Ex Parte LevensteinDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201614212998 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/212,998 03/14/2014 24201 7590 08/31/2016 FULWIDER PATTON LLP HOW ARD HUGHES CENTER 6100 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1200 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lawrence M. Levenstein 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. CHI-92601 6505 EXAMINER FELTEN, DANIELS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): docketla@fulpat.com eOfficeAction@fulpat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LA WREN CE M. LEVENSTEIN Appeal2016-006036 Application 14/212,998 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, KENNETH G. SCHOPER, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge Appellant seeks our review under 35 1J.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellant's contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellant's claims 1-12 are directed to non-statutory subject matter. In this regard, we adopt the findings and reasoning of the Examiner found on pages 6-9 of the Final Action. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that the Appeal2016-006036 Application 14/212,998 claims are directed to an abstract idea and that the claims do not include significantly more than the abstract idea. We also adopt the Examiner's response to the Appellant's arguments, as found on pages 6-8 of the Answer. We add the following for emphasis only. We agree with the Examiner's finding that the claims are directed to the fundamental economic practice of funding an activity via a contract using a mathematical relationship or formula and that therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea. We hold that the recitation of providing refill stations that refill fluid products is a well-understood conventional activity already engaged in by those skilled in the mi; and therefore, when viewed as a whole, adds nothing significant to the abstract idea. See il1ayo (2012). \Ve do not agree that the withdrawal of the prior art rejection is an acknowledgement that the invention is novel. Rather, the withdrawal of the prior art rejection means only that the Examiner is not pursuing that particular rejection and may re fate to the perceived strength of that particular prior art rejection by the Examiner or rnay be an action to Hrnit the issues on appeal because the Examiner is of the opinion that the 10 l rejection is dispositive or may have been done for other reasons. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l) (2009). 2 Appeal2016-006036 Application 14/212,998 ORDER AFFIRMED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation