Ex Parte Banatwala et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2019

14951689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/951,689 11/25/2015 Mustansir Banatwala
112978 7590 06/26/2019
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
SVL920150148US1_8150-0597 2479
EXAMINER
DENNISON, JERRY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2019 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUSTANSIR BANATW ALA, DAVID A. BROOKS,
MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, and JOSEPH A. RUSSO
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 21-40. App. Br. 1.2 Claims 1-20 are canceled. Id. at 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed July 7, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 11, 2017;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 30, 2018; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 29, 2018.
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention distributes communications to network users.
Spec. ,i 3. In a scenario addressed by the invention, a first user may ask a
question to a second user. Id. ,i 1. If the second user does not have the
answer, then the first user may eventually obtain the answer from a third
user. Id. ,i 2. But the second user may also want to know the answer. Id.
To solve this problem, Appellants' invention detects an answer to a question
in communications between the first and third users and notifies the second
user of the answer. Id. ,i 3.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are independent. Claim 21 is reproduced below
and is exemplary:
21. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
monitoring communications between users exchanged
within a network computing system;
detecting a question within a first communication from a
client device of a first user directed to a client device of a second
user;
recording, in a data structure associated with the question,
that the question is unanswered by the second user upon a
determination that the question is unanswered;
detecting an answer to the question in a second
communication from a client device of a third user directed to
the first user; and
notifying, based upon the answer and using the data
structure, the second user of the answer to the question.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Murray
Bhogal et al.
US 6,603,389 Bl
US 2004/0203643 Al
2
Aug. 5, 2003
Oct. 14, 2004
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
Azzam et al. US 2013/0007037 Al Jan.3,2013
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3-8.
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38,
and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Azzam. Final Act. 8-
12.
The Examiner rejects claims 23, 30, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Azzam and Murray. Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner rejects claims 26, 33, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Azzam and Bhogal. Final Act. 13-14.
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
I. Principles of Law
Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. But courts have long
held that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 70-71 (2012) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
These ineligible concepts are implicit exceptions to the statutory categories.
Id. at 71.
The Supreme Court articulated a two-step subject-matter eligibility
test in Mayo and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208
(2014). Alice/Mayo step one asks whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial
3
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In Alice/Mayo step two, we consider "the
elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to
determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79,
78). Step two is described as a search for an "inventive concept." Id.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on patent subject
matter eligibility. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (USPTO Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Step 1 of the
USPTO's eligibility analysis asks whether the claimed subject matter falls
within the four statutory categories of invention. Id. at 53-54. Under Step
2A, Prong One of the Guidance, we determine if the claim recites a judicial
exception, including particular groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or
mental processes). Id. at 52-53. If so, we then analyze the claim to
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance.
Id. at 53-55; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan.
2018). If the claim fails to integrate the exception and thus is "directed to"
the judicial exception, we look to whether the claim provides an inventive
concept. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
II. The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner determines that representative3 claim 21 is directed to
an abstract idea. Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, claim 21 is
similar to certain ineligible methods of organizing human activity. Id. The
3 Appellants argue claims 21--40 as a group. App. Br. 9. We select claim 21
as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
Examiner determines that the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 4.
III. Does the claim recite ajudicial exception?
A. Step 2A, Prong One of the Guidance
Viewing the Examiner's rejection through the lens of the Guidance,
we first consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 51. The Guidance synthesizes the key concepts identified by
the courts as abstract ideas into three primary subject-matter groupings:
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and
mental processes. Id. at 52.
For the reasons discussed below, claim 21 recites an abstract idea that
falls in the Guidance's subject-matter grouping of certain methods of
organizing human activity. Id.; accord Final Act. 3 ( discussing personal
interactions and human activity).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including
social activities), commercial or legal interactions, among other activities.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, the Federal Circuit in Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. observed that the district court "pointed to the
nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the
middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic,
longstanding practice that is the focus of the invention." 896 F.3d 1335,
1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2018), quoted in Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.13.
In the following sections, we discuss each limitation and explain why
the claim recites an abstract idea similar to those in the Guidance's grouping
of certain methods of organizing human activity.
5
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
B. Monitoring Communications
Claim 21 recites, in part, "monitoring communications between users
exchanged within a network computing system." The recited
communications can be an instant message, an email, or a communication
through a social network. Spec. ,i 21. Although the Specification contains
definitions for several terms, Appellants do not define the term
"monitoring." See id. ,i,i 77-95.
As broadly recited, monitoring can be practically performed by a
human observing and evaluating the communications. That is, the recited
step is part of an interaction between people-i.e., asking questions and
receiving answers. See generally id. ,i,i 1-3. In this way, the recited
monitoring encompasses actions that fall within the Guidance's subject-
matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
C. Detecting Questions and Answers
Claim 21 recites, in part, "detecting a question within a first
communication from a client device of a first user directed to a client device
of a second user." Claim 21 further recites, in part, a "determination that the
question is unanswered" and "detecting an answer to the question in a
second communication from a client device of a third user directed to the
first user."
In one embodiment, "punctuation may be used to recognize questions,
e.g., the use of a question mark." Id. ,i 24. To be sure, some embodiments
use natural language processing (NLP). See, e.g., id. ,i 23. But the recited
detecting is not so limited. See id. ,i 95 ( explaining that the embodiments are
illustrative). For instance, the claim does not recite a specific way of using
NLP or a new NLP algorithm. Rather, the question-detecting step can be
6
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
practically performed by a human reading the sentences and looking for a
question mark. Likewise, the answer-detecting step can practically be
performed by a person comparing and evaluating the written
communication. For these reasons, the recited detection steps encompass
actions that fall within the Guidance's subject-matter grouping of certain
methods of organizing human activity.
D. Notifying
Claim 21 recites, in part, "notifying, based upon the answer and using
the data structure, the second user of the answer to the question."
As broadly recited, the notifying encompasses a person telling another
user the answer-i.e., a step that people perform when interacting with each
other. In fact, this step does not even recite a processor. Nor does the claim
recite how the data structure is used. So although claim 21 recites "using the
data structure," this limitation does not exclude the activity of a person
reviewing the recorded answer and communications before notifying another
user. In this way, the notifying step encompasses actions that fall within the
Guidance's subject-matter grouping of certain methods of organizing human
activity.
E. Conclusion
In sum, claim 21 recites a method of managing an interaction between
people-i.e., asking questions and receiving answers. Final Act. 4. For all
the above reasons, claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
7
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
IV. Is the claim "directed to" the recited judicial exception?
A. Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance
Because claim 21 recites an abstract idea, we now proceed to
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. When a claim recites a judicial
exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the
claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. Id.
We use the term "additional elements" for claim features, limitations,
or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.
See id. at 55 n.24. In claim 21, the additional elements include (1) "a
network computing system," (2) "recording, in a data structure associated
with the question, that the question is unanswered by the second user upon a
determination that the question is unanswered," and (3) "notifying, based
upon the answer and using the data structure, the second user of the answer
to the question." See Final Act. 4-5.
The Examiner finds that the additional elements amount to mere data
gathering and impose a requirement that is no more than implementing the
abstract idea on a computer. See id. For the reasons discussed below, we
agree.
B. The Network Computing System
Claim 21 recites, in part, that the communications are exchanged
"within a network computing system."
Appellants argue that claim 21 recites a particular machine because
the claim uses a computer to exchange and process communications. App.
Br. 17.
8
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
To be sure, an additional element may integrate a judicial exception
into a practical application when, for example, the "additional element
implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in
conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the
claim." Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. But we disagree with Appellants that
claim 21 requires such a machine. At best, the network computing system is
used in its ordinary capacity to send data. Notably, claim 21 does not
expressly recite a processor. But to the extent a processor is required, the
recited processor can be a general-purpose processor. Spec. ,i 61. A
general-purpose computer that merely executes the judicial exception is not
a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-
17 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cited in MPEP § 2106.05(b )(I).
Considering the network computing system in combination with the
other recited limitations, it is merely a token addition. Claim 21 broadly
recites monitoring communications without any particular technical
improvement to how a processor carries out these operations.
For all these reasons, the claimed method does not use a processor or
network computing system in a way that indicates that the judicial exception
has been integrated into a practical application.
C. Recording Questions
Claim 21 recites, in part, "recording, in a data structure associated
with the question, that the question is unanswered by the second user upon a
determination that the question is unanswered."
Appellants argue that the claimed invention necessarily requires the
use of a machine that "records specific information in a data structure."
App. Br. 17.
9
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
Appellants, though, have not shown that the data structure improves a
computer's operating efficiency, for example. Nor have Appellants shown
that claim 21 stores the data in a particular way that reduces storage costs.
In fact, claim 21 does not use any particular type of data structure.
Instead, claim 21 broadly recites "a data structure." The recited data
structure merely stores data for later retrieval. Similarly, the Federal Circuit
found that a server used in its ordinary capacity to store images was not an
improvement to computer functionality. In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cited in MPEP § 2106.05(±).
In this way, the recited data structure is similar to the server in TL!. Thus,
the recording step and its data structure do not indicate that the judicial
exception has been integrated into a practical application.
D. The Combination
Appellants argue that the claim "does not involve a long-prevalent
fundamental economic practice." App. Br. 15. In Appellants' view, the
invention is more than "'asking and answering questions' that are facilitated
by a computer system." Id. at 16. Appellants argue that the claims are not
"directed to" the abstract idea. Id. at 12. We disagree.
A claim may integrate the judicial exception when, for example, it
reflects an improvement to technology or a technical field. Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55. But the improvement described here is to distributing
answers to questions. See generally Spec. ,-J,-J 1-3. To solve this non-
technical problem, the invention obtains data and sends it to users. Claim 21
does not, for example, improve the NLP techniques that are used to detect
questions and answers. In this way, claim 21 is unlike the technology-based
integrations cited by Appellants. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
10
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the patent-eligible claim was
directed to a self-referential table to improve computer databases), cited in
App. Br. 14 n.l; McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the patent-eligible claim focused on a
specific asserted improvement in computer animation), cited in App. Br. 12,
16. Considering the claim as a whole, Appellants' invention lacks a
technical solution to a technical problem.
The Guidance lists other indicia of integration. Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55. None are present in claim 21.
For example, "[t]ransformation and reduction of an article 'to a
different state or thing' is the clue to patentability of a process claim that
does not include particular machines." Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604 (emphasis
added), quoted in MPEP § 2106.05(c). Yet "not all transformations ...
infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept."' DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claim 21 's method does not transform a physical object or substance.
In this way, the claim is unlike the transformations found in some eligible
claims. See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184 (a process that transforms rubber).
On this record, claim 21 is directed to the identified abstract idea. See
Final Act. 3-4.
V. Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
A. Step 2B of the Guidance
To determine whether a claim provides an inventive concept, the
additional elements are considered-individually and in combination-to
determine whether they ( 1) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial
11
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Also, we reevaluate
our conclusions about the additional elements discussed in the previous step.
Id.
B. The Network Computing System
Claim 21 recites that the communications are exchanged "within a
network computing system."
The Federal Circuit determined that "sending a first set of electronic
messages over a network to devices" was well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity in the claims at issue in OIP Technologies, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Also, the MPEP
instructs examiners that courts recognize that receiving or transmitting data
over a network may be well-understood, routine, and conventional when
claimed generically. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) (collecting cases).
Like the network in OIP, claim 21 's network computing system and
the communications exchange is generically recited. Also, the Specification
discloses an embodiment that connects a remote computer and the user's
computer using "any type of network." Spec. ,-J 72. For all these reasons,
we agree with the Examiner that a network computing system is well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See Final Act. 4-5.
We also reevaluate our conclusions about whether the recited network
computing system integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
See supra§ IV.B. Because the recited network computing system adds
nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,
12
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
those conclusions stand. Considering both our previous conclusions and the
findings about well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, we
determine that the claimed method does not use the network computing
system in a way that indicates that the claim provides an inventive concept.
C. Recording Questions
Claim 21 recites, in part, "recording, in a data structure associated
with the question, that the question is unanswered by the second user upon a
determination that the question is unanswered."
The Federal Circuit has recognized that a generic database may not
satisfy the inventive-concept requirement. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also,
the MPEP instructs examiners that courts recognize that storing and
retrieving information in memory may be well-understood, routine, and
conventional when claimed generically. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) (citing
Versata, 793 F.3d at 1334; OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363).
Claim 21 uses the data structure generically for data storage and
retrieval. The Specification discloses that the data structure merely retains
the data. See, e.g., Spec. ,-J,-J 42-44. In this way, the data structure is similar
to the generic database described above. See Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at
1324-25; MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that this additional element is well-understood, routine, and conventional in
the field. See Final Act. 4-5.
We also reevaluate our conclusions about whether the recited
recording step integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. See
supra§ IV.C. Because the recited recording step adds nothing more than
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, those conclusions
13
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
stand. Considering both our previous conclusions and the findings about
well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, we determine that the
recording step does not indicate that the claim provides an inventive
concept.
D. The Combination
"[A] new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even
though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in
common use before the combination was made." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188.
For example, the claims in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC involved an inventive distribution of function between a local
computer and a server. See 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
Federal Circuit noted "[t]he inventive concept described and claimed in the
'606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote
from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end
user." Id. at 1350. "Because the filtering tool on the ISP server contains
each user's customized filtering mechanism, the filtering tool working in
combination with the ISP server can apply a specific user's filtering
mechanism to the websites requested by that user." Id. at 1345.
Appellants do not identify any inventive concept in the recited
combination of steps here or any specific arrangement of computing
components. See App. Br. 9-18. Nor do we find any. Rather, the
computing system and the data structure are used in their ordinary capacity.
The described improvement here is to distributing answers to questions,
which is part of the abstract idea. See generally Spec. ,i,i 1-3. Yet " [ w ]hat
is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm."
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). "[A]
14
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
On this record, the limitations-considered individually and in
combination-do not provide an inventive concept. Final Act. 4-5.
E. Conclusion
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 21 and claims 22-40, which are not argued separately. See supra n.3.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
I. The Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds that Azzam discloses every limitation of claim
21. Final Act. 9-10. As for the recited notification, the Examiner finds that
Azzam discloses that, when a user has a question, the user may email one or
more co-workers to find an answer. Ans. 9 ( citing Azzam ,-J 1 ). According
to the Examiner, Azzam also discloses automatically detecting questions in
email. Id. at 10 ( citing Azzam ,-J,-J 16, 19).
II. Appellants ' Contentions
Appellants argue that the claim recites ( 1) a data structure that stores
whether a question is unanswered by a second user and (2) notifying the
second user of the answer using that data structure. App. Br. 20;
Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that Azzam only records an unanswered
question. App. Br. 20. According to Appellants, Azzam does not record the
question's state-i.e., whether it was unanswered by the second user-so
Azzam does not use a data structure to notify the second user that the
question is answered. Id.; Reply Br. 3.
15
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
III. Analysis
Claim 21 recites, in part, "recording, in a data structure associated
with the question, that the question is unanswered by the second user upon a
determination that the question is unanswered" ( emphasis added). Claim 21
further recites, in part, "notifying, based upon the answer and using the data
structure, the second user of the answer to the question" ( emphasis added).
The key feature here is notifying a user of the answer to a question that was
previously unanswered by the user. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not shown that Azzam discloses the recited notification. See
App. Br. 20.
Specifically, Azzam automatically detects and stores question-and-
answer pairs in electronic communications. Azzam ,-J 16. If a first user
emails the second user a question and the second user answers the question
in a reply, the question-and-answer pair is identified, extracted from the
email, and stored in the question-and-answer (QnA) store. Id. Other users
can then find the question in the QnA store, which becomes a "knowledge
repository." Id.
We agree with Appellants that Azzam does not teach notifying a user
of the answer to a question that was unanswered by the user. App. Br. 20;
Reply Br. 3. To be sure, Azzam does store unanswered questions in one
embodiment. Id. ,-i 42. For instance, Azzam stores these questions as
standalone questions. Id. But the Examiner has not shown that Azzam
notifies users when these questions are answered.
Azzam's background section does not support the Examiner's finding
that the users are notified, as claimed. See Ans. 9 ( citing Azzam ,-J 1 ). In the
background, Azzam simply explains that business, social, and academic
16
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
enterprises use email as "an unofficial repository for information."
Azzam ,i 1. Azzam discloses that users email multiple co-workers to find an
answer. Id. This is an alternative to the approach described by Azzam in
paragraph 42-i.e., finding the answers in the QnA store. Id. ,i 16. At most,
the Examiner has shown that several of Azzam's users can receive some
notification (i.e., an email). But this is insufficient to show that Azzam
discloses notifying a user of the answer to a question that was previously
unanswered by the user. See App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 21. We
also do not sustain the rejection of claims 28 and 35, which also recite the
data structure and notification. See Final Act. 10 ( explaining that "claims 28
and 35 are rejected under the same rationale" as claim 21 ). And, for the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 21, 22, 24,
25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, and 39.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 23, 26, 30, 33, 37, and 40 as being
obvious over a combination of Azzam and Bhogal or a combination of
Azzam and Murray. Final Act. 12-14. Because the additional references
are not relied upon to teach the limitation missing from Azzam, the
additional references do not cure the deficiency discussed above. See id.
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 23, 26, 30, 33,
37, and 40 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with claims
21, 28, and 35.
17
Appeal 2018-004698
Application 14/951,689
CONCLUSIONS
We sustain the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31,
32, 35, 36, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
We do not sustain the rejections of claims 23, 26, 30, 33, 37, and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-
40 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18