Definiens AGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 13, 20212021000719 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation