Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2018

14686860 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2018)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/686,860 04/15/2015 Corville O. Allen AUS920140427US1 7088
50170 7590 01/30/2018
IBM CORP. (WIP)
c/o WALDER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
17304 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 200
DALLAS, TX 75252
EXAMINER
LELAND III, EDWIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2018 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 CORVILLE O. ALLEN, NICHOLAS V. BRUNO,
JARED M.D. SMYTHE, SCOTT A. WILL,
and ERIC WOODS
____________________

Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,8601
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–23, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
February 1, 2017; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 16, 2017; Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 16, 2017; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed September 27, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”), filed April
15, 2015.
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method, apparatus, and computer
readable storage medium for “determining user friendly information to
solicit in a question and answer system” by “processing natural language
text” to “generate a logical parse which is then analyzed to identify a
solicitation node of the logical parse for which a user is able to provide
additional data to assist in processing the natural language text.” Spec. ¶ 1;
Abstract. Appellants’ invention further outputs a “clarifying question . . . to
a computing device associated with a user based on content of the
solicitation node,” and processes the natural language text “based on the
response to the clarifying question received from the user,” to thereby
generate a result to be output to a source of the natural language text.
Abstract.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’
invention, as reproduced below:
1. A method, in a data processing system comprising
a processor and a memory, for processing an input natural
language text, the method comprising:
parsing, by the data processing system, the input natural
language text to generate a logical parse data structure
representing the input natural language text;
analyzing, by the data processing system, the logical parse
data structure to identify at least one solicitation node of the
logical parse data structure for which a user is able to provide
additional data to assist in processing the input natural language
text;
outputting, by the data processing system, a clarifying
question to a computing device associated with the user based on
content of the at least one solicitation node;
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

3

receiving, by the data processing system, a response to the
clarifying question from the user via the computing device;
processing, by the data processing system, the natural
language text based on the response to the clarifying question
received from the user via the computing device to thereby
generate a result of the processing of the input natural language
text; and
outputting, by the data processing system, the result of the
processing of the natural language text to a source of the input
natural language text, wherein analyzing the logical parse data
structure to identify the solicitation node comprises:
associating a strength value with each edge, in a plurality
of edges of the logical parse data structure, based on one or more
characteristics of nodes associated with the edge;
selecting a subset of nodes in the logical parse data
structure based on the strength values associated with the edges
in the plurality of edges; and
selecting the at least one solicitation node from the subset
of nodes based on an evaluation of characteristics of the subset
of nodes.
App. Br. 32–40 (Claims App.).

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 3–12, and 14–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Final Act. 4–6.3

3 In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the Final Action “had two
different 101 rejections . . . one starting on page 2 that was a repeat of [an]
original rejection and an updated version starting on page 4 of the final
office action,” however, the “[rejection] starting on page 2 should have been
deleted in favor of the [rejection] starting on page 4.” Ans. 12.
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

4

ANALYSIS
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the
Supreme Court reiterates an analytical two-step framework previously set
forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 79 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Id. If the
claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the
analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an
ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements
that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”
Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In other words, the second step is to
“search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of
elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id.
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
In rejecting independent claims 1, 12, and 23, and dependent claims
3–11, and 14–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner finds these claims are
directed to an abstract idea of processing natural language text by “parsing
[the] text to create a logical data structure, analyzing the logical data
structure to identify a node, outputting a question based on the node,
receiving an answer to the question, processing the text based on the answer
to generate a result and then outputting the result,” which is “logical parsing
of information” analogous or similar to the abstract ideas of data
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

5

manipulation and analysis discussed in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.
For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (employing
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information), Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that “[t]he concept of data
collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known,” and
“humans have always performed these functions”), and Electric Power Grp,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting
information and “analyzing information by steps people go through in their
minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category”). Ans. 12–13, 23–24;
Final Act. 4–5; .
The Examiner also finds the additional claimed elements of a
computer readable storage medium, data processing system, processor, and
memory “simply execute the abstract idea on a generic computer” and “fail
to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea,” and “the claims are
not directed to any improvement in computer capabilities but rather are
directed to an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool.” Final Act. 5, 8; Ans. 15, 23.
As to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants contend
independent claims 1, 12, and 23, and dependent claims 11 and 22 are not
directed to an abstract idea. That is, Appellants argue these claims are
“specifically directed to a method that is performed in a data processing
system that is specifically configured to process an input natural language
text by performing the specific set of operations set forth in the claim” by
which “a data processing system . . . is specifically configured to . . . interact
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

6

with another computing device to output a clarifying question, receive a
response, which in turn modifies the processing of the natural language text
performed by the data processing system.” App. Br. 15–17, 20–23.
Particularly, Appellants argue the claims “improve the existing computer
based process of processing natural language text such that the computing
elements of the claims are not simply used as a tool” because the claims
recite an improvement to computer-related technology by
improving the functionality of computer-related technology with
regard to processing natural language text in which clarification
of a portion of that natural language text may be required. . . .
[T]he present claims recite an improvement to computer-related
technology by improving the functionality of computer-related
technology with regard to the processing of natural language text
in a data processing system environment by identifying what
portion of a logical parse data structure corresponding to the
natural language text to use as a basis for generating a clarifying
question, submitting that clarifying question to a user via their
computing device, obtaining the response, and processing the
natural language text further based on the response to the
clarifying question, as recited in the independent claims. This is
not simply an abstract idea, but is an improvement rooted in
computer technology and directed to solving a problem in the
software arts.
App. Br. 20, 23. In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue “the claims are
directed to a technological solution in a data processing system that solves a
technological problem, i.e. a problem associated with natural language
processing of input natural language text when there is missing information
that could be supplied by a user.” Reply Br. 14. Particularly, Appellants
argue the claims enable a computer—which “has no innate understanding of
human language” and “cannot on its own process natural language text”—
to:
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

7

perform operations for identifying where, in natural language
text, further information could be solicited from a user to assist
with such natural language text processing and then solicit such
information by specifically outputting a clarifying question,
based on the content of a solicitation node corresponding to the
identified information that could be solicited, and using the
response received to actually process the natural language text to
generate a result.
Reply Br. 20.
Appellants additionally argue dependent claims 11 and 22 define “a
specific type of data processing system” and “a specific computing
environment and specific non-generic operations performed with regard to
that specific computing environment,” and “further recite additional features
that clearly are directed to statutory subject matter.” App. Br. 30; Reply Br.
33–34. Particularly, Appellants assert the data processing system of claims
11 and 22 “is specifically configured to perform Question and Answer
functionality based on a natural language question input and generate an
answer to that natural language question,” thus providing “a technological
solution to a computer based issue with regard to natural language
processing.” Reply Br. 34.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly
recognized by the Examiner, Appellants’ independent claims 1, 12, and 23,
and similarly dependent claims 11 and 22 are directed to logical parsing of
information that is analogous or similar to the abstract ideas of data
manipulation and analysis identified in Digitech, Content Extraction, and
Electric Power Grp. Ans. 12–13, 23–24; Final Act. 4–5; see also OIP
Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (offer-based price optimization); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

8

information presented to a user based on particular information); Accenture
Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (generating tasks in an insurance organization); and Versata
Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., 793 F.3d 1306, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (price-
determination method involving arranging organizational and product group
hierarchies).
Furthermore, information as such is intangible, and data analysis and
algorithms are abstract ideas. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp.,
550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Parker v. Flook,
437 U.S. 584, 589, 594–95 (1978) (“Reasoning that an algorithm, or
mathematical formula, is like a law of nature, Benson applied the established
rule that a law of nature cannot be the subject of a patent”); and Gottschalk
v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972). Information collection and analysis,
including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract
ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; and CyberSource
Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That
is, “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical
algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional
information is not patent eligible.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1349–51 (“Data in
its ethereal, non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under
any of the categories of eligible subject matter under section 101”).
Appellants assert the Examiner’s characterization of claim 1
oversimplifies and downplays the invention by arbitrarily editing and
abridging the claim while ignoring the claimed technology that is “directed
to computer based solutions to natural language processing” employing non-
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

9

generic and non-routine computing elements, such as a logical reasoning
system for “soliciting information from a user based on a logical parse data
structure generated from parsing input natural language text.” Reply Br. 12–
13 (citing Spec. ¶ 249, Figs. 16 and 23). We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
assertion. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ claim 1, and
similarly claims 11, 12, 22, and 23 are reasonably characterized as directed
to an abstract idea of processing natural language text by logically parsing
information. Ans. 12–13, 23–24; Final Act. 4–5. All the components
recited in claims 1 and 11 (and similarly, claims 12, 22, and 23)—including:
(i) parsing the input natural language text to generate a logical parse data
structure representing the input natural language text, the input natural
language text being a natural language question input to the QA system; (ii)
analyzing the logical parse data structure by associating strength values with
edges based on characteristics of the logical parse data structure’s nodes and
selecting a subset of nodes based on the strength values, from which subset
to identify a solicitation node for which a user is able to provide additional
data to assist in processing the input natural language text; (iii) outputting a
clarifying question to a computing device associated with the user based on
content of the solicitation node, and receiving a response; and (iv)
processing the natural language text based on the response to thereby
generate and output a result of the processing of the input natural language
text, the result of the processing being an answer to the natural language
question—are consistent with the Examiner’s correct characterization of an
abstract idea of processing natural language text by logically parsing
information to create and analyze a logical data structure, which represents
data manipulation and analysis. Ans. 12–13, 23–24; Final Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

10

The various claim terms of “logical parse data structure,” “nodes” and
“solicitation node,” “edges” and their “strength values,” and
“characteristics” of the “nodes” merely designate various types of data and
data groupings. That is, a “logical parse data structure” is a logical graph of
words and phrases in a sentence (an input natural language question), the
graph being generated based on the words’ grammatical categories and
relationships, such as, for example, the relationships between nouns,
adjectives, and verbs in a sentence (see Spec. ¶¶ 35, 47, 62–63, 181, Figs. 2,
10–11, 17). The “nodes” and the “solicitation node” are words or phrases in
the sentence (see Spec. ¶¶ 40, 62 (“atomic logical terms (short sentences,
phrases, or words)”), 64, Figs. 10–11). The “edges” represent logical
connections, such as “syntactic/semantic relationships between words” in the
sentence (see Spec. ¶¶ 35, 37, 64, Fig. 1A), and the edges’ “strength values”
are values obtained from “[v]arious characteristics of the nodes [that] may
be evaluated to determine strengths of the edges associated with the nodes,”
such as values obtained from “an evaluation of the depth of the node within
the logical parse and an evaluation of the logical operators connecting the
node to other nodes of the logical parse” or values obtained from a
“relevance value of a node and supporting evidence values for a node,”
where a node’s relevance value may be based on the word’s meaning. For
example, “in the medical domain, one could mark all atomic terms that lack
medical terms as irrelevant or one could train a classifier on features of
atomic medical terms to determine relevance” (see Spec. ¶¶ 36–37, 40, 100).
Thus, the claimed “logical parse data structure,” “nodes,” “edges” and
their “strength values,” and “characteristics” of the “nodes” effectively parse
sentences into constituent words and word groups based at least on
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

11

grammatical categories and semantics of words in the sentence. The result
of the claimed parsing is a “clarifying question” and “an answer to the
natural language question” (see claims 1 and 11).
Appellants also argue their claims, like the claims in DDR, claim “a
specific set of operations performed in a data processing system in
conjunction with another computing device, thus, the they are clearly rooted
in a computer environment” and recite “a synergistic interplay between
tangible, material elements of multiple computer systems and resources of
these multiple computer systems . . . recited in claim 1, i.e. the data
processing system and the computing device recited in claim 1.” App. Br.
16 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., 954 F. Supp.2d 509
(E.D. Tex. 2013)). We are unpersuaded as Appellants have not
demonstrated their claimed generic computer components, in combination,
are able to perform functions that are not merely generic, as the claims in
DDR. See DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claims at issue patent eligible because “they do
not broadly and generically claim ‘use of the Internet’ to perform an abstract
business practice (with insignificant added activity),” and “specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a
result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events
ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink”). We additionally note
claim 1 does not specify “a synergistic interplay between tangible, material
elements of multiple computer systems and resources of these multiple
computer systems” as Appellants argue (see App. Br. 16). Claim 1 merely
recites “a data processing system” and “a computing device associated with
the user,” without specifying that the computing device and the data
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

12

processing system are separate computer systems. Further, we agree with
the Examiner neither Appellants’ claims nor their Specification calls for
specific types of computing devices. As the Examiner finds, “only a generic
computer is included in the claims” and “[t]he data processing device,
computer and computer program product of the claims simply execute the
abstract idea on a generic computer.” Ans. 15, 23, 25.
Appellants further argue claims 1, 12, and 23 are similar to the claims
in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
and Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). These claims recite “an improvement to computer-
related technology by improving the functionality of computer-related
technology with regard to processing natural language text in which
clarification of a portion of that natural language text may be required,”
“automate[] at least a portion of the processing of natural language text that
is input to a data processing system and further improve[] upon that
processing” via a “technology based solution [that is] rooted in computer
technology [and] involves the ordered combination of operations” recited in
these claims. App. Br. 20–22, 29. We disagree.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 do not recite a specific improvement to the way
computers operate and Appellants do not present evidence to establish these
claims recite a specific improvement to the computers. See Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1336, 1339. Appellants also have not demonstrated their claims “improve
the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory,” as the claims in
Enfish did via a “self-referential table for a computer database.” Id. For
example, claims 1, 12, and 23 merely require identification of a “solicitation
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

13

node” for outputting a “clarifying question” and generating “a result of the
processing of the input natural language text,” which does not demonstrate
an actual improvement in computer memory operations. In fact, none of the
steps recited in claims 1, 12, and 23 provide, and nowhere in Appellants’
Specification can we find, any description or explanation as to how these
data manipulation steps are intended to provide: (1) a “solution . . .
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” as explained by the
Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257; (2) “a specific
improvement to the way computers operate,” as explained in Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1336; or (3) an “unconventional technological solution . . . to a
technological problem” that “improve[s] the performance of the system
itself,” as explained in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841
F.3d 1288, 1300, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus, claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 appear to be directed to the abstract
idea of manipulating data by logically parsing information to process natural
language text, which is similar to data manipulation as discussed in Digitech.
See Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1344, 1350–51. As such, we agree with the
Examiner and find claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 abstract.
Under step two of the Alice framework, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings on pages 32–35 of the Answer. The additional
limitations, taken individually and as a whole in the ordered combination, do
not add significantly more to the abstract idea or transform the abstract idea
into patentable subject matter. Claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 recite well-
understood, routine, and conventional elements (i.e., a data processing
system, processor, memory, computing device, Question and Answer (QA)
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

14

system, computer readable storage medium), which “execute the abstract
idea on a generic computer” by “routine data processing operations.” Ans.
15, 23, 32, 34–35.
Nevertheless, Appellants contend independent claims 1, 12, and 23
require “a data processing system that is configured to perform the specific
non-routine operations recited in the present claims which cannot be
performed by generic, conventional technology.” Reply Br. 38–39. With
respect to dependent claims 11 and 22, Appellants argue the data processing
system “is specifically configured to perform Question and Answer
functionality based on a natural language question input and generate an
answer to that natural language question,” thus providing “a technological
solution to a computer based issue with regard to natural language
processing.” Reply Br. 34. As discussed supra, however, we are not
persuaded the added computer elements such as the data processing system,
processor, memory, computing device, QA system, and computer readable
storage medium can transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible
invention. Rather, claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 simply incorporate a general-
purpose computer and generic components to process data for “determining
user friendly information to solicit in a question and answer system.” See
Spec. ¶ 1. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or
user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256). See
also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(claims merely reciting the abstract idea of using advertising as currency as
applied to particular technological environment of the Internet are not patent
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

15

eligible); Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344–45 (claims reciting
“generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract
concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be
completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a computer” are not patent
eligible); and Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (“[s]imply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an
abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent
eligible” (internal citation omitted))
Because Appellants’ claims 1, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are directed to a
patent-ineligible abstract concept and do not recite something “significantly
more” under the second prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We also sustain
the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of dependent claims 8 and 19 not separately
argued.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims 3–7, 9, 10, 14–18, 20,
and 21, we note Appellants argue these claims together as one group in the
Appeal Brief, asserting that “the Final Office Action fails to present a prima
facie case that each and every one of the dependent claims likewise recite
only non-statutory subject matter.” Appeal Br. 29–30. In the Reply Brief,
however, Appellants argue claims 3–7, 9, 10, 14–18, 20, and 21
individually. We do not address those arguments here to the extent they
were not raised in the Appeal Brief, or are not responsive to issues raised in
the Examiner’s Answer. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
As Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 3–
7, 9, 10, 14–18, 20, and 21.
Appeal 2017-008361
Application 14/686,860

16

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–12, and 14–23
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–12,
and 14–23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED