Definiens AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2021000719 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 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.
15/443,672 02/27/2017 Guenter Schmidt DEF-019-1C 1012
47713 7590 12/13/2021
IMPERIUM PATENT WORKS
P.O. BOX 607
Pleasanton, CA 94566
EXAMINER
LEE, ANDREW ELDRIDGE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUENTER SCHMIDT, ARNO SCHAEPE,
THOMAS HEYDLER, MARKUS RINECKER, and GERD BINNIG

Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 25–29 and 31–48.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Definiens GmbH as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “a system for assisting a
physician to arrive at a patient diagnosis, to determine the optimal sequence
of clinical actions from diagnosis to therapy, and to provide hints on
alternative diagnostic or therapeutic measures.” Spec. para. 2.
Claim 25, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
25. A method comprising:
determining a cancer diagnosis for a cancer patient
having a lesion;
determining potential therapies that could be applied to
the cancer patient based on the cancer diagnosis;
measuring a characteristic of the lesion by performing
image analysis to segment and classify objects in a digital image
of tissue from the cancer patient, wherein the characteristic of
the lesion is taken from the group consisting of: a shape of the
lesion, a density of the lesion, a texture of the lesion, a
compactness of the lesion, a spiculation of the lesion, a
homogeneity of the lesion, and a membrane-to-cytoplasm
staining intensity ratio of the lesion;
comparing the characteristic of the lesion from the cancer
patient to that characteristic of lesions detected by performing
the image analysis to segment and classify objects in digital
images of tissue from other patients with the cancer diagnosis
and who have undergone one of the potential therapies;
identifying for each of the potential therapies a most
similar patient to the cancer patient from among the other
patients based on the comparing of the characteristic of the
lesions of the cancer patient and the other patients;
calculating for each of the potential therapies a success
value for the cancer patient based on an outcome of the potential
therapy undergone by the most similar patient for that potential
therapy, wherein the success value indicates a probability that
each of the potential therapies will be successful if applied to the
cancer patient; and
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

3
indicating on a graphical user interface the potential
therapy whose success value is greatest for the cancer patient.
Appeal Br. 30–31, Claims App’x.
THE REJECTION
Claims 25–29 and 31–48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more.
OPINION
The rejection of claims 25–29 and 31–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more.2
The Appellant argues claims 25–29 and 31–48 as a group. See Appeal
Br. 8–11. We select claim 25 as the representative claim for this group, and
the remaining claims 26–29 and 31–48 stand or fall with claim 25. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever 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.”

2 The Examiner correctly notes that we rendered a decision on patent-
eligibility in the parent application (13/417,268). Ans. 3; see Appeal 2015-
004360 (mailed Feb. 10, 2017). Thus, that prior appeal is related to this one,
as the Appellant has indicated. See Appeal Br. 1. However, Appellant argues
that the claims before us here are very different from those in the prior
appeal. Reply Br. 5–6. We agree. Accordingly, we did not consult the prior
decision.
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

4
In that regard, claim 25 covers a “process” and is thus statutory
subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.3 This is not in dispute.
However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “contains an important
implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
In that regard, notwithstanding claim 25 covers statutory subject
matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground
that claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Alice step one — the “directed to” inquiry:
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S.
at 218 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determined that claim 25 is directed to, inter alia,
“indicating a potential therapy for a patient” (Final Act. 2), which falls into
the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance’s organizing human activity grouping of
abstract ideas. Id. at 4. “That is, other than reciting a GUI (display), the

3 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, which requires determining whether “the claim is to a
statutory category.” 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised 101
Guidance”). See also id. at 53–54 (“consider[] whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. 101”).
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

5
claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction
between people.” Id. at 4–5.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the claimed subject matter is not
directed to an abstract idea but to a technological improvement. See, e.g.,
Appeal Br. 10 (“Here, the use of image analysis to measure, classify and
compare specific characteristics of cancer lesions in different cancer patients
in order to identify the most successful therapies for a specific patient is an
improvement in the technology for providing personalized cancer
therapies.”).
Accordingly, a dispute over whether claim 25 is directed to an abstract
idea is present. Specifically, is claim 25 directed to “indicating a potential
therapy for a patient” (Final Act. 2) or a technological improvement?

Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

6
Claim Analysis4
We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable
construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the Specification at the time of filing.5,6,7
Claim 25 is a process comprising “determining,” “determining,”
“measuring . . . by performing image analysis,” “comparing,” “identifying,”
“calculating,” and “indicating” steps.
The first step calls for “determining” a first type of information; that
is, “a cancer diagnosis for a cancer patient having a lesion.” This step is
unconnected to any device and thus covers manual examinations.
The second step calls for determining a second type of information;
that is, “potential therapies that could be applied to the cancer patient based

4 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
5 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).
6 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the
claims. . . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations,
it is important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), among others).
7 See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .” (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

7
on the” first type of information. This step is also unconnected to any device
and thus covers mental guesswork based on said manual examinations.
The third step calls for “measuring a characteristic of the lesion.”
“[T]he characteristic of the lesion is taken from the group consisting of: a
shape of the lesion, a density of the lesion, a texture of the lesion, a
compactness of the lesion, a spiculation of the lesion, a homogeneity of the
lesion, and a membrane-to-cytoplasm staining intensity ratio of the lesion.”
This step is accomplished by “performing image analysis to segment and
classify objects in a digital image of tissue from the cancer patient.”
As the Specification explains, the digital image the third step calls for
can be obtained via conventional means, e.g., via a mammogram. See Spec.
para. 20 and Fig. 4. The step does not further detail to any technical degree
how one should then analyze said conventional image so as “to segment and
classify objects in [said] digital image.” Since, for instance, no particular
device is recited for performing said analysis, the step is reasonably broadly
construed to cover looking at the image on a screen and mentally
segmenting and classifying objects in the image.
The next “comparing” step calls for comparing the characteristic of
the lesion obtained via said “performing image analysis” to that
characteristic in lesions in cancer patients who have undergone a potential
therapy also obtained by “performing the image analysis to segment and
classify objects in digital images.” Since, again, for instance, no particular
device is recited for performing the additional analysis, the step is
reasonably broadly construed to cover looking at the image for a cancer
patient who has undergone a potential therapy on a screen and mentally
segmenting and classifying objects in said image and comparing the result to
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

8
that of the analysis of the image for the cancer patient. Here, as with the
other steps, the “comparing” is not tied to any device and could be
performed wholly mentally.
The next step is “identifying for each of the potential therapies a most
similar patient to the cancer patient from among the other patients based on
the comparing of the characteristic of the lesions of the cancer patient and
the other patients.” This, too, is not tied to any device and could be
performed mentally.
The “calculating” step is also not tied to any device and could be
performed mentally.
Finally, the last step of the claimed method requires “indicating on a
graphical user interface the potential therapy whose success value is greatest
for the cancer patient.” This step is so broadly worded that it could be met
by a hand-written note posted on a computer display. Be that as it may,
using a graphical user interface to communicate information is ubiquitous.
Putting it together, the claimed subject matter is reasonably broadly
construed as a scheme for determining the most successful potential therapy
for a cancer patient by comparing the cancer patient’s lesion characteristics
to that of cancer patients who have undergone a potential therapy.
According to the Specification, an objective of the invention is to
provide “to determine the optimal sequence of clinical actions from
diagnosis to therapy, and to provide hints on alternative diagnostic or
therapeutic measures.” Spec. para. 2.
Given the method as claimed as reasonably broadly construed above
and in light of the Specification’s description of the objective of the
invention in the clinical information realm, we reasonably broadly construe
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

9
claim 25 as being directed to a scheme for determining the most successful
potential therapy for a cancer patient by comparing the cancer patient’s
lesion characteristics to that of cancer patients who have undergone a
potential therapy.

The Abstract Idea8
Above, where we reproduce claim 25, we identify in italics the
limitations that recite an abstract idea.9 Based on our claim construction
analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations describe a
scheme for determining the most successful potential therapy for a cancer
patient by comparing the cancer patient’s lesion characteristics to that of
cancer patients who have undergone a potential therapy. User verification in
a transaction environment is a commercial interaction. This involves
managing interactions between people and thus falls within the enumerated
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas
set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.10 2019 Revised 101 Guidance,

8 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A
determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an
abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
9 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong
One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim
under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner
believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
10 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the
[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

10
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Because, as we have explained, all the steps but for
possibly “indicating on a graphical user interface” could be performed
mentally, the scheme also implicates the Guidance’s “Mental processes”
grouping of abstract ideas.
Technical Improvement11 (Appellant’s Argument)
Our characterization of what the claim is directed to is similar to the
Examiner’s (“indicating a potential therapy for a patient” (Final Act. 2)).
The Examiner’s characterization is described at a somewhat higher level of
abstraction. Nevertheless, “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at
different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229,

subject matter grouping “(b)”: “(b) Certain methods of organizing human
activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including
agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including
social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Id. at 52.
11 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a
Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A
claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will
apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an
additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the
exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects
an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to
other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55.
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

11
1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea
analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.”).
We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or
the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 25 is directed to.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that
• “the recited steps [are] in the particular technological
environment of providing the most successful cancer
therapy to each individual cancer patient, i.e.,
individualized or custom therapy” (Appeal Br. 9);

• “[h]ere, the specific requirements of the recited measuring,
comparing, identifying and calculating must be considered
to determine whether the claims merely automate well-
known techniques or whether they describe an
improvement in technologies and techniques for providing
personalized cancer therapies” (id.); and,

• “[h]ere, the use of image analysis to measure, classify and
compare specific characteristics of cancer lesions in
different cancer patients in order to identify the most
successful therapies for a specific patient is an
improvement in the technology for providing personalized
cancer therapies” (id. at 10 (citing in support CardioNet,
LLC v. lnfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020);
and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016))).
Regarding the steps being in a particular technological environment,
notwithstanding the lack of recited technology in the claim (as we will next
explain), narrowing an abstract idea “to a particular technological
environment” is nevertheless insufficient to save a claim. Alice, 573 U.S. at
223 (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010)).
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

12
Regarding “an improvement in technologies and techniques for
providing personalized cancer therapies,” we do not see any “technology”
recited in the claim. This is so because, as we have explained through our
analysis of the claim (supra), the only means recited is a “graphical user
interface” used for “indicating . . . [a] potential therapy,” which is itself
generic and ubiquitous. The other steps to which Appellant refers (e.g.,
“image analysis”) are not tied to any device and could be performed wholly
mentally. We do not see any technology being improved. There is not any
recited technology of the type at issue in CardioNet (a device for detecting
and reporting the presence of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter in a patient) or
McRO (computer animation).
We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim
analysis, claim 25 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a scheme for
determining the most successful potential therapy for a cancer patient by
comparing the cancer patient’s lesion characteristics to that of cancer
patients who have undergone a potential therapy. We see no specific
asserted improvement in, for example, computer capabilities recited in the
claim. Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in
technology, the claim supports the opposite view — that the objective of the
claimed subject matter is to yield an indication of a “potential therapy whose
success value is greatest for the cancer patient” (claim 25).
The claim provides no additional structural details that would
distinguish any device required to be employed to practice the claimed
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

13
subject matter as claimed, such as the recited “graphical user interface” from
its generic counterpart.12
With respect to the “determining,” “determining,” “measuring,”
“comparing,” “identifying,” “calculating,” and “indicating” functions, the
Specification attributes no special technological meaning to any of these
operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. Even if the
claimed subject matter were to be interpreted as being computer-enabled,
these are common computer processing functions that one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic computers
were capable of performing and would have associated with generic
computers. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the
claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional
activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities
or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, [573 U.S. at 225] (quoting
Mayo [Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 73 (2012)]) . . . . For example, claim 1 recites “sending a first
set of electronic messages over a network to devices,” the
devices being “programmed to communicate,” storing test
results in a “machine-readable medium,” and “using a
computerized system . . . to automatically determine” an
estimated outcome and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of
these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine,
conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.”
Alice, [573 U.S. at 225] (quoting Mayo, [566 U.S. at 73])
(alterations in original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.],

12 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid
of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us
to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the
abstract idea identified by the district court.”).
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

14
765 F.3d [1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer
receives and sends the information over a network—with no
further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Id. at 1363.
We find the Appellant’s contention that the claim presents a
technological improvement unpersuasive as to error in the Examiner’s or our
characterization of what the claim is directed to because the subject matter
as claimed fails to adequately describe it. We are unable to point to any
claim language suggestive of an improvement in technology. An argument
that such an improvement exists is alone insufficient. See generally In re
Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965); In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019
(CCPA 1973); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); and In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance,
we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application.
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments challenging the
Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find
them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the
Examiner’s determination that claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea.

Alice step two — Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?13
Step two is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in

13 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56, “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

15
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).
In that regard, the Examiner determined, inter alia:
The claim recites the additional element of “indicating on
a graphical user interface the potential therapy whose success
value is greatest for the cancer patient”. This step is recited at a
level of generality (i.e., as a general output of data on a display)
and amounts to mere output of data, which is a form of extra-
solution activity.
The claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element
of a GUI (display) to perform the noted steps amounts to no more
than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic
computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception
using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive
concept (“significantly more”).
Final Act. 5–6. We agree.
As we understand it, Appellant argues that the scheme is novel. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 11 (“Performing image analysis to detect these
characteristics as the basis for identifying an optimal therapy is not routine,
conventional or well-understood.”). But an abstract idea that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional is still an abstract idea.
Appellant also argues that “[t]he mere fact that the image analysis
steps can be performed on a computer does not negate their contribution as

exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to
determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the
additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).”
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

16
adding significantly more to the technological environment of cancer
therapies.” Id. But there is no computer recited in claim 25.
Appellant further argues that “improving the treatment for a disease
can also integrate an abstract idea into a practical application so as to
constitute ‘significantly more’ under Alice step two.” Reply Br. 10. But there
is no step in claim 25 for treating a disease and, accordingly, no step of
improving treatment for a disease. The objective of the claimed subject
matter is to yield an indication of a “potential therapy whose success value is
greatest for the cancer patient” (claim 25). What happens after that the claim
does not say.
No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude
that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two
that claim 25 does not include an element or combination of elements
circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to
transform the concept into a patent-eligible application.
We have considered all of the Appellant’s arguments, including those
presented in the Reply Brief, and find them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the
determinations that representative claim 25, and claims 26–29 and 31–48
which stand or fall with claim 25, are directed to an abstract idea and do not
present an “inventive concept,” we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that
they are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially-
excepted from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
656 F. App’x 991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of
LendingTree’s remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to
Appeal 2021-000719
Application 15/443,672

17
an abstract idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they
are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g.,
OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25–29 and 31–48 is
affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25–29, 31–
48
101 Eligibility 25–29,
31–48

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