Daoud, Wisam G. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2019005289 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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.
12/945,596 11/12/2010 Wisam G. Daoud 2043.836US1/337732 8117
150601 7590 02/02/2021
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(eBay Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd.
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
KIM, CHRISTY Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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):
shbdocketing@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WISAM G. DAOUD, SARIKA KRISHNAN, and RISHIKESH
TEMBE
____________________

Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27 through 38.
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). According to Appellant, eBay Inc. is the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method for identifying a user’s reputation
based upon feedback, which includes steps to remove malicious feedback.
See Spec. ¶¶1, 22, and 41. Claim 10 is reproduced below.
10. A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a networked system, feedback data about a
user of a website, the feedback data submitted to the website by
other users of the website;
tracking, at the networked system, transaction data and
metadata associated with the feedback data;
generating an aggregated dataset by aggregating the
feedback data, the transaction data, and the metadata;
removing a negative subset of the feedback data that
were submitted to the website by another user based on
determining content listings submitted to the website by the
user and the another user are in a same category on the website;
generating, by a processor, a reputation value for the user
from the aggregated dataset, the reputation value indicating a
trustworthiness of the user on the website, the user indicated as
trustworthy on the website based on the generated reputation
value satisfying a predetermined threshold, the reputation value
being generated from the aggregated dataset excluding negative
subset of feedback data about the user submitted by the another
user;
receiving, from an external networked system, a request
for the reputation value of the user; and
responsive to the request, transmitting the reputation
value of the user to the external networked system.

Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

3
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 27
through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter. Final Act 5–6.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 27
through 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, as failing to comply with
the written description requirement. Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 15, 19 and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hulten (US 2009/0187988 A1, published July 23,
2009). Final Act 6–10.
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 21, 22, 34, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hulten and Goldstein (Writing SQL
Queries: Let’s Start with the Basics). Final Act 10–12.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hulten and Harding (US 2005/0144052 A1, published
June 30, 2005). Final Act 12–13.
The Examiner rejected claims 27, 30, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hulten, Goldstein, and Wu (US 2008/0301112 A1,
published Dec. 4, 2008). Final Act 14.
The Examiner rejected claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 37 and 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hulten, Goldstein and Tenorio (US
2002/0174022 A1, published Nov. 21, 2002). Final Act 14–15.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 4,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed July 1, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed June 14, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed May 1, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

4

Patent Eligibility Rejection
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101.3 The USPTO
current eligibility guidance is found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure
(MPEP), and particularly within Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c).
“Because the MPEP now incorporates the 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), October 2019 Patent Eligibility
Guidance Update (October 2019 Update), and the Berkheimer Memo,4 all
references to those materials should now be directed to the MPEP.” See
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-
policy/subject-matter-eligibility (emphasis added).
All references to the MPEP throughout this Decision are to the Ninth
Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise
indicated.

3 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). In response to received public
comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019,
clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at
1.
4 Referring to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d. 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2018).

Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

5

Under MPEP § 2106, 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 (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5

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 are 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 MPEP § 2106.05(d)).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 10, 19, and 33, and the
claims which depend upon them, as reciting concepts involving a mental
process of collecting data and analyzing data, which are similar to those
found abstract by the courts. Final Act. 5, Answer 4–5, (citing Elec. Power

5 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application 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.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II.
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

6
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Answer 9. Further, the Examiner identifies that the claims do not integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application as they do not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the invention but rather are merely
implementing the exception on a computer. Final Act. 5–6, Answer 5–6, 9–
10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner merely asserts that claims are
directed to an abstract idea, by citing to Elec. Power Grp, and Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., but does not analyze the claims or
explain why the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 20–21,
26–27, Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant asserts the claims are different from those
at issue in Elec. Power Grp as they:
recite a specific tool for achieving the technical website solution
for management of malicious online review: “removing a
negative subset of the feedback data that were submitted to the
website by another user based on determining content listings
submitted to the website by the user and the another user are in a
same category on the website.”

Appeal Br. 27. Appellant argues that the claims are directed to a
technological problem of determining the trustworthiness of user feedback
submitted by website users and the Examiner has not properly considered
the invention as an ordered combination of elements. Appeal Br. 21–23
(citing the Berkheimer Memo). Further, Appellant asserts that claims are
similar to those at issue in DDR Holdings, as “the as-filed Specification
discusses a technological problem of malicious use of website reviews and
how to avoid them in a website based approach” and “the claims here also
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

7
capture a technological website-based solution: elimination of malicious
reviews on the basis of the reviewing user and the reviewed user selling the
same products on the website.” Appeal Br. 23–25 (citing DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Spec.
¶ 41). Finally, Appellant argues that the claims recite significantly more
than the abstract idea and that the Examiner did not provide an explanation,
as prescribed by BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Berkheimer. Appeal Br. 29–30.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant’s
arguments. Answer 3–12. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response,
concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. We add the following analysis responding to Appellant’s
arguments as they apply to the revised guidance on the application of § 101.

The Judicial Exception
We concur with the Examiner that the claims recite a concept of
gathering data and analyzing the data, i.e., mental processes, which is similar
to the idea held to be abstract in Electric Power Group. The claims at issue
in Electric Power Group recited several steps of receiving data from various
sources, detecting and analyzing the data, and displaying certain data. Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52.
In this case, representative claim 10 recites receiving feedback data
about a user of a website (a step of gathering data); tracking transaction data
and metadata associated with the feedback data (a step of gathering data);
generating an aggregated data set by aggregating the feedback data,
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

8
transaction data and metadata, and removing a negative subset of feedback
data (steps of analyzing and grouping the collected data); generating a
reputation value for the user from the aggregated data set (a step of
analyzing the gathered data); receiving a request for the reputation value (a
step of gathering data); and a step of transmitting the reputation value (a step
of presenting the data).
These steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and
paper, as they are merely gathering data, analyzing the data, and displaying
the results of the data. That some of the data is gathered from websites or
represents feedback does not make the method any less abstract. Our
reviewing court has said “we have treated collecting information, including
when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as
information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Grp., 830
F.3d at. at 1353. Similarly, that the results of the analysis results in a
reputation value, that indicates the trustworthiness of a user not make the
claim patent eligible. “[A] purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assists [users] in processing information more quickly” does
not confer patent-eligibility. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 954 (2020).
Thus, we do not consider the Examiner to have erred in determining
that claims recite an abstract concept and we agree with the Examiner that
the claims recite an abstract concept (a mental process) similar to that at
issue in Electric Power Group. See also Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v.
Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding claims to
collecting and comparing known information determined to be steps that can
be practically performed in the human mind); In re TLI Communications 823
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

9
F.3d 607, 613 (Fed Cir 2016) (finding the claims to classifying and storing
digital images as reciting an abstract idea); Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is
undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these
functions.”). Thus, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
claims to recite an abstract idea.

Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Appellant’s arguments, that claims address a technological problem of
determining the trustworthiness of user feedback, have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in determining the claims do not recite a practical
application of the abstract concept. Appeal Br. 21–23, Reply Br 4–6.
As discussed above, representative claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner finds, and we concur, that the claimed use of a network
system and processor amount to no more than instructions to apply the
exception using generic computer components and do not improve the
functioning of the computer or any other technology. Final Act. 5. Answer
5, 9–10.
Appellant’s Specification does not identify that the abstract concept
improves the operation of a machine. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the “improvement is to internet feedback systems” is an
improvement to a technology. Appellant’s Specification identifies feedback
systems are to determine trustworthiness and reputation of a user and that
“[t]he ability to ascertain these and other reputational qualities of a party to a
transaction is one hurdle to overcome for improving transaction
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

10
experiences.” Specification ¶¶ 2, 11. Thus, Appellant’s Specification
identifies that the improvement is to provided information, and demonstrates
that the improvement is to the abstract idea of gathering, analyzing, and
displaying information, and not an improvement in technology.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that claims
recite an improvement to a technology similar to claims in DDR Holdings.
We do not consider the collection of feedback and removing malicious
reviews to be a technological improvement as was the case in DDR
Holdings. In DDR Holdings, the claimed invention created a hybrid web
page that combined advantageous elements from two web pages, bypassing
the expected manner of sending a visitor to another party’s web page, in
order to solve the internet-centric problem of retaining website visitors.
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–59. Here, as discussed above
representative claim 10 recites steps which involve collecting data,
analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.
While the claims recite that the feedback data is collected from the websites,
we do not consider the concept of receiving negative or malicious feedback
to be an internet or computer centric issue, rather negative or malicious
feedback can come from non-internet or computer activities. As such
Appellant’s arguments citing DDR Holdings have not persuaded us that the
claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Further, we are not persuaded that the claims recite a specific tool for
management of malicious data as argued by Appellant. Appeal Br. 27. We
consider the claimed step of removing the malicious feedback data “based
upon determining content listing submitted to the website by the user and the
other user are in the same category” to be part of the abstract concept as it is
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

11
merely identifying the algorithm by which the data is analyzed and could be
performed in the mind.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding
the claims do not recite a practical application of the claimed invention.

Significantly More than the Abstract Idea
If a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we then look to whether the claim
adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-
understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or,
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception.
The Examiner has found the additional elements of network system,
processors, and memory are generic computer component performing their
generic functions. Answer 8. We concur with the Examiner’s finding.
Appellant’s Specification describes the additional limitations of a network
system, processors, memory as generic devices and does not limit the
invention to any one type. Spec. paras. 50–51. As such we consider the
recitation of a network system, processor, the limitations in addition to the
abstract concept in representative claim 10, to be reciting well-understood,
routine, conventional items. See also Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice
Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that
components such an “interface,” “network,” and “database” are generic
computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement)
and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed.
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

12
Cir. 2016) (“As we have explained, the use of generic computer elements
like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”) (citing DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, we
note that steps of gathering data using a web page, sorting of information
and eliminating data are similar to concepts that have been considered well
understood, routine conventional activities by the courts. See MPEP
2105.05(d)II (iv)&(vi). As such we don’t find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the additional elements represent well understood, routine
conventional activities, as required by the Berkheimer Memo. Accordingly,
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred considering the
claims to not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.

In summary, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s determination that representative claim 10 recites an abstract
idea in the form of a mental process. Further, Appellant’s arguments have
not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the claim is not
directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to other
technology or other technical field; directed to a particular machine; directed
to performing or affecting a transformation of an article to a different state or
thing; or directed to using a judicial exception in some meaningful way
beyond linking the exception to a particular technological environment, such
that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the
judicial exception.
For these reasons, we are unpersuaded that the claims recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

13
do the claims add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is
not “well-understood, routine, conventional.” See 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 10, and claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27
through 38 grouped with claim 10, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, that is not integrated into a practical
application, and does not include an inventive concept.

Rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 27
through 38 as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act 4–5. Specifically, the Examiner finds the limitation of “removing
a negative subset of the feedback data that were submitted to the website by
another user based on determining content listings submitted to the website
by the user and the another user are in a same category on the website” of
independent claim 10, and similarly recited in independent claims 19 and 33,
lacks written description support. Final Act 4. The Examiner states “the
specification does not equate ‘removing’ the negative subset based on the
two users having content listings ‘in the same category’.” Final Act 4,
Answer 12. Further, the Examiner states that the Specification discusses the
reputation module disregarding maliciously filed claims “which cannot be
reasonably interpreted to equate the claimed step of ‘removing a negative
subset...’”. Answer 12.
Appellant argues that the Specification supports the limitation directed
to removing a subset of malicious feedback citing, Figure 4, paragraph 41 in
addition to other sections of the Specification. Appeal Br. 32.
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

14
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph. The written
description requirement serves “to ensure that the inventor had possession,
as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter
later claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not
material.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262 (CCPA 1976). In order to
meet the written description requirement, Appellant does not have to utilize
any particular form of disclosure to describe the subject matter claimed, but
“the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d
1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way, “the applicant must . . .
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).
Finally, “[p]recisely how close the original description must come to comply
with the description requirement of § 112 must be determined on a case by
case basis.” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(quoting Vas Cath, 935 F.2d at 1561).
We have reviewed Appellant’s Specification and concur with
Appellant that the Specification demonstrates that Appellant had possession
of the limitation directed to removing a negative subset feedback data.
Appellant’s Specification in paragraph in paragraph 41 teaches determining
if a claim is malicious by determining whether parties are competitors and
also discusses disregarding maliciously filed claims. Paragraph 42 of
Appellant’s Specification identifies that a similar adjustment may be
implemented for negative feedback. Thus, we consider the Specification to
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

15
demonstrate possession of removing, disregarding, malicious feedback.
Further, while paragraph 41 identifies that the users are competitions, and
does not users the in the same category, we consider it to be implicit that
they are in the same category of sellers (see e.g. para. 26 which discusses
“power sellers” as being a category of users). Thus, we consider Appellant’s
Specification to demonstrate possession of the disputed limitation in each of
the independent claims and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 27 through 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.

Anticipation Rejection.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s anticipation rejection is in error as
Hulten does not teach the limitation directed to removing a negative subset
of feedback data recited in each of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 33–
35.
With regard to this disputed limitation, the Examiner states:
disregarding maliciously filed claims is taught by Hulten [0023
lines 7-9: the number of complaints the user has received from
other network users is used in the calculation of the reputation
score; 0029: the reputation server may adjust the user's reputation
score based on requested proof provided by the user, proofing
that the user is indeed trustworthy contrary to the feedback data].
Answer 14.
We have reviewed the cited teachings of Hulten, and while we concur
that a complaint is a negative feedback, we do not see that the teachings of
Hulten teach removing the negative feedback as claimed. The discussion of
adjusting the reputation score based upon proof, discussed in paragraph 29
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

16
of Hulten, does not disclose removing the feedback as claimed.
Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown Hulten to disclose
all of the elements of each of independent claims 10, 19 and 33, and we do
not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 10, 15, 19 and 33.

Obviousness Rejection.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 12, 13,
16, 21, 22, 24 27 through 32, and 34 through 38, rely upon the disclosure of
Hulten to teach the limitation of the independent claims 10, 19 and 33, from
which these claims depend. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections for the same reasons discussed with respect to the
anticipation rejection of independent claims 10, 19 and 33.

CONCLUSION
Appeal 2019-005289
Application 12/945,596

17
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10, 12, 13,
15, 16, 19,
21, 22, 24,
27–38
101 Eligibility 10, 12, 13,
15, 16, 19,
21, 22, 24,
27–38

10, 12, 13,
15, 16, 19,
21, 22, 24,
27–38
112 written description 10, 12, 13,
15, 16, 19,
21, 22, 24,
27–38
10, 15, 19,
33
102 Hulten 10, 15, 19,
33
12, 13, 21,
22, 34, 35
103 Hulten, Goldstein 12, 13, 21,
22, 34, 35
16, 24 103 Hulten and Harding 16, 24
27, 30, 36 103 Hulten, Goldstein,
Wu
27, 30, 36
28, 29, 31,
32, 37 38
103 Hulten, Goldstein,
Tenorio
28, 29, 31,
32, 37 38
Overall
Outcome
10, 12, 13,
15, 16, 19,
21, 22, 24,
27–38

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) (2018).
AFFIRMED