Andrew J. KalotayDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 4, 201914317812 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/317,812 06/27/2014 Andrew J. Kalotay 1033487-000005 1047 21839 7590 09/04/2019 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC POST OFFICE BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404 EXAMINER TROTTER, SCOTT S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte ANDREW J. KALOTAY __________ Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,8121 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEBORAH KATZ, and RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a computer-implemented method of, system for, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium with program instructions to cause a computing device to perform operations for calculating the after-tax value of a municipal debt instrument, which have been rejected as containing subject matter that was not described in the Specification and as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant is Andrew Kalotay Associates, Inc. which identifies itself as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims on appeal are concerned with valuation of a municipal debt instrument, such as a bond, for optimal management of that instrument. (Spec. 1–2.) Claims 1–38 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method of calculating the after-tax value of a municipal debt instrument, comprising: receiving, by a computing system including a processor and a data storage medium, terms, yield curve and interest rate volatility data for at least one municipal debt offering; receiving, by the computing system, IRS treatment data and applicable tax rates for the at least one municipal debt offering and a purchaser of the at least one municipal debt offering; calculating, by the computing system, a theoretical tax- neutral value of the at least one municipal debt offering using a buy-and-hold methodology, wherein the tax-neutral value comprises the price of the at least one municipal debt offering such that its discounted after-tax value equals the price; calculating, by the computing system, a theoretical maximum after-tax value of the at least one municipal debt offering using a recursive valuation path dependent methodology; determining, by the computing system, optimal management of the at least one municipal debt offering using the calculated theoretical tax-neutral value and maximum after- tax value of the at least one municipal debt offering; and implementing, by the computing system, the determined optimal management of the at least one municipal debt offering. (Appeal Br. Claims Appendix 1.) Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 3 The following grounds of rejection by the Examiner are before us on review: Claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.2 Claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. DISCUSSION Lack of Written Description The Examiner finds that “implementing, by the computing system, the determined optimal management of the at least one municipal debt offering” is not supported by the Specification. (Non-Final Action 5–6.) The Examiner finds that the Specification describes “the implementation of the calculations” for determining optimal management of the municipal debt offering. (Ans. 8–9; Non-Final Action 5.) However, according to the Examiner the Specification “never talks about implementing it” by a computing system. (Ans. 9; Non-Final Action 5.) Rather, the Specification indicates that “indicators at steps 418, 420, and 422 can be used by investors for optimal management of the municipal debt instrument” such as by the investors ordering appropriate trades. (Ans. 9) We agree with the Examiner’s determination. “In order to satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure as originally filed does not have to provide in haec verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. 2 The rejections appealed from are set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 4, 2017. Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 4 Cir. 2000). Nonetheless, the disclosure must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the inventor was in possession of the invention. See id. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification is devoid of any mention or suggestion of the computer system implementing the determined optimal management. The computer system is described as determining optimal management. (See, e.g., Spec. 3, 5, 17.) What constitutes optimal management is described. (Spec. 17.) In particular it is stated: optimal management 216 can include determining risk measure 218, estimating future prices 220, identifying when to sell at a loss 222, calculating a theoretical maximum price 224, and/or calculating net asset value 226. In some embodiments, the optimal management 216 may also include identifying for a taxable issuer when to buy back bonds at a premium to book value on the secondary market, such that the issuer can realize a tax benefit by paying a higher price than the par or cost to the issuer of the bond if held to maturity. (Id.) The Specification also sets forth methods of using the computer system to determine optimal management. (Spec. 18–19, 20–25.) But nowhere does the Specification address or intimate that the computer system implements optimal management. The only discussion as to implementation of the optimal management that has been determined is a single statement in the section of the Specification directed to “Method for Determining Optimal Debt Management of a Municipal Debt Instrument” as follows: Depending on the path chosen for the optimal management, the option adjusted spread engine at step 412 calculates/determines: (a) the maximum after-tax value of the municipal debt offering, at step 418; (b) the ‘tax option’ value, at step 420; and (c) whether to sell the municipal debt offering and take a loss, at step 422. The indicators at steps 418, 420 and 422 can be used Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 5 by investors for optimal management of the municipal debt instrument. (Spec. 18–19.) It is clear from the foregoing that implementation of the determined optimal management contemplated by the Specification is implementation by a human, not a computer system. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–38 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Patent Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant does not argue the claims separately with particularity. Instead, Appellant relies on the same arguments for all claims. (See Br. 11– 13.) We select claim 1 as representative for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that “the claims are essentially directed to the concept of calculating the after-tax value of a municipal debt instrument” with a general purpose computer system, which is within the scope of a fundamental economic activity and is patent ineligible subject matter. (Non- Final 6; see also Ans. 9 (noting that claim concern “a pure analysis tool” not “a financial management system making trades”).) The Examiner explains that “the claims implement a method, using a client device, a general purpose computer and/or a computer system, to accomplish a plurality of process steps to practice the abstract idea.” (Non-Final 8.) The Examiner further notes that the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, all that the claims recite are carrying out via a computer the calculation of the after-tax value of the municipal debt instrument. (Id.) The Examiner notes that the claim limitations when considered in combination Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 6 do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the client device, general purpose computer, and/or computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; Contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); the claims do not add limitations beyond that which are well understood, routine and conventional in the field of practice; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea). (Id. at 9.) Appellant does not dispute that the claims “recite the receipt of several different types of data, the valuation of municipal debt instruments as a result of that data, the determination of an optimal management of debt offerings based on the valuation.” (Appeal Br. 9.) Appellant contends, however, that the claim recites implementation of the optimal management. (Id.) Appellant argues that “implementation of the determined optimal management of the at least one municipal debt offering, particularly when taken in combination with the other recitations, is significantly more than ‘calculating the after-tax value of a municipal debt instrument.’” Id. at 10. Also according to Appellant, the claim as a whole, which includes implementation of the optimal management, “capture[s] a technological Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 7 improvement” in “provid[ing] for automation of tasks that may otherwise need to be performed manually using difficult and time consuming processes” and “provides for significant improvements in processing speed and efficiency.” (Id. at 9–10.) ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 101 defines patent eligible subject matter. The Supreme Court has carved out exceptions to what would otherwise appear to be within the literal scope of § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). One of these exceptions are claims “directed to” an abstract idea. Id. at 217. This appeal involves the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility under section 101. The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for “distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. “First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, “we consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”), indicating how the PTO would analyze patent eligibility under the Supreme Court’s two-step framework. 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (January 7, 2019). Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 8 Applying the Guidance, we agree with the Examiner that the pending claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. STEP 2A, Prong One: Under the Guidance, in determining what concept a claim is “directed to” in step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, such as certain methods of organizing human activity, including a) fundamental economic principles or practices such as mitigating risk and/or b) mathematical concepts (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54 (Step 2A, Prong One). The preamble of claim 1 recites that the method is a method of calculating the after-tax value of a municipal debt instrument. However, it would appear that the claim encompasses more than that. Indeed, the final two steps of the method are determining optimal management of the debt offering “using the calculated theoretical tax-neutral value and maximum after-tax value of the at least one municipal debt offering” and “implementing, by the computing system, the determined optimal management of the at least one municipal debt offering.” The Specification indicates that the purpose of the method is valuation and risk analysis for optimal management of the debt instrument. (See Spec. 2–3.) To effect the risk analysis, the claims require that the computing system receive specific inputs such as yield curve, interest rate volatility data, and terms so as to then calculate theoretical tax-neutral values and theoretical maximum after-tax values. The calculations are made using known methodologies (tax neutral using a “buy-and-hold methodology;” Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 9 after-value using a “recursive valuation dependent methodology”). (See Spec. 4, 13–14.) Thus, we conclude that the claim recites abstract ideas, i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices and mathematical concepts. STEP 2A, Prong Two: Having made the determination that claim 1 recites abstract ideas, under the Guidance, we next examine whether there are additional elements beyond the calculations and economic practices that integrate those judicial exceptions into a practical application. Under the Guidance, this is referred to as the “Prong Two” inquiry under “Step 2A.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. That is, under the Prong Two analysis we look to whether the claim as a whole “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.” Id. We find that the receiving steps are not part of the abstract idea. However, these steps concern the computer receiving data in order to be able to perform the calculating steps. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Such data gathering is a classic example of 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). The calculating steps are, as noted above, abstract ideas. Moreover the determining step is the valuation and risk analysis for optimal management, which is an abstract fundamental economic principle. Appellant argues that “implementing, by the computing system, the determined optimal management of the at least one municipal debt offering” is a practical application. (Appeal Br. 10.) We disagree. Even if we were to agree with the Appellant that the Specification adequately describes the computing system implementing optimal management of the municipal debt Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 10 offering, which we do not for the reasons discusses above, the implementing step by the computer system (which may include the computer selling the debt offering (see, e.g., Spec. 17)) is the action which results in risk mitigation. Whether performed by a person or the computer, it is a fundamental economic practice. Thus, there are not additional elements that integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. In short, the claim steps simply describe the abstract idea. The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter “requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). The method requires the use of a computing system, but this element is recited at a high level of abstraction and is thus determined to be the use of a generic computing component to perform the abstract ideas of calculating, determining, and implementing. In other words, the computer is being used as a tool to perform all aspects of the steps in risk management that the investment manager previously undertook. Simply adding generic hardware and computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (One of the “examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application” is when “[a]n additional element . . . merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.”). Appellant’s argument that “the device used in the claims” is “technologically improved and made more efficient” because the device performs valuation, determination of optimal management, and Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 11 implementation” rather than only one of the three functions (Reply Br. 3) is not persuasive. The Specification does not describe the claimed method as requiring any unconventional computer functionality, nor does the Specification describe any unconventional computer hardware or software as being needed for the claimed method. (See, e.g., Spec. 14 (“The system 100 can include a computing system 102 that includes a processing server 104, that includes a processor, and a data storage medium 106. . . . Stored in the storage medium 106 are the various programs run on the system 100 by the processor, as well as a data store.”); id. at 15 (“The storage medium 106 may include any type of suitable computer readable media. . . [and] may be configured in any type of suitable database configuration.”); id. at 17–18 (stating in regard to the method for calculating a tax-neutral value of a municipal debt instrument that “[t]he data 302, 304, 306 is passed to calculating device(s), such as an option-adjusted spread valuation engine incorporating tax treatment logic, at step 308,”; for determining optimal debt management that “[t]he data 402, 404, 406 is passed to calculating device(s), such as an option-adjusted spread valuation engine incorporating tax treatment logic, at step 408”; and for determining risk measures “The data 502, 504, 506 is passed to calculating device(s), such as an option-adjusted spread valuation engine incorporating tax treatment logic, at step 508”); id. at 26–29 (describing computer system architecture generically and noting that programmable logic “may execute on a commercially available processing platform or a special purpose device” and “that embodiments of the disclosed subject matter can be practiced with various computer system configurations”)). Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 12 Despite Appellant’s argument that the “claim recitations, when viewed as a whole, capture a technological improvement,” Appellant has not shown the claim includes additional elements that improve the underlying computer, or other technology. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.”); cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, No. 2017-2257, 2019 WL 1716242, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trade faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”). Here, the described improvement is optimizing management of at least one municipal debt. To solve this problem, the claim recites that the computer system uses collected data to make calculations upon which the optimum management is based. The optimal management can include determining risk measure 218, estimating future prices 220, identifying when to sell at a loss 222, calculating a theoretical maximum price 224, and/or calculating net asset value 226. In some embodiments, the optimal management 216 may also include identifying for a taxable issuer when to buy back bonds at a premium to book value on the secondary market, such that the issuer can realize a tax benefit by paying a higher price than the par or cost to the issuer of the bond if held to maturity. (Spec. 17.) The computer system “simply performs more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually.” Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “Bancorp’s patents ‘attempt to patent the use of the abstract idea of [managing a stable value protected life insurance policy] and then instruct the use of well-known [calculations] to help establish some of the inputs into Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 13 the equation’” and holding that “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). Thus, this is not a technology-based integration. Cf. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the patent-eligible claim was directed to a self-referential table to improve computer databases). There is simply no functionality directly related to the processor’s structure that is addressed to and resolves a problem in technology. Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is like that found patent eligible in Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 3–4) is not persuasive. In Amdocs, the claim “entail[ed] an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows [that] previously required massive databases)” that “improve[d] the performance of the system itself.” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300, 1302. Appellant’s claim does not improve the performance of the computer system that performs the calculations and allegedly implements the optimal management or the technology of municipal debt valuation. Appellant’s invention is simply the use of a computer to automate complicated calculations and theoretically automate optimal management based on the results of those calculations, i.e., using computers to expedite data processing. (Appeal Br. 9–10.) As our reviewing Court has “explained, ‘[s]imply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.’ Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278. “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 14 amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84). Appellant’s claim recites a concept of fundamental economic practices and calculations to implement that practice, and thus, is directed to an abstract idea. STEP 2B Step 2B requires that we look to whether the claim “adds a specific limitation” beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As discussed above, the only additional element beyond the abstract idea is the use of a generic computing system and data collection. Data gathering for use in mathematical calculations does not suffice to render claims statutory subject matter. See, e.g., In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (1977) (“[N]otwithstanding that the antecedent steps are novel and unobvious, they merely determine values for the variables used in the mathematical formulae used in making the calculations. [They] do not suffice to render the claimed methods, considered as a whole, statutory subject matter.”). Furthermore, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); see also SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that the invocation of such computers for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations amounts to recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional). “An Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 15 inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not established a prima facie basis for asserting that the claim elements are well understood, routine, or conventional (Reply Br. 4–7) is not persuasive. As noted above, the steps recited are the steps in risk management that an investment manager (or sophisticated individual investor) would undertake including the use of a computer to assist in effecting the complicated calculations. (See Spec. 2 (“It is known that active tax management can produce superior performance over a conventional buy-and-hold policy.”).) The tax-neutral value under the buy-and-hold policy is known to be the fair value which “provides the foundation for three applications, namely, risk management, optimum tax management, and pricing” and its determination allows for “rigorously determin[ing] standard risk measures for a bond given its price.” (Spec. 12.) However, as Appellant’s Specification notes: “Astute investors realize that selling a bond at a loss may be preferable to holding it until maturity: the loss can be recognized for tax purposes, and thus reduce taxes.” (Spec. 13.) Thus, such individuals would employ the analytically complex “recursive valuation of path dependent bonds” to determine after-tax value. (Id.) The claimed generic processor operates in its ordinary and conventional capacity to perform the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of receiving, calculating, and determining optimal management based on the analysis. Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 16 Even if it were the case that the recursive valuation path dependent methodology to calculate a theoretical maximum after-tax value were new, such a novel calculation, which itself is an abstract idea, would not provide the necessary inventive concept. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 88–90 (the patent eligibility of an abstract idea does not depend on its alleged novelty or non- obviousness); see also Flook, 437 U.S. at 595–96 (merely reciting a new and presumably better method for calculating an alarm limit as part of a catalytic conversion process with no improvement to the catalytic process itself rendered a claim to such process patent-ineligible); 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.”). Moreover, any “automation” or any increase in processing speed in the claimed method (as compared to without using computers) (Appeal Br. 10) comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components, and not the recited process itself. See Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Servs, 687 F.3d at 1278 (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”)); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F.App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (“Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer ‘[do] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”’). Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of Appellant’s claim 1 is not on an improvement in the computer processor as a tool, but on the abstract idea Appeal 2018-006601 Application 14/317,812 17 of valuation and risk-management that uses generic computing components as tools to perform the abstract idea. See Fair Warning, 839 F.3d at 1095. The combination of elements recited in the method of claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the claimed method is ineligible for patenting. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. We affirm the rejection of claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation