[c] receiving wine preferences of a user, the wine
preferences enabling identification of a plurality of preferred
wine characteristics of the user;
[d] generating a user wine preferences matrix that is
specific to the user and is based on the user’s preferred wine
characteristics, the user wine preferences matrix and the wine
core matrix having a same number of wine descriptors;
[e] determining correlation within the user’s preferred
wine characteristics based on the received wine preferences of
the user, the correlation being specific to the user;
[f] transforming the user’s preferred wine characteristics
using the correlation into uncorrelated vectors that capture a
majority of wine character variance of the user, the
transformation generating a descriptor matrix;
[g] applying the descriptor matrix to the wine core matrix
to project the wine core matrix to a proxy space;
[h] applying the descriptor matrix to the user wine
preferences matrix to project the user wine preferences matrix
into the proxy space;
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
3
[i] determining one or more wines to recommend based on
a shortest distance in the proxy space between the wines of the
wine core matrix and the projection of the user wine preferences
matrix in the proxy space; and
[j] recommending the one or more wines.
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15–21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to ineligible subject
matter. Non-Final Act. 5–8.
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15–21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Non-Final Act. 9–11.
Claims 1, 3–6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15–21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
invention. Non-Final Act. 11–12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from

3 The Examiner has withdrawn an obviousness rejection of all pending
claims. See Ans. 3; Non-Final Act. 12–31.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
4
which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 5–12) and (2) the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–16) and concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
35 U.S.C. § 112, FIRST PARAGRAPH
The Examiner determines Appellant’s Specification lacks written
description support for ‘“a wine core matrix’ or any central/main matrix
being used,” “the user preferences matrix and the wine core matrix having a
same number of descriptors,” and “applying the descriptor matrix to the
wine core matrix to project the wine core matrix to a proxy space.” Non-
Final Act. 9–10.
Referring to claim 1, Appellant contends that “wine core matrix” is a
“training database,” as used throughout the Specification. Appeal Br. 73–75
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 111, 57, and 48). The Examiner responds as follows:
[T]he specification appears to estimate a matrix from the
information stored in the training database, rather than disclosing
that the training database is itself a “wine core matrix”. As such,
the examiner maintains that the “wine core matrix” was not
described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a
joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Ans. 13.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reasoning.4
Accordingly, on this record, we are unpersuaded of error based on this
argument.

4 Note, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and we find no persuasive
rebuttal to the Examiner’s finding in the Appeal Brief.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
5
Referring again to claim 1, Appellant argues support for “the user
preferences matrix and the wine core matrix having a same number of
descriptors” may be found at Specification paragraphs 60, 61, 64, 65, and
107. Appeal Br. 75–77. Appellant argues as follows:
Each component of V may be describing the likes of the user for
the particular set of wines in the training database and for
correlation, the descriptors (which are a part of the wines and is
used for the similarity function between the wine and user
matrices) must have the same number.
Appeal Br. 76.
The Examiner determines that “because the appellant’s specification
does not appear to disclose a wine core matrix, let alone the specific details
on the numbers of descriptors,” Appellant’s Specification, at best, “appears
to disclose describing all wines utilizing a common set of descriptors, rather
than ‘a wine core matrix having a same number of descriptors’ as claimed.”
Ans. 13.
Because we do not find a persuasive rebuttal to the Examiner’s
finding, we are unpersuaded of error based on this argument.
Referring again to claim 1, Appellant argues that support for
“applying the descriptor matrix to the wine core matrix to project the wine
core matrix to a proxy space” may be found at paragraph 69 of the
Specification. Appeal Br. 77. Appellant argues that the “specification
indicates that a ‘dynamic’ database may be generated based on the user’s
wines of current interest, thereby the dynamic database may be all or a
subset of the training database,” and “[u]ncorrelated vectors of those wines
are projected into the user proxy space.” Appeal Br. 77 (citing ¶ 69).
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
6
The Examiner responds as follows:
[Paragraph 69] does not disclose that “the dynamic database may
be all or a subset of the training database” as argued by the
appellant. Rather, [paragraph 69] explicitly discloses “a dynamic
database which is distinct from the training discussed herein.”
Furthermore, [paragraph 69] discloses that “future wine requests
may be filtered by the operator V in order to transform all wines
from a new ‘dynamic’ database into the user’s proxy space.” At
best, the specification appears to disclose filtering future wine
requests by the operator V in order to transform all wines from a
new ‘dynamic’ database (which is distinct from the training)
into the user’s proxy space, rather than “applying the descriptor
matrix to the wine core matrix to project the wine core matrix to
a proxy space” as claimed. As such, the appellant's arguments
are not persuasive.
Ans. 14.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding.
Moreover, we have reviewed other portions of the Specification that
Appellant cites as disclosing the claimed wine core matrix (Appeal Br. 3
(citing, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 36, 38, 49, 57, 58, 88, 111–12, Fig. 4)) and to the
claims as originally filed (Spec. 42–46). We are unable to discern written
description support from these additional disclosures. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as lacking
written description support. Appellant repeats the above arguments for
independent claims 13 and 28, albeit under separate headings, and does not
argue the dependent claims. Id. at 78–86. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking written description support.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
7
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The Examiner determines the claims are indefinite because the
independent claims recite “a wide range of wine descriptors,” which “is a
relative phrase which may differ from one person’s interpretation to
another” and “[t]he examiner is unable to ascertain the scope of the claims
because a ‘wide range’ is not clearly defined in the claims.” Non-Final Act.
11. The Examiner also finds that claim 1’s “determining one or more wines
to recommend based on a shortest distance in the proxy space between the
wines of the wine core matrix and the projection of the user wine
preferences matrix in the proxy space” is indefinite because:
It is unclear to the examiner how to determine a shortest distance
in the proxy space between the wines of the wine core matrix and
the projection of the user wine preferences matrix if the wine
core matrix is not projected in the proxy space. The examiner
notes that the wine core matrix is projected into the proxy space
in lines 20–21 [of claim 1], however, the claims do not specify
that this projection is used to determine a shortest distance in the
proxy space. Because the examiner is unclear how to determine
“a shortest distance in the proxy space between [the projection
of] the wines of the wine core matrix and the projection of the
user wine preferences matrix” if the wine core matrix is not
projected into the proxy space, the claims are rendered indefinite.
Id. at 11–12. (bracketing added to emphasize the apparently omitted
modifier).
Appellant’s arguments against the Examiner’s rejection (Appeal Br.
86–91) are unpersuasive of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner
(Ans. 14–16), which Appellant does not persuasively rebut. That is, we
agree with the Examiner that the subjective “phrase ‘wide range’ may differ
from person to person.” Id. at 15. We also agree with the Examiner “that it
is unclear how to determine the distance between the wines of the wine core
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
8
matrix (which are not specified as being projected into the proxy space) and
the projection of the user wine preferences matrix in the proxy space” (id. at
16). The lack of written description support for the claimed wine core
matrix exacerbates this lack of clarity.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of all pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Principles of Law
To constitute patent-eligible subject matter, an invention must be a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or [a] new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are
implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified
in 35 U.S.C. § 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena;
and (3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014). The U.S. Supreme Court has set forth a framework for
distinguishing patents with claims directed to these implicit exceptions
“from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at
217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66 (2012)). The evaluation follows a two-part framework: (1) determine
whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract
idea; and (2) if so, then determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217–
18.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidance
on the application of the two-part analysis. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
9
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”); see also USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (Oct. 17, 2019) (“Oct. 2019
Update”). Under that 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) (see 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54 (step 2A, prong one)); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see id. at 54–55 (step 2A,
prong two); MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
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 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 2A, Prong One
The Examiner determines that “the claimed invention is directed to
the age-old idea of recommending wines.” Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
10
likens the claims to the claims in several cases our reviewing court has found
patent ineligible for various reasons. First, the Examiner determines “the
abstract idea of recommending wines is similar to the concepts that have
been identified as abstract by the courts, such as collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
Id. at 6 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016)). The Examiner determines that “the abstract idea of
recommending wines is also similar to the concepts that have been identified
as abstract by the courts, such as encoding and decoding image data.” Id. at
7 (citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir.
2017)). The Examiner further determines that “the abstract idea of
recommending wines is also similar to the concepts that have been identified
as abstract by the courts, such organizing information through mathematical
correlations.” Id. (citing Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging,
Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The Examiner concludes that these
cases show our reviewing court has determined that, as here, a claimed
process that “start[s] with data, add[s] an algorithm and end[s] with a new
form of data [is] directed to an abstract idea.” Id..
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that the claims recite an
abstract idea. In particular, the claims here are similar to the claims in
Electric Power Group, which were directed to methods of receiving data,
analyzing the data, and displaying the results. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1351–52. There, the court explained the claims were directed to ineligible
abstract ideas because “[t]he advance they purport to make is a process of
gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying
the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for
performing those functions.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d. at 1354.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
11
Here, similar to the claims in Elec. Power Grp., limitations [a]–[c] of
claim 1 (and the corresponding limitations of claims 13 and 28) amount to
gathering information of a specific content, limitations [d]–[h] amount to
analyzing the information, and limitation [j] amounts to displaying the
result.
Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s determinations as
they relate to Step 2A, Prong One. Appellant argues the Examiner
“overgeneralizes portions of the claim without reference to the individual
elements and without reference to the claims as a whole” and “assumes that
the claim must be abstract because of an end result, namely providing a wine
recommendation.” Appeal Br. 38, 40. Appellant asserts certain limitations
“clearly are not ‘mental processes’” and the process is not “merely ‘an
abstract idea’ that merely includes collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying results.” Id. at 41. Appellant also argues that “the application of
mathematics do[es] not absolutely render an otherwise patentable concept
abstract” and that “the Examiner has concluded that since there is math, the
entire claim must be abstract rather than seeing the operations that are
expressed.” Id. at 41–42.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner as follows:
[Limitations [e]–[i]] above can be performed mentally because
they are directed to a purely mathematical procedure which
transforms a number of correlated variables (i.e. wine
characteristics) into uncorrelated vectors (i.e. a descriptor
matrix), applies the descriptor matrix to a wine core matrix and
a user wine preferences matrix to project the matrices into a
proxy space and finally determines wines to recommend based
on a distance calculations in the proxy space. This type of purely
mathematical procedure is precisely the type of concept which
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
12
is related to organizing or analyzing information in a way that
can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental
work (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). For example, the
appellant’s specification describes an example utilizing principal
component analysis as the mathematical transformation
procedure in [0056]–[0061]. Principle component analysis is a
statistical procedure invented well before the advent of
computers and can be performed by a human using a pen and
paper. The claims of the instant application invoke a computer as
a tool to perform various calculations including this type of
mathematical procedure.
While the appellant argues that “the Examiner has
concluded that since there is math, the entire claim must be
abstract”, the above highlighted portion makes it clear that this is
not the examiner's position. Rather, it is submitted by the
examiner that adding one abstract idea (e.g. the mathematical
algorithm steps recited in claim 1 lines 8–27) to another abstract
idea (e.g. recommending wines) does not render the abstract
idea of recommending wines any less abstract. In RecogniCorp,
the Court explains that claims that are directed to a non-abstract
idea are not rendered abstract simply because they use a
mathematical formula, however, a claim directed to an abstract
idea does not automatically become eligible merely by adding a
mathematical formula. In this case, because the claims are
directed the abstract idea of recommending wines, the addition
of mathematical analysis cannot save it.

Ans. 4–5, 7.
We note Appellant’s preemption argument (Appeal Br. 42), but find it
unpersuasive of error. Rather, we agree with the Examiner as follows:
[W]hile preemption is the concern underlying the judicial
exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility.
Even though a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence
of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is
eligible (see MPEP 2106.04). In this case, a supposed lack of
preemption in the field of recommending wines does note
demonstrate that the claims are patent eligible.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
13
Ans. 7; Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an
abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
With reference to Step 2A, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination as follows:
[T]he additional elements or combination of elements in the
claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more
than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer,
and/or recitation of generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known in the field
of information retrieval. The claims recite a method, system and
computer readable medium which only performs generic
computer functions such as collecting information, analyzing it,
and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.
Non-Final Act. 8.
Appellant also argues that the claims recite an improvement to “what
sommeliers perform mentally,” that the recited process “enable[s]
projections into the proxy space” and “add[s] efficiency to [the] problem of
statistical classification with large data sets.” Appeal Br. 40.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Rather, we agree
with the Examiner as follows:
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in
improving the technology, the claims must recite the details
regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which
the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer
to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic
computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
14
Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to
perform the method on a generic component or machinery to
qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP
2106.05(a), subsection II). In this case, the focus of the claims
of instant application is not a physical-realm improvement, but
rather, an improvement in wholly abstract ideas, namely, the
recommendation of wines based on mathematical analysis. The
examiner acknowledges appellant’s argument that the claims
“can overcome problems in the prior art, including inefficiency”,
however, even if this is the case, adding efficiency to the problem
of statistical classification is still only an improvement to the
abstract idea itself, which does not impart patentability.
The claims here require no improved computer resource,
but instead, require computers and basic functions that are
already available, to use as tools in executing the claimed
process. If a claimed process can be performed without a
computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot
improve computer technology. Furthermore, mere automation of
manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where
these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities
of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an
improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a),
subsection I).
Ans. 5–6.
Furthermore, we are unable to identify any additional recitations that
implement the underlying abstract idea with, or use the underlying abstract
idea in conjunction with, “a particular machine or manufacture that is
integral” to claim 1, or that effect “a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing,” or that apply or use the
underlying abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the [underlying abstract idea] to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
15
For these reasons, claim 1 does not include additional recitations that
integrate the recited abstract idea (i.e., certain methods of organizing human
activity through fundamental economic principles or practices such as risk
mitigation) into a practical application.
Step 2B
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we now
consider whether any additional recitations or combination of recitations
amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant argues “Applicant’s Specification does not indicate that any
of the elements above, alone or in combination are ‘sufficiently well-
known.’ Further, the Examiner has not cited any evidence in Applicant's
Specification indicating that the elements above are ‘sufficiently well
known.’” Appeal Br. 45.
We are not persuaded, but rather agree with the Examiner “that the
additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the
abstract idea per se, amount to no more than mere instructions to implement
the idea on a computer.” Ans. 9.
Claim 1 recites, for example, a “wine database,” which the
Specification discloses “is a database or any data structure that comprises
wine identifiers with corresponding wine characteristics.” Spec. ¶ 38. The
Specification also broadly discloses technologies such as the processor of a
digital device, memory, storage, and a communication network interface in
broad terms the demonstrate that the technology recited in the claims—the
additional recitations—were well-understood, routine, or conventional. Id.
¶¶ 160–66.
Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
16
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not include
additional recitations that, considered individually or in combination,
transform the abstract ideas to which claim 1 is directed into a patent-
eligible invention.

Other Claims
Appellant contends that independent claim 13 and 28, and dependent
claims 3–6, 8, 9, 12, 15–21, 23, 24, and 27, are patent-eligible for the same
or similar reasons as claim 1, or recite additional elements that integrate the
alleged abstract idea into a practical application. See Appeal Br. 11–14.
Appellant does not provide specific arguments to support these contentions,
but instead merely reproduces recitations from the other claims. Id.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 3–6, 8, 9, 12, 15–21, 23, 24, and 27.

DECISION SUMMARY
In Summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 8, 9,
12, 13, 15–
21, 23, 24,
27, 28
101 Eligibility 1, 3–6, 8,
9, 12, 13,
15–21, 23,
24, 27, 28

1, 3–6, 8, 9,
12, 13, 15–
21, 23, 24,
27, 28
112, first
paragraph
Written Description 1, 3–6, 8,
9, 12, 13,
15–21, 23,
24, 27, 28

1, 3–6, 8, 9,
12, 13, 15–
112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 1, 3–6, 8,
9, 12, 13,

Appeal 2019-001191
Application 13/627,738
17
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
21, 23, 24,
27, 28
15–21, 23,
24, 27, 28
Overall
Outcome
  1, 3–6, 8,
9, 12, 13,
15–21, 23,
24, 27, 28

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