Ex Parte Burr et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 21, 201813443153 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/443, 153 04/10/2012 Busy Burr 13708 7590 08/22/2018 Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC PO Box 691 Hoschton, GA 30548 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. CITI-0713 3024 EXAMINER ROSEN, NICHOLAS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2018 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 BUSY BURR and SAM LISING 1 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24, which constitute all of the claims pending in the application. 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on a determination that the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Because we conclude independent claims 1 and 24 are drawn to an abstract idea (i.e., a 1 Appellants identify Citi Ventures, Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. 2 Claims 5, 6, and 25 are withdrawn due to the restriction requirement mailed June 11, 2014. Claims 10 and 15 have been canceled. 3 The Examiner indicated that claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24 recite non-obvious subject matter. Final Act. 4--6. Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 fundamental economic practice and/or the organization of human activity) without significantly more, we affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants state that the described invention relates "to methods and systems for exchanging stored value for shopping at a vendor using a mobile communication device." Spec. ,r 1; Title. The method and systems use "alternative currency space" that includes "non-cash stored value" such as "loyalty points [e.g., rewards points], pre-paid telephone minutes, virtual currencies ... , and gift cards" (Spec. ,r,r 2, 3). Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention provides an exchange service with an improved customer experience by "not requir[ing] a user to observe all the details of a gift card exchange transaction including the unpleasant experience of seeing the amount which the user is losing in the exchange of gift cards." Spec. ,r 4; see also Spec. ,r 3. This is done by "simply display[ing] transparently for the user a total amount of what all the user's gift cards, including the gift cards from other retailers, are presently worth in the particular retail store in which the user is shopping." Spec. ,r 4. Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a method and system involving using a mobile computing device or mobile phone 10 (Fig. 1) employing a memory and processor or microprocessor running an application for displaying a stored value via a scannable code (see, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 13, 50) for stored value available for the user at a vendor for shopping. Spec. ,r,r 7-15, 29. Claims 1 (method) and 24 (system with a mobile computing device processor and 2 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 memory to perform the method) recite the steps of exchanging stored value for shopping at a preferred vendor. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A method of exchanging stored value for shopping at a preferred vendor, comprising: identifying, using a mobile computing device having a microprocessor, by an application on the mobile computing device a preferred vendor for shopping by a user based at least in part on a current location of the mobile computing device; generating, using the mobile computing device processor, by the application, an interface displaying a single total net spend value of all stored value of the user issued by a plurality of other vendors stored on the mobile computing device if exchanged for stored value issued by the preferred vendor for shopping by the user, absent any information regarding exchange rate or exchange fee; identifying, using the mobile computing device, by the application, at least a portion of the stored value of the user issued by the plurality of other vendors stored on the mobile computing device to exchange for stored value issued by the preferred vendor for shopping by the user, absent any information regarding exchange rate or exchange fee; and receiving, using the mobile computing device, by the application, the stored value issued by the preferred vendor for shopping by the user in exchange for at least a portion of the stored value of the user issued by the plurality of other vendors stored on the mobile computing device. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception. Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2--4. 3 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. 4 For the reasons discussed infra, as well as the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Final Rejection (Final Act. 2--4), and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-16), we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments (Br. 7-16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101 to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (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 Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," id., e.g., to an abstract idea. For example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the 4 No Reply Brief has been filed. 4 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered "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." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98). For claims to pass muster, "at step two, an inventive concept must be evident in the claims." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. We, therefore, look to whether the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. Here, in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner concludes that claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24 are directed to exchanging value/currency, which is a fundamental economic practice and/or method of organizing human activity and, therefore, an abstract idea. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds the claims do not include limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment ( e.g., a mobile computing device). Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4. 5 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 Appellants argue "the rejection lacks relevant, plausible evidence and articulated reasoning and analysis (i) to establish a basis for alleging that the claims are directed to an 'abstract idea' and (ii) to establish a basis for alleging that ' [ t ]he claims amount to nothing significantly more."' Br. 7. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner sets forth a prima facie case for the rejection at pages 2 through 4 of the Final Rejection, and at pages 2 through 4 of the Examiner's Answer. In addition, the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 4-- 16. As such, we adopt the Examiner's legal conclusions, findings, and explanations provided therein. Id.; Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2-16. We provide the following for emphasis. Step One of Mayo/Alice Analysis Regarding step one of Alice, Enfzsh held that the "directed to" inquiry asks not whether "the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept," but instead whether, "considered in light of the specification, ... 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Regarding improvements to computer-related technology, the Court in Enfzsh held as follows: We do not read Alice to broadly hold that all improvements in computer-related technology are inherently abstract and, therefore, must be considered at step two. Indeed, some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like. Nor do we think that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are inherently abstract and therefore only properly analyzed at the second step of the Alice analysis. Software can make non- abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware 6 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route. We thus see no reason to conclude that all claims directed to improvements in computer- related technology, including those directed to software, are abstract and necessarily analyzed at the second step of Alice, nor do we believe that Alice so directs. Therefore, we find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335. Thus, we determine whether the claims "focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this light, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the claims as a whole are not directed to an abstract idea. As discussed supra, independent claims 1 and 24 are primarily directed to the function of exchanging currency/value using generic mobile computing components (see Fig. 1; Spec. ,r,r 17, 29, 51-53; see also Br. 5---6), which can be implemented with a general purpose computer such as a mobile phone ( e.g., processor, memory, interface, etc.). Indeed, the memory and processor recited in claims 1 and 24 are not even shown in the Drawings, and Appellants' Figure 1 only shows a "mobile device 10." Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention does no more than run an application on known mobile computing devices or phones employing a generic processor and memory to display known scannable codes representing stored value based on an exchange of non-cash stored value (a well-known fundamental economic practice and method of organizing human activity). 7 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 In addition, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to "identifying a vendor, generating an interface to display information regarding stored value, identifying a portion of value to be exchanged for other value, and receiving stored value in exchange for other value," which is both a fundamental economic or commercial practice and a method of organizing human activity. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Thus, we conclude the claims are drawn to little more than automating the abstract idea of exchanging value/currency, which we conclude is a fundamental economic practice and, therefore, constitutes patent-ineligible subject matter. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335 ("fundamental economic and conventional business practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer"). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner because the numerous claim limitations recite the use of a general purpose computer (e.g., a mobile computing device having a processor or microprocessor and an interface) to perform a method of exchanging stored value for shopping at a preferred vendor (method claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-23); and a system including a mobile computing device processor, memory, and interface (claim 24) to perform the method. See claims 1, 24. Thus, we find the claims are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality, but are directed to an abstract idea, namely the exchange of value/currency, which is a fundamental economic activity and a method of organizing human activity. Appellants' arguments (Br. 8-11) that the Examiner has not provided any basis or evidence that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, are not persuasive for at least three reasons. 8 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 First, the Examiner has indeed provided evidence by (i) comparing the claims at hand to those found ineligible in TL! Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting telephone unit, server, or combination of the two found to be patent-ineligible) (see Ans. 8-9); and (ii) making of record (a) at least three prior art references teaching exchanging stored value for shopping at a vendor, 5 (b) the Examiner's Affidavit regarding the use of S&H Green Stamps as an exchange, 6 and ( c) Wikipedia articles about S&H Green Stamps and the history of money exchange (see Ans. 5; Final Act. 7-8). In this light, Appellants' contention that the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea amounts to no more than a "mischaracterization of the claim language as nothing more than introductory gerund phrases, followed by stock boilerplate conclusions completely devoid of any specific evidence, analysis or reasoned logic" (Br. 8)( emphasis added), is not persuasive. In addition, Appellants' contention that the prior art references to Dessert and Postrel, as well as the Examiner's personal experience with S&H Green Stamps, "are neither relevant to Applicants' claimed invention nor do they support a conclusion that Applicant's claimed invention is widely accepted and adopted in the relevant community and is thus fundamental to the practices of the community" (Br. 9), is conclusory and therefore unpersuasive. Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's evidence and accompanying 5 See Final Act. 5--6 citing Dessert (US 2011/0166992 Al; published July 7, 2011), Postrel (US 2010/0280896 Al; published Nov. 4, 2010), and King (US 2012/0072274 Al; published March 22, 2012); see also Ans. 5 n.1. 6 See Notice of References Cited, Form PT0-892, boxes U-W, mailed March 3, 2016. 9 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 reasoning with any specific argument or evidence, and no Reply Brief has been filed. Second, at least the following decisions from our reviewing court have found many types of fundamental commercial practices patent ineligible: OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (mem) (2015) (offer-based price optimization); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (transaction guaranty); Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. Amazon, Inc., 671 Fed. App'x. 777 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016) (receiving instructions for ordering); Macropoint, LLC v. Fourkites, Inc., 671 Fed. App'x 780 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016) (tracking freight); Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 636 Fed. Appx. 1014 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016) (monitoring shipping containers); America's Collectibles Network Inc. v. Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA, 672 Fed. App'x 997 (mem) (Fed. Cir. 2017) (conducting reverse auction by adjusting price and inventory); and EasyWeb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 689 Fed. App'x 969 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (receiving, authenticating, and publishing data). In this light, the exchange of value/ currency recited in the claims on appeal ( such as identifying a vendor, generating an interface to display information regarding stored value, identifying a portion of value to be exchanged for other value, and receiving stored value in exchange for other value) are commercial practices that are economic and fundamental in nature. Furthermore, merely combining several abstract ideas (such as a fundamental economic activity and a method of organizing human activity) does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one 10 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 abstract idea ... to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Third, Appellants admit that it is well-known to trade currency, gift cards, and/or rewards points (i.e., to exchange value/currency). Spec. ,r,r 2, 3; see also Br. 8-9. Step Two of Mayo/Alice Analysis Because we conclude the claims are directed to an abstract idea for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3, 4--11), we tum to the second part of the Alice/Mayo analysis. We analyze the claims to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Although Appellants' disclosed invention provides a good customer service experience by simply displaying an amount available for spending to a user in a particular store (Spec. ,r 4), we agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention pertains to no more than a generic computer in a mobile computing device, including a memory, processor, and interface to display the value available. See Spec. ,r,r 7, 8, 11-15, 17, 29; Fig. 1. Appellants argue that the independent claims recite "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea( s) because they go beyond conventional computer operations and improve the technology area of exchanging value/currency. See generally Br. 11-14. More specifically, Appellants contend the claims are drawn to more than an abstract idea by providing significant improvements in the functioning of mobile computing 11 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 device processors, as well as exchange server processors by (i) eliminating the need for repeated queries to multiple exchange websites, and (ii) simplifying stored value exchange processing (Br. 12). Appellants assert this (i) reduces processor load, memory space and server requirements, and error rate; and (ii) increases processing speed, energy savings, reliability, and usability. Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Although the claims recite multiple computer operations, they do not provide details of how these operations are performed and, therefore, they do not go beyond conventional computer operations or affect computer interface and inventory management technology. In other words, we are not persuaded that the operations in the claims are an improvement to any technology as opposed to an improvement to a fundamental economic practice. Although Appellants contend the Examiner has provided no evidence to support the finding that the claimed invention only uses conventional or generic computer devices/servers (Br. 7), Appellants do not contravene the Examiner's taking of Official Notice that it was well-known that mobile phones can include processors (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3-5), and no Reply Brief has been filed or other arguments or evidence made of record to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case as to step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis. Additionally, we note Appellants' Specification and Drawings support the Examiner's finding that independent claims 1 and 24 are primarily directed to the function of exchanging currency/value using generic mobile computing components (see Fig. 1; Spec. ,r,r 17, 29, 51-53; see also Br. 5- 6), which can be implemented with a general purpose computer such as a mobile phone (e.g., processor, memory, interface, etc.). Notably, although 12 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 Appellants describe the use of a global positioning system (GPS) to determine the location of a vendor where the user is shopping (Spec. ,r,r 33, 36), a "non-GPS alternative" method of determining the vendor location or preferred vendor is also described (Spec. 34), and claims 1 and 24 do not recite using GPS. In addition, although Appellants describe that the mobile computing device 10 can interact with an exchange service processor 12, locator database 14, and network 18, claims 1 and 24 only recite the mobile computing device, not the external system/network elements. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the claims merely recite a computing system, processor, or medium with instructions to perform basic commercial/economic functions of exchanging value/currency at a preferred vendor by displaying a stored value at a preferred vendor to a user, and exchanging information necessary to implement an exchange when the user and vendor commit to completing the transaction. Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3---6. Given that claims 1 and 24 are directed to the fundamental economic practice of exchanging stored value/currency, the claimed elements of (i) a generic "mobile computing device having a microprocessor" and "an interface" for displaying stored value (see claim 1 ); and (ii) a "system" having a "mobile computing device processor coupled to memory" and an interface to display a stored value (see claim 24), are not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Considering the claims elements individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do no more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or processer. Id. at 2359; Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Simply adding a 'computer aided' limitation to a claim 13 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible."). Nor do the recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered combination-transform the nature of claims 1 and/or 24 into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than that idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. As the Examiner indicates, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, including a variety of data manipulation functions indicated by the Examiner on pages 3 of the Final Rejection and Answer, namely identifying a vendor, retrieving information, identifying a portion of data, and receiving stored data in exchange for other data. Final 3; Ans. 3 see Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc., 811 F .3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface," "network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]he interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element"); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."). Indeed, these generic computing components merely do that which can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper- exclusive functions ineligible for patent protection under § 101. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That the Specification's paragraphs 13 and 50 describe the display of a scannable code to a user, so that the user or vendor may then scan the code 14 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 to exchange the available stored value or part thereof, only bolsters the notion that at least some human intervention is contemplated by the claimed invention----even for functions performed automatically. Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the recited components add efficiency, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components-not the recited process itself. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")). Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claims 1 and 24 is not on an improvement in computer processors or mobile phones as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citations and quotation marks omitted). In summary, merely reciting these generic computing components cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Id. at 2358. In other words, merely reciting an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" ( or mobile computing device) does not render an abstract idea non-abstract: there must be more. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nor does the claimed invention improve the computer processor device's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions. Cf Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335. In view of the foregoing, Appellants' contentions that the claimed invention (i) reduces processor load, memory space and server requirements, 15 Appeal2017-004266 Application 13/443,153 and error rate; and (ii) increases processing speed, energy savings, reliability, and usability (Br. 12-13), are not persuasive. Preemption Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' conclusory arguments that the claims do not preempt others from the whole field identified by the Examiner of "'exchanging value/currency."' Br. 15; see also Br. 14--15. Preemption is not a separate test, but is inherently addressed within the Alice framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claims 1 and 24, as well as dependent claims 2--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-23 not argued separately, except based on their dependence on each respective independent claim. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 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). AFFIRMED 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation