Ex Parte Arni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2018

13746723 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/746,723 01/22/2013
37945 7590 11/09/2018
DUKEW. YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Majeed M. Arni
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.
AUS920080669US2 4999
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, BETH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2018 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAJEED M. ARNI, PETER A. COLDICOTT,
EDUARDO T. KAHAN, and MEI Y. SELVAGE
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/7 46,723
Technology Center 3600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and CATHERINE
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention relates to computer programs and
methods for managing events in a service oriented architecture (SOA)
infrastructure. Abstract; Spec. ,r 3. More specifically, the claims relate to
enhancing "the integration of components in a configuration of SOA
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
governance components" (i.e., generating, monitoring, and managing events
generated by the components) using plug-ins to the components that produce
events including automatically notifying interconnected components when
one component generates an event (e.g., a component is added or
changed). Spec. ,r,r 7-9. Claims 1, 13, and 18 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for managing maintenance of components in a
service oriented architecture (SOA) infrastructure, the method
comprising the steps of:
a computer detecting a predetermined type of event
resulting from one of an addition of a component to the SOA
infrastructure or a change to a component of the SOA
infrastructure, wherein a repository associated with the
component provides a notice of the predetermined type of event
associated with a service used by the component to other
components in the SOA infrastructure;
responsive to a detected event of the predetermined type
of event, the computer determining for each other component of
the SOA infrastructure whether a respective component requires
an update based on the detected event by querying the each other
component of the SOA infrastructure for a service state value of
the service, to determine whether the each other component has
been updated based on the detected event and the service state
value, wherein the detected event is said to exist in an SOA
component or the repository associated with the SOA component
when the component is aware of or has been notified of the
detected event, and has been changed or adapted in view of the
detected event; and
responsive to determining that at least one of the each
other components has not been updated based on the detected
event, the computer automatically updating by notifying the at
least one of the each other components of the SOA infrastructure
of the predetermined type of event associated with the service
used by the respective component to implement a change or
modification needed for the respective service or a respective
relationship based on the detected event, wherein the at least one
2
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
of the each other components of the SOA infrastructure is
adapted to the detected event, transforming the at least one of the
each other components respectively from a previous service state
value to a new service state value.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
judicially excepted subject matter. Final Act. 6-9.
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
ofLoewy (US 2004/0193703 Al; Sept. 30, 2004) and Zager (US
2002/022952 Al; Feb. 21, 2002). Final Act. 9-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
THE 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
Step One of Alice Framework
In step one of the Alice analysis, we "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354--55
(2014 ). The Examiner determines the claims are directed to the concept of
"managing maintenance of components in a service oriented architecture
(SOA) infrastructure," which is simply a method of organizing human
activities and an idea of itself. Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 12-14 (citing Electric
Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The
Examiner explains that "the focus of the claims is not on such an
3
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract
ideas that use computers as tools" because, like in Electric Power,
Appellants' claims rely on generic, conventional computers and technology
to implement the abstract idea. Final Act. 14; Ans. 13-14 (citing Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d 1350). The Examiner finds each of the recited steps are
part of the abstract idea. Final Act. 7; Ans. 12. The Examiner finds the
dependent claims' method steps also are directed to the abstract idea because
they merely include information regarding the services. Final Act. 7;
Ans. 12.
Appellants assert the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See
App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 4--5. Specifically, Appellants argue their claims
are unlike the claims held ineligible in Electric Power because Appellants'
claims recite different elements than those cited in Electric Power. Reply
Br. 4--5. Rather, Appellants argue the claims do not focus on using a
computer in its ordinary capacity but are directed to an improvement to
computer functionality and, in particular, a "specific improvement to the
way computers operate using a three-step synergistic process." App. Br. 10-
11 (citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2016)).
Appellants argue the claims' "event detection" (i.e., the detecting
step), "update determination" (i.e., the determining step), and the automatic
updating step are not just "'gathering', analyzing', or 'displaying' of
information." Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants argue these claimed elements are,
respectively, "a specific event-detection resulting from an SOA
infrastructure addition/change," "a specific event-detection triggering
mechanism that invokes an event-based SOA component update
4
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
determination with respect to other components of the SOA infrastructure,"
and "an improvement to the computer system itself ... in that the other SOA
components requiring updates per the detected event are adapted to the
detected event by transforming [the components] from a previous service
state value to a new service state value." Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants argue
these distinctions render claim 1 's alleged abstract idea "substantially
different from the 'abstract idea"' in the claims in Electric Power. Reply
Br. 5.
Appellants separately argue that each of the dependent claims
"improves the operation of the underlying computer system" by providing
an alleged benefit resulting from the additionally recited features. App.
Br. 15-20. For example, claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites the
determining step "is based on the computer determining whether each other
component has been notified of the detected event." Appellants argue claim
4 improves the operation of the underlying computer because it provides "a
front-end event-notification determination before providing an automatic
update notification to a particular component." App. Br. 16.
We agree with the Examiner's conclusions because Appellants'
claims focus on managing components in an SOA infrastructure, which
simply involves receiving, analyzing, and transmitting information. In
particular, Appellants' claims recite a computer receiving information
(notice of a predetermined type of event) from one device (repository),
transmitting information ( query/request for a service state value of a service)
to other devices (each other component), receiving information an (service
state value) from the other devices (each other component), analyzing the
received information (service state values) to determine whether the other
5
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
devices ( each other component) has been updated, and in response to the
determination, transmitting information ( automatically updating by notifying
a component of the predetermined type of event to implement a change or
modification), and another device (the component) stores information
( changes a service state from a previous value to a new value).
We are not persuaded by Appellants argument that the claims improve
the way computers operate by "using a three-step synergistic process." See
App. Br. 10-11. Essentially, Appellants' three-step synergistic process is
simply the idea of automatically updating other components in response to
detecting a change or addition of one component. See App. Br. 11.
Although the claims recite a "computer" to perform the detecting,
determining, and updating steps, a "repository" from which notices are
received, and "component[ s] of the SOA infrastructure" from which
information is received and to which information is transmitted, these
elements do not change the character of the claims as a whole from being
directed to an abstract idea. Similarly, to the extent Appellants' assertion
that the limitations recited in the dependent claims improves the operation of
the underlying computer is an argument that the dependent claims are not
directed to abstract ideas, see App. Br. 15-20, we disagree. The limitations
in the dependent claims ( changing a name of a service in addition to a
service state value, the determining step being based on particular data, each
component having a storage queue and plug-in, generically automating a
computer action corresponding to the detected event in response to a trigger,
and automating email or task creation as part of the updating step) simply
refine the particular data being received, analyzed, and transmitted (service
name, query response, task or e-mail generated) or add generically recited
6
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
elements (storage queue and plug-in). These limitations, therefore, do not
change the character of Appellants' claims.
The Federal Circuit has concluded similar concepts were directed to
abstract ideas. Specifically, in Electric Power, the Federal Circuit concluded
claims reciting a method of collecting data from various sources, "detecting
and analyzing events" by identifying information in the received data,
reporting the event analysis results and visualizations of measurements,
aggregating the event analysis information, and providing a composite
indicator were directed to an abstract idea because the claims were directed
to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1351-53 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Similarly, the Federal Circuit concluded claims directed to collecting
and analyzing information and presenting the results were ineligible as
claiming no more than an abstract idea. Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage,
and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"); SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPIC, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("merely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ...
is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis") ( quotations
omitted).
Moreover, limiting the particular data analyzed does not change the
character of the claim. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (stating that
"collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which
7
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
does not change its character as information)" is treated as "within the realm
of abstract ideas"). Thus, the particular event type information or service
state values transmitted between the repository, computer, and SOA
components do not change the character of the claims.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea and, thus, tum to step 2 of the Alice analysis.
Step Two of Alice Framework
In step two of our Alice analysis, we determine whether the additional
limitations, when considered both "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the
claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355-58.
The Examiner finds "the computer, repository, computer program
product, data storage device( s ), and an article of manufacture" are the
portions of the claims that are not the part of the abstract idea. Final Act. 8;
Ans. 12. The Examiner concludes these elements are insufficient to add
significantly more sufficient to render the claims patent eligible because they
are generic computer components necessary to perform the claimed
steps. Final Act. 8; Ans. 12. The Examiner determines the claims do not
recite an improvement in computers, another technology, or another
technical field; rather the alleged improvements are to the recited
steps/functions in a process and not to any server or other device because the
elements just limit the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment. Final Act. 7; Ans. 13. The Examiner concludes the dependent
claims do not add to the abstract idea but further refine the abstract idea
because "they include, for instance, information/data regarding the SOA
8
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
infrastructure data services." Final Act. 7; Ans. 12. The Examiner
concludes the claims, therefore, do not amount to significantly more because
the claims: require only a generic computer elements to perform generic,
well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions; do not recite
an improvement to another technology or technical field; and are not rooted
in computer technology. Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 12-14.
Appellants argue the claimed steps are not conventional or routine
because the steps are novel and non-obvious and, therefore, add significantly
more to the abstract idea. App. Br. 11-12, 14--15. In particular, Appellants
argue the claims recite that a repository provides notice of a type of event to
other SOA components, which is not a routine computer operation because it
is a "novel use of a 'repository' associated with an added/changed
component." App. Br. 11-12. Appellants also argue the Examiner's
characterization of the recited "repository" as a generic computer component
fails to consider the particularly recited usage of the repository. Reply
Br. 3--4. Appellants also argue the particular aspects of the recited
determining step (i.e., querying each other SOA component to determine
whether those components have been updated based on the service state
value and the detected event) are not routine or generic computer
implemented functions. App. Br. 12.
Appellants also argue the claims add significantly more to the abstract
idea because the claims improve the underlying computer itself. App. Br. 14
(citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotles.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Specifically, Appellants argue it was previously "extremely
difficult to add a new product or modify an existing service pertaining to a
particular SOA governance flow." App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).
9
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
Appellants argue "[t]he claimed repository-based event-notification provides
... integration facilitation by specially invoking/triggering" the claimed
determining step, simplifying the integration of new or changed components
into the SOA architecture. Reply Br. 3--4 ("Typically, such new product will
have to interact with and be integrated to each of the SOA governance
components that are already in the configuration. Accordingly, integration
of the new product tends to become exponentially complicated.").
Appellants argue the claimed computer-based solution is a specialized
automatic update determination and, therefore, necessarily rooted in
computer technology to overcome a specific problem arising in realm of
computer networks. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue the "three-way
synergistic interplay between the [three] claimed steps" is an inventive
process solving the problem of integrating new products into an SOA
infrastructure "that was previously tedious and complex." Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants argue the claims improve "the technical field of 'SOA
infrastructure."' Reply Br. 7-8
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of
nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd.
v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355 (explaining that, after determining a claim is directed to a
judicial exception, "we then ask, ' [ w J hat else is there in the claims before
us?"' (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
78)). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or
combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial
exception and sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to
significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
10
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73); see BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme
Court in Alice "only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the
invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-
understood, routine and conventional," (emphasis added)).
On the other hand, "[i]f a claim's only 'inventive concept' is the
application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
application of an abstract idea." BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290-91 (citing
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). "[I]t is
irrelevant whether [the claimed abstract idea] may have been non-routine or
unconventional as a factual matter ... narrowing or reformulating an
abstract idea does not add 'significantly more' to it." BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at
1291.
We agree with the Examiner that the three recited method steps (i.e.,
the detecting, determining, and updating steps) are part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, the question is whether there are additional elements recited in
the claims that add significantly more to the abstract idea. The claims recite
a "computer," a "repository," "data storage devices," an "article of
manufacture," and SOA components that perform the detecting,
determining, and updating steps. However, as stated by the Examiner, these
elements are generally and generically recited, and Appellants' Specification
suggests that these are well-known elements being used as intended and may
be comprised of software, hardware, or a combination of software and
hardware. See Spec. ,r,r 16-22, Figs. 1-2. In other words, Appellants'
claims invoke computers merely as tools to receive, analyze, and transmit
11
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
information in a particular way, thereby implementing the abstract idea of
managing SOA components. See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1286. Simply
using generic computing devices is not "an improvement in computers as
tools," like those claims found patent-eligible. Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at
1354.
Moreover, simply using generic computers to automate a process does
not confer eligibility onto an otherwise abstract idea because it does not
improve a computer or technology, but rather improves the process itself.
See Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (explaining that the
claimed steps could easily "be carried out in existing computers long in use,
no new machinery being necessary"). Appellants' arguments that the claims
solve a technical problem arising in computer networks and improve the
underlying computer or the technical field of SOA infrastructure are
unpersuasive. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3-8. Appellants arguments that
the claims include significantly more because automatically updating SOA
components when an SOA component is added or changed was "previously
tedious and complex," "extremely difficult," and "complicated" and the
claimed process "simplif-1ies] the integration" are unpersuasive because
using a computer to automate a process does not add significantly more to
the abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]ur precedent is clear that
merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of
the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.").
Appellants' argument that the repository (associated with the SOA
component) providing the notice is a novel use of a repository also is
unpersuasive. The claims do not require that the repository is a separate
12
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
device or that the repository performs any function other than providing the
notification to the computer; the repository is simply a label for a module,
program, or device that provides notice to the recited computer. More
importantly, the repository simply "provides a notice of the predetermined
type of event." This function is part of the alleged abstract idea that involves
transmitting and receiving information. We do not see how the fact that the
repository transmits information, a generic computing function, adds
significantly more to the abstract idea.
Appellants also describe how many of the limitations additionally
recited in the dependent claims allegedly improve the recited process of
managing the SOA components and assert the limitations are "not a
routine/generic computer-performed step/action." App. Br. 15-20.
Appellants argue each of the dependent claims, therefore, "improves the
operation of the underlying computer." App. Br. 15-20.
As mentioned above with respect to step one of the Alice analysis, the
limitations in the dependent claims ( changing a name of a service in addition
to a service state value, the determining step being based on particular data,
each component having a storage queue and plug-in, generically automating
a computer action corresponding to the detected event in response to a
trigger, and automating email or task creation as part of the updating step)
simply refine the particular data being received, analyzed, and transmitted
( service name, query response, task or e-mail generated) or add generically
recited elements (storage queue and plug-in). These limitations, therefore,
are a part of the abstract idea and do not provide elements in addition to the
abstract idea sufficient to transform the claims into eligible subject matter.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
13
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
Pre-emption
Appellants also argue the claims are patent-eligible because the claims
do not preempt an abstract idea. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Specifically, Appellants argue the claims do not preempt methods of
managing SOA components not: invoked by a specified detected event,
using service state values, or notifying a particular component to implement
a change. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants essentially argue their claims do not
preempt methods of managing SOA components as long as the methods do
not use the same data as claimed.
We are not persuaded in this case. The claims limit the identified
abstract idea only by limiting the content of the information received,
analyzed, and transmitted. Moreover, although "preemption may signal
patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does
not demonstrate patent eligibility .... \Vhere a patent's claims are deemed
only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Afayo framework,
as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made
moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("And [the fact] that the claims do not preempt all
price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-
commerce setting do [es] not make them any less abstract.").
Thus, the claimed limitations, considered both individually and
together, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and, therefore, do
not render the subject matter patent eligible.
14
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
Summary of Analysis of§ 101 Rejection
For the above reasons, we determine the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to judicially
excepted subject matter.
THE 35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-22
The Examiner finds the combination of Loewy and Zager teaches or
suggests every limitation recited in claims 1-22. Final Act. 9-14. Of
particular note, the Examiner finds Zager teaches or suggests the
determining step. Final Act. 11 (citing Zager ,r 77, Abstract, Figs. 9, 28-29);
Ans. 18, 20-22. The Examiner finds Zager's Abstract and paragraph 77
"clearly show a service oriented architecture (SOA) infrastructure and state
level updates involved with a repository."
Appellants argue, among other things, Zager does not teach or suggest
determining which of the other components needs to be updated based on
the detected event and a queried service state value. App. Br. 25-28. In
particular, Appellants argue Zager' s cited portions merely describe, in
response to a system model's state changing, identifying model objects
likely to be affected by the change and displaying an alarm and the affected
objects. App. Br. 27-28. Appellants argue identifying affected managed
objects and displaying an alarm do not teach or suggest making any type of
determination of whether particular components need to be updated, let
alone making such a determination based on the service's server state value
obtained from querying the components and the detected event. App.
Br. 27-28.
Zager discloses automatically discovering and manually inputting
information at runtime to prepare a model for a complex system that
15
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
represents system resources and service-relationships among the resources.
Zager, Abstract. Zager's software agents "report changes in state of the
managed resources to the model, which updates itself' and identifies other
resources that may be affected by the state change due to the resources'
service-relationships. Zager ,r 77, Abstract, Figs. 9, 28-29. Zager then
generates an alarm that groups related resources, identifies any root cause,
and displays the resources affected by the change. Zager ,r 77, Abstract,
Fig. 9.
We are persuaded the Examiner failed to demonstrate Zager teaches
or suggests the determining step. In particular, the Zager's cited portions do
not teach or suggest "querying the each other component of the SOA
infrastructure for a service state value of the service." For purposes of this
Decision, we assume Zager's managed objects teach or suggest the recited
components of the SOA infrastructure. Zager teaches identifying service-
relationships between managed objects. Zager ,r 77, Abstract. Zager also
teaches detecting a change in a managed object's state. Zager ,r 77,
Abstract. The Examiner, however, has not sufficiently explained, nor is it
apparent from reviewing the cited portions of Zager, how identifying related
managed objects teaches or suggests querying other managed objects for a
service state value of the service, let alone using that returned value as a
basis for determining whether the other managed object needs to be updated.
Instead, Zager merely teaches identifying objects affected by a fault detected
with respect to a related managed object.
For the above reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of the combination of Loewy and
Zager. Claims 2-12 ultimately depend from and incorporate the limitations
16
Appeal2017-007077
Application 13/746,723
of claim 1. Independent claims 13 and 18 recite a commensurate limitation
to the determining step. Claims 14--17 and 19--22 ultimately depend from
and incorporate the limitations of claims 13 and 18, respectively. Thus, for
the same reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
2-22.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22 is
affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
17