Ex Parte Adcock et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 6, 2019

14561967 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/561,967 12/05/2014
35811 7590 05/08/2019
IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US)
ONE LIBERTY PLACE
1650 MARKET ST, SUITE 4900
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul D. Adcock
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NGI-l4-l090R3D-D-D-CON2 3322
EXAMINER
FU,HAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2019 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):
pto. phil@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL D. ADCOCK, MICHAEL A. CORMACK,
AMY FARNSTROM, and ROBERT A. HILL1
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative
Patent Judge.
Opinion Concurring filed by JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 12-20. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 The real party of interest is identified as NYSE Group, Inc.
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "[a]n enhanced system
and method for handling, matching and executing a diverse group of limit-
priced orders in an electronic options environment." Abstract.
Claim 12 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
12. A method for efficient storage and retrieval of trading
data in an electronic options trading environment with market
maker participation, comprising:
(a) generating, by a computing system having at least one
processor and at least one memory, each of an order data
structure and a market maker quote data structure in the memory,
the order data structure being separate from the market maker
quote data structure, the order data structure including an order
book for each of a plurality of option series, each order book
storing order data, the market maker quote data structure
configured to include a separate market maker quote book for
each of one or more of the plurality of option series, each market
maker quote book including a respective option series indicator
and configured to include a data table having first predefined
fields for exclusively storing quote data received from one or
more market makers associated with the respective option series
and second predefined fields linked to the first predefined fields
for storing associated market maker information including one or
more lead market maker indications that indicates which of the
received quote data is associated with a respective lead market
maker;
(b )(i) receiving, by an order matching engine of the
computing system, an incoming order having a price, (b )(ii)
retrieving, by the order matching engine of the computing
system, the side of the National Best Bid and Offer (NBBO)
opposite the incoming order, and (b )(iii) determining, by the
order matching engine of the computing system, whether the
incoming order price is equal to or overlaps with the retrieved
side of the NBBO;
( c )(i) searching, by the order matching engine of the
computing system, the market maker quote data structure,
without searching the order data structure, to (a) identify whether
2
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
the incoming order is for an option series that has a
corresponding market maker quote book by determining whether
a corresponding option series indicator exists in the market
maker quote data structure and (b) identify whether the
corresponding market maker quote book includes a lead market
maker indication for a respective lead market maker by searching
the second predefined fields of the data table corresponding to
the identified option series indicator, and ( c )(ii) determining, by
the order matching engine of the computing system, whether the
lead market maker has a quote at the NBBO, said ( c )(i) and ( c )(ii)
being responsive to determining that the incoming order price is
equal to or overlaps with the retrieved side of the NBBO; and
( d) activating, by the order matching engine, a too-
executable order check routine, responsive to determining that
the incoming order is for the option series that has the lead
market maker and the lead market maker has a quote at the
NBBO, which causes the too-executable order check routine to
d(i) compute an allocation percentage for the lead market maker,
( d)(ii) match the incoming order up to the lesser of the total size
of the incoming order and the computed allocation percentage
amount for the lead market maker, when the incoming order is
automatically repriceable, and ( d)(iii) cause the order matching
engine to cancel the incoming order when the incoming order is
not automatically repriceable,
wherein the too-executable order check routine and the
order matching engine each comprise respective programmed
instructions executed by the at least one processor.
App. Br. 24-26 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 11-21.
3
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 12-20
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 12-20 as directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208,216
(2014) ( citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
4
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
5
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( citation omitted). "A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing]
generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
section 101. USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Memorandum"). Under that
guidance, 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); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed., Jan. 2019)).
See Memorandum at 52, 55-56. 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.
6
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
See Memorandum at 56.
Examiner's Findings and Conclusion
Under step one of the Alice test, the Examiner determines that the
claims are directed to a fundamental economic practice, namely "processing
incoming orders for a plurality of options series." Final Act. 11; see also
Final Act. 12 (explaining that "processing orders in electronic options
trading environment with market maker participation was a longstanding and
fundamental economic practice."). The Examiner further determines that the
claimed invention is "an idea of itself' and "is similar to the concept of
'obtaining and comparing intangible data."' Final Act. 13.
The Examiner determines that the claimed invention "[is] not directed
to solving a problem arising in the realm of electronic trading computer
network architectures." Final Act. 14. According to the Examiner, "it is not
apparent how the claimed invention provides benefits of speed and
efficiency to existing data storage and retrieval technology." The Examiner
points out that the Specification indicates that the claimed invention "may be
implemented using any appropriate structure, data storage, or retrieval
methodology" (Final Act. 14 ( emphasis omitted)) and that the claimed
concept is similar to "classifying and storing digital images in an organized
manner," which the Federal Circuit found to be ineligible in In re TL!
Communications, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Final Act. 15.
With respect to step 2 of the Alice test, the Examiner determines that
the claimed invention does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Final Act. 16. The Examiner explains that the additional elements merely
include a processor and memory that perform "receiving, processing and
storing data," "electronic recordkeeping," "automating mental tasks,"
7
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
"performing repetitive calculations," and "receiving or transmitting data
over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data." Final Act. 16-17.
According to the Examiner, these steps "are considered well-understood,
routine, and conventional functions of computer." Final Act. 17. The
Examiner adds that the claimed invention can be performed manually and
that the Specification describes the claimed invention can be performed on a
general purpose computer. Final Act. 17-18.
Appellants' Contentions
Appellants, on the other hand, argue that the claimed invention
improves the functioning of the computer and improves the technical field.
App. Br. 4. For example, Appellants assert "that the separate and distinct
order and market maker quote data structures improve upon prior art data
structures and are patent eligible in view of Enfish. "2 App. Br. 5 ( emphasis
omitted). Appellants also maintain that the claimed invention solves "a
problem arising in the realm of electronic trading computer network
architectures, namely, improving data storage and retrieval efficiency in
automated electronic trading networks." App. Br. 5. Appellants, in
particular, highlight that "typical electronic trading networks receive and
process tens of millions of orders/quotes per day." Id. Thus, "having to
store and process such large volumes of order/quote data certainly hampers
the networks' resources and reduces data throughput, thereby preventing the
networks from optimal efficiency and processing speeds." Id.
According to Appellants,
[the claimed invention's] novel data structure in combination
with the claimed specific data retrieval rules improve data
2 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
8
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
storage and retrieval, and in so doing, reduce computer data
searching, increase data throughput and, thus, decrease quote
data processing time and resource consumption of the computer
network. Clearly, problems of data storage, data retrieval and
latency are network architecture problems, not financial
problems. Thus, the claimed invention, which solves network
architecture problems must necessarily be a technical (and patent
eligible) solution.
App. Br. 7; see also id. at 10 ( emphasis omitted) ("because the claimed
invention reduces latency, it is also able to retrieve the most up-to-date data
and process this retrieved against incoming order data faster; thereby leading
to more accurate executed data. As would [be] understood by the skilled
person, these are all improvements to the functioning of the computer
itself.").
Analysis - Step 1
In step one we consider whether the claimed subject matter falls
within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by
35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
The claimed invention here recites a process including a number of a steps.
Accordingly, the claimed invention falls within the process category.
Analysis - Revised Step 2A
Under the Memorandum, in prong one of step 2A we look to whether
the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims here recite the steps of
(b )(i) receiving . . . an incoming order having a price,
(b )(ii) retrieving . . . the side of the [NBBO] opposite the
incoming order, and (b )(iii) determining . . . whether the
incoming order price is equal to or overlaps with the retrieved
side of the NBBO;
( c )(i) searching ... to (a) identify whether the incoming
order is for an option series that has a corresponding market
maker quote book ... and (b) identify whether the corresponding
9
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
market maker quote book includes a lead market maker
indication for a respective lead market maker. . .and ( c )(ii)
determining ... whether the lead market maker has a quote at the
NBBO, said ( c )(i) and ( c )(ii) being responsive to determining
that the incoming order price is equal to or overlaps with the
retrieved side of the NBBO; and
( d) activating . . . a too-executable order check routine,
responsive to determining that the incoming order is for the
option series that has the lead market maker and the lead market
maker has a quote at the NBBO, which causes the too-executable
order check routine to d(i) compute an allocation percentage for
the lead market maker, ....
At a high level, these limitations receive an order, matches that order
with a corresponding quote at NBBO by the lead market marker, and
performs a check routine (including mathematical calculations). The
process of receiving incoming orders and matching orders with
corresponding quotes in a trading marketplace is a well-known fundamental
economic practice. As such, we agree with the Examiner that these
limitations generally recite the fundamental economic practice of
"processing orders in electronic options trading environment with market
maker participation." Final Act. 12. The claimed invention, thus, recites
certain methods of organizing human activity, which is an abstract idea.
Next, under prong two of step 2A, we determine whether the recited
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception
by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the
claim beyond the judicial exception( s ); and (b) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claimed invention additionally recites
10
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
(a) generating ... each of an order data structure and a
market maker quote data structure in the memory, the order data
structure being separate from the market maker quote data
structure, the order data structure including an order book for
each of a plurality of option series, each order book storing order
data, the market maker quote data structure configured to include
a separate market maker quote book for each of one or more of
the plurality of option series, each market maker quote book
including a respective option series indicator and configured to
include a data table having first predefined fields for exclusively
storing quote data received from one or more market makers
associated with the respective option series and second
predefined fields linked to the first predefined fields for storing
associated market maker information including one or more lead
market maker indications that indicates which of the received
quote data is associated with a respective lead market maker;
( c )(i)searching the market marker quote data structure ...
without searching the order data structure, to (a) identify whether
the incoming order is for an option series that has a
corresponding market maker quote book by determining whether
a corresponding option series indicator exists in the market
maker quote data structure and (b) identify whether the
corresponding market maker quote book includes a lead market
maker indication for a respective lead market maker by searching
the second predefined fields of the data table corresponding to
the identified option series indicator ... ; and
( d)(ii) match[ing] the incoming order up to the lesser of
the total size of the incoming order and the computed allocation
percentage amount for the lead market maker, when the
incoming order is automatically repriceable, and ( d)(iii) cause
the order matching engine to cancel the incoming order when the
incoming order is not automatically repriceable.
At a high level, these limitations at least define a particular
arrangement for the market maker quote data structure, which is separate
from the order data structure and with option series and lead market maker
indicators, and a particular method of retrieving information from the market
maker quote data structure.
11
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the
claimed invention provides a technological improvement. As Appellants
point out, "typical electronic trading networks receive and process tens of
millions of orders/quotes per day." App. Br. 5. With "the high volume and
rapidly changing order/quote data," "[a]ny latency in the storage and
retrieval of data can cause the retrieved data to be out-of-date and/or cause
data to be processed with (now) inferior prices." App. Br. 6; see also App.
Br. 6 (noting that latency is a technical problem in electronic trading
networks).
To address this problem arising in the realm of electronic trading
computer network architectures, the claimed invention defines a particular
market maker quote data structure and a specific process for searching and
retrieving data to "improve[ e] data storage and retrieval efficiency in
automated electronic trading networks." App. Br. 5 ( emphasis omitted).
Specifically, separating the market maker quote data structure from the order
data structure and the quote data structure itself with option series and lead
market maker indicators "eliminate[ es] the need to search through larger,
combined pools of order data and order books (which is done in
conventional systems)." App. Br. 6. Additionally, the claimed "data
retrieval rules using the option series indicators and lead market indications
eliminates the need to search through all quote data, reduces the amount of
data to search within the quote data structure, increases the speed of data
retrieval and, ultimately, decreases the latency of the network to process
quote and order data (to identify executability conditions for an incoming
order)." App. Br. 6. Further, "the claimed order matching engine includes a
novel and very specific set of data retrieval rules that improves overall
12
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
efficiency and performance by determining whether orders are to be
executed and/or cancelled." App. Br. 6. As such, contrary to the
Examiner's assertions, the claimed invention does not merely use the
computer as a tool (see Ans. 3-4), but is directed to the combination of
particular data structures and retrieval rules that provide "technical
improvements (faster, more efficient searching and reduced latency) to the
computer system." App. Br. 15.
We also disagree with the Examiner that the claimed invention here is
similar to merely classifying and storing data in an organized manner, which
was found to be ineligible in TL! Comms. See Ans. 6; TL! Comms, 823 F.3d
at 615. In TL! Comms, the Federal Circuit held
Although the claims recite that the abstract idea of classifying
and storing digital images in an organized manner is carried out
in a telephone system, the [] patent fails to provide the requisite
details necessary to carry out that idea. Just as "[ s ]teps that do
nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a
computer' cannot confer patent-eligibility," Intellectual
Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1371-72 (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
2359), here, steps that generically spell out what it means to
"apply it on a telephone network" also cannot confer patent
eligibility.
TL! Comms, 823 F.3d at 615 (emphasis added). The claimed
invention, here, is distinct as it provides specific data structures,
namely separate order and market maker quote data structures and the
quote data structure itself with option series and lead market maker
indicators, as well as the specific set of data retrieval rules.
Moreover, we determine the claimed invention here is instead similar
to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Namely, the claimed invention is directed to "overcom[ing] a
13
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Id. at
1257. In other words, the claimed invention directly addresses the problem
arising from the large volume of data processed and received in automated
electronic trading networks. As Appellants explain,
To be clear, because the claims receive and process rapidly
changing high volume data, it is important that data is stored and
retrieved in a fast and efficient manner. This way, the most up-
to-date data can be retrieved from the data structure( s) and
processed against incoming order data ( ultimately for order
execution or cancellation). Appellant's novel data structure in
combination with the claimed specific data retrieval rules
improve data storage and retrieval, and in so doing, reduce
computer data searching, increase data throughput and, thus,
decrease quote data processing time and resource consumption
of the computer network. Clearly, problems of data storage, data
retrieval and latency are network architecture problems, not
financial problems. Thus, the claimed invention, which solves
network architecture problems must necessarily be a technical
( and patent eligible) solution.
App. Br. 7. See also Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that the claimed
"particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior
art [systems]" and finding the claims eligible"). As such, we determine that
the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea in a practical application
and are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-20 as
directed to an abstract idea,
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-20 as
directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
14
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-20.
REVERSED
15
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL D. ADCOCK, MICHAEL A. CORMACK,
AMY FARNSTROM, and ROBERT A. HILL
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I concur with the majority's decision. However, I respectfully
disagree with the majority's determination that the abstract idea is integrated
into a practical application because at least one additional element improves
the functioning of a computer or some other technology or technical field.
Instead, I agree with the Examiner that it is not apparent how the
claimed invention provides benefits of speed and efficiency to existing data
storage and retrieval technology. See Ans. 3. As the Examiner explained,
independent claim 12 does not recite particular inventive features to address
the inefficiency in storing and processing quotes and order data described by
Appellants. See id. at 5. I also agree with the Examiner that there is no
evidence that information in the present invention is stored differently than
in conventional electronic trading platforms, aside from being stored in a
16
Appeal2018-001762
Application 14/561,967
separate data structure for each option series. See id. at 8. I further agree
with the Examiner that the information stored in the data structures is no
different from conventional information stored in conventional electronic
trading platforms. See id. Thus, I am not persuaded that the claimed
invention provides a technological solution to a technological problem. See
MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor am I persuaded that the claimed invention here is
similar to that in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014), as I do not agree the claimed invention is directed
to "overcome[ing] a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks." Id. at 1257.
I agree with the majority, however, that the abstract idea is integrated
into a practical application in Prong 2 of Step 2A of the Memorandum. In
particular, the claims describe a product or process that adds meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment to transform the abstract idea into
patentable subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.05(e). In particular, as the
majority determined, the "generating," "searching," "match[ing]," and
"caus[ing]" steps at least define a particular arrangement for the market
maker quote data structure, which is separate from the order data structure
and with option series and lead market maker indicators, and a particular
method of retrieving information from the market maker quote data
structure. I conclude such limitations are sufficient to transform the abstract
idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea under the
Memorandum.
For these reasons, I would conclude Appellants' claims 12-20 are
patent-eligible under§ 101 and reverse the Examiner's rejection.
17