ADP, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2020005902 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/054,679 02/26/2016 Agatha Kurjanowicz ES2015029-1 1012
126105 7590 03/30/2021
Duke W. Yee
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
SINGH, GURKANWALJIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AGATHA KURJANOWICZ,
SCOTT CROCKETT, SIRUI LIU, JESSE S. ZOLNA,
MICHAEL THIBODEAU, VALERIE FELGER, and
DAVID PHILANDER DERBY
__________________

Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, and 19–23, which are
all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Automated Data Processing, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 2, 8, 10, 16, and 18 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 18–23 (Claims
App.).
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “present disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for
accessing information about people in a computer system.” Spec. ¶ 3.
Claim 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Representative claim 1,
reproduced below with added emphasis, recites:
1. A method for creating a viral workflow for a workforce
comprising:
receiving, by a computer, a challenge from an employee
for distribution among a personal network of the employee,
wherein the challenge addresses new or existing business needs
of an organization;
identifying, by the computer, at least one other challenge
that is related to the challenge;
linking, by the computer, the challenge with the at least
one other challenge to create a workflow;
distributing, by the computer, the challenge among
connections of different personal networks within the
organization;
calculating, by the computer, statistics with respect to the
challenge derived from of an analysis of actions performed with
respect to the challenge over a selected time period;
applying, by the computer, a group of rules in a policy to
the statistics;
determining, by the computer, whether the challenge is a
trending activity within the organization, wherein a trending
activity is identified based on results of applying the group of
rules to the statistics; and
in response to making a determination that the challenge
is trending, sharing, by the computer, the workflow within the
organization, wherein employee driven innovations are
identified and distributed within the workflow.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Moisa et al. (US 2004/0030992 A1, pub.
Feb. 12, 2004) (“Moisa”) and Pucher (US 2008/0114710 A1, pub. May 15,
2008).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection
Appellant argues claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, and 19–23 as a group.
Appeal Br. 7–12. We select claim 1 as representative of the group, with
claims 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, and 19–23 standing or falling therewith. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner analyzes the limitations of claim 1 and determines that
they recite certain methods of organizing human activity to manage personal
behavior, relationships, or interactions between people (e.g., social activities,
teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as “mathematical steps
to analyze and determine further data.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner
determines that the additional “computer” element is recited at a high level
of generality that amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to
implement a judicial exception using the computer as a tool, which does not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Id. at 8. Regarding
Step 2B, the Examiner determines that the claim recites using a generic
computer element top perform well-understood, routine, or conventional
activities known to the industry that are insufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. at 8–9.
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

4
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. This provision contains an implicit exception that laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject
matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court has provided a two-step framework to distinguish
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications: we first determine
whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 217. If so,
we consider the elements of each claim, individually and as an ordered
combination, to determine if the additional elements transform the nature of
the claim into a patent-eligible application by providing an “inventive
concept” sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than a
patent on the ineligible concept itself. Id. at 217–18.
Under the USPTO’s Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the
Examiner determines whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea by
evaluating whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including
certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such
as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and whether the
(2) additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). 2019 Revised Patent
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

5
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52–55 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, the Examiner then
considers whether the claim either (3) adds a specific limitation beyond a
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. Id. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a method or a process, which is a statutory category of
invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity. The Revised Guidance enumerates this abstract
idea as certain methods of organizing human activity––managing personal
behavior, relationships, or interactions between people by following rules or
instructions. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We also determine that
claim 1 recites mental processes, which are concepts performed in the
human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Id.
The Abstract section of the disclosure provides:
A computer system receives a challenge submitted from an
employee. The computer system identifies other challenges that
meets a policy identifying when the other challenges are related
employee submitted challenge. The computer system combines the
related challenges into a workflow, increasing the visibility of the
related challenges throughout the organization, enabling
performing operation for the organization based on employee
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

6
driven innovations identified and distributed within the workflow.

Claim 1 is drawn to a method for creating a workflow for a workforce.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The method recites (1) receiving a challenge
from an employee that addresses a business need, for example a process
improvement or posting a request for help (Spec. ¶ 34); (2) identifying
another challenge that is related to the challenge received based on a
comparison (id. ¶ 50); (3) linking or merging the challenge with another
challenge to create a workflow (id. ¶ 59); (4) distributing the challenge
among connections of different personal networks within the organization;
(5) calculating statistics with respect to the challenge by analyzing actions
performed with respect to the challenge over a period of time; (6) applying a
group of rules in a policy to the statistics; (7) determining whether the
challenge is a trending activity within the organization based on that
analysis; and (8) in response to making a determination that the challenge is
trending, sharing the workflow within the organization, wherein employee
driven innovations are identified and distributed within the workflow.
We disagree that the above steps “do not direct or organize human
activity” (Appeal Br. 8) because they describe activities performed by an
employee and a manager of an organization in order to identify and distribute
employee driven innovations. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595 (2010)
(describing a series of instructions of how to hedge risk). Similarly, claims to
modeling human activity and mental processes have been held to recite
abstract ideas. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1096–97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (compiling and combining disparate data sources
to generate a picture of a user’s activity, identity, and frequency of activity
by selecting and applying rules to audit log data recited ordinary mental
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

7
processes rather than a technological advance in accessing and combining
disparate information sources); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological
Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 954–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims to a set of
“expert rules” for evaluating and selecting treatment regimes from a
knowledge base modeled mental processes that doctors routinely perform of
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify medical
options); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163–65 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a
resampled distribution is an abstract idea). In fact, “purely mental processes
can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.” CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1375.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an
abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is Claim 1 Directed To the Judicial Exception?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see id. at 55 n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term
‘additional elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that
are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”); Alice,
573 U.S. at 221 (holding that a claim to an abstract idea must include
“additional features” to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea)
(citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77
(2012)). We determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that improve a
computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in conjunction
with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Nor
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

8
does it include an additional element that transforms or reduces a particular
article to a different state or thing or applies the abstract idea in a meaningful
way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Final Act. 8; Ans. 6–7.
The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a
specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool. See id. at 1335–36.
Claim 1 recites that each of the steps are performed “by a computer,”
which is the only additional element in the claim beyond the abstract idea.
The Specification discloses that the recited computer is any generic
processor unit, which “may be a number of processors, a multi-processor core,
or some other type of processor, depending on the particular implementation.”
Spec. ¶ 119; see id. ¶ 39 (“The data processing systems may be selected from at
least one of a computer, a server computer, a tablet, or some other suitable data
processing system.”). The additional element (i.e. a generic computer) in
claim 1 in invoked as a tool to perform generic computer functions by
receiving data, identifying, linking, distributing, calculating, applying rules
and determining information at a high level of generality, which when
considered as a whole, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because it imposes no meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

9
As such, it is insufficient for an integration. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at
223 (the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).
Appellant argues that the recitation of “computer components is an
integral part of the solution of Appellant’s invention” because the “claims
require the analysis of a large amount of data in a quick and efficient
manner.” Appeal Br. 9. “Appellant submits that, when the claims are
viewed as a whole, the claims do encompass an improvement to a technical
field that contributes to saved time and resources.” Id. at 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶
52, 127).
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim
because nothing in claim 1 requires the analysis of “a large amount of data.”
See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to
look to the claim.”). The patent eligibility of a claim is based on the features
recited in the claim. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
759, 769–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Even if ChargePoint’s specification had
provided, for example, a technical explanation of how to enable
communication over a network for device interaction (which, as discussed
above, it did not), the claim language here would not require those details.
Instead, the broad claim language would cover any mechanism for
implementing network communication on a charging station.”); Ericsson
Inc. v. TCL Commc’ns Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“[T]he specification may be helpful in illuminating what a claim is
directed to [but it] must always yield to the claim language when identifying
the ‘true focus of a claim.’”) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

10
Moreover, improvements in efficiency or speed resulting from
implementing an abstract idea on generic computers does not make the
abstract idea patent eligible. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But merely ‘configur[ing]’ generic
computers in order to ‘supplant and enhance’ an otherwise abstract manual
process is precisely the sort of invention that the Alice Court deemed
ineligible for patenting.”) (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d
at 1370 (“[O]ur precedent is clear that merely adding computer functionality
to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent
eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”); OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363
(“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more
accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Bancorp Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (“[T]he computer merely permits one to manage a stable value
protected life insurance policy more efficiently than one could to mentally.
Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make
that process patent-eligible.”); see Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055
(automation of manual processes on generic computers is not a patentable
improvement in computer technology). As claimed, the method of claim 1
lacks features described in the Specification as improving efficiency and
accuracy. Even so, any improvements are to the abstract idea rather than to
computers or other technology.
And, combining one abstract idea (method of organizing human
activity) with another abstract idea (mental process), regardless of the
alleged improvements to one or the other abstract idea, cannot integrate the
abstract idea. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

11
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea
(encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple,
Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract
idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”);
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”).
Accordingly, we determine that the additional element recited in claim
1 fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and as such,
claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Contain an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that
are known in industry. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers if a claim
adds a specific limitation beyond the recited judicial exception that also is
not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the additional element of claim 1, which is a generic
computer, does not provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 222
(“[S]imply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine,
namely a computer, [i]s not a patentable application of that principle.”)
(citation omitted); TLI, 823 F.3d at 615 (a “control unit” that predictably
controls image resolution using known image compression techniques and
controls transmission rates in vague terms does not transform the abstract
idea).
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

12
As an ordered combination, the computer of claim 1 provides no more
than when considered individually. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); SAP,
898 F.3d at 1169 (“[T]his court has ruled many times that ‘such invocations
of computers . . . that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass
the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea.’”)
(citation omitted); see also Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280 (“The district court
correctly held that without the computer limitations nothing remains in the
claims but the abstract idea of managing a stable value protected life
insurance policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results.”).
As discussed under Prong Two, the claimed computer is described as a
conventional component. See Spec. ¶¶ 37, 39–40, 118–119, 124–126.
We are unpersuaded that the claimed solution to “problems associated
with inventive employees not effectively communicating innovative
grassroots ideas across departments, groups, teams and individuals within
their organization in pursuit of organizational goals and the challenge of
quickly and accurately identifying and disseminating useful employee driven
innovation through statistical analysis” is “‘necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks’” similar to claims DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F. 3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appellant’s reliance on DDR Holdings is unavailing because claim 1 neither
recites nor addresses a problem unique to the Internet. See Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

13
2015) (“The patent at issue in DDR provided an Internet-based solution to
solve a problem unique to the Internet that (1) did not foreclose other ways
of solving the problem, and (2) recited a specific series of steps that resulted
in a departure from the routine and conventional sequence of events after the
click of a hyperlink advertisement. The patent claims here do not address
problems unique to the Internet, so DDR has no applicability.”)
Appellant’s reliance on Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is similarly misplaced. Reply Br. 6–7.
There, an inventive concept was found in the unique distributed architecture
that allowed the system to collect network usage information in a way that
enabled load distribution and minimized impact on the network. Id. at 1303.
The claims in Amdocs recited distributed filtering and aggregation that
eliminated system capacity bottlenecks by allowing granular data to reside in
the system peripheries close to the information sources. Id. This distributed
architecture avoided or reduced network congestion and bottlenecks while
allowing data to be accessed from a central location. Id. Gatherers provided
distributed filtering and aggregation that improved scalability and system
efficiency by reducing a volume of data sent to a central event manager. Id.
In contrast to Amdocs’ innovative network architecture and distributed
processing function, the focus of claim 1 is not on improving any technology
but on using a generic computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Claim 1 only recites
“a personal network of the employee” but no distributed network processing
is claimed, and no improvement is made to network load distribution. See
Tenstreet, LLC v. DriverReach, LLC, 826 F. App’x 925, (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

14
advantageous over the previous method. Even if the ’575 patent provides
advantages over manual collection of data, the patent claims no
technological improvement beyond the use of a generic computer
network.”); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278, 1279 (“The computer required by
some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the
performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose
meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”; “Using a computer to
accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-
eligible.”).
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 lacks an inventive concept to
transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. We therefore
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter and claims 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, and 19–23, which fall
therewith.
35 U.S.C. § 103
We are persuaded that Pucher, on which the Examiner relies, fails to
disclose the limitation “calculating statistics with respect to the challenge
derived from of an analysis of actions performed with respect to the
challenge, over a selected time period.” Appeal Br. 14.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states that “the
analysis of actions are just data analysis and comparison as per the
issue/problem (which is just information) and then ‘statistics’ is preformed
(math) using the information. Nothing more about the statistics is discussed
and the field of statistics is very broad.” Ans. 14.
A rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 clearly must rest on a factual
basis. The Examiner has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for
Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

15
the rejection and may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis. In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Although the language of the
claim broadly recites the term statistics, the claimed statistics are calculated
based on the challenge derived from an analysis of actions performed with
respect to the challenge over a selected period of time, and those derived
statistics are applied to rules in a policy and trending activity is identified
based on those results. The difficulty with the Examiner’s rejection is that it
fails to account for all the terms in the disputed claim limitations. As our
reviewing court has emphasized, “[c]laims must be ‘interpreted with an eye
toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.’” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v.
Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting
Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 9 and 17, which are rejected based on the same
reasoning. See Final Act. 15. We also do not sustain the rejection of the
dependent claims. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious”).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

Appeal 2020-005902
Application 15/054,679

16
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9,
11–15, 17,
19–23
101 Eligibility 1, 3–7, 9,
11–15, 17,
19–23

1, 3–7, 9,
11–15, 17,
19–23
103 Moisa, Pucher 1, 3–7, 9,
11–15, 17,
19–23
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9,
11–15, 17,
19–23

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