Ex Parte McGreal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

12172028 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/172,028 07/11/2008
12324 7590 06/27/2018
Billion & Armitage - Digital River
7401 Metro Blvd.
Suite 425
Minneapolis, MN 55439
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher John McGreal
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.
ll77.029US1 4092
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
docketing@billionarmitage.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JOHN MCGREAL
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 18-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims
1-17 were withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention "relates to commerce systems for use on the
Internet. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system and
method managing [I]ntemet ad campaigns." Spec. i-f 2.
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
Representative Claim
Claim 18 is representative of the invention and reads as follows:
18. A network- based subscriber profiling system,
compnsmg:
a subscriber profile database hosted on a computer
system comprising at least one processor and memory and
records of subscriber online behavior related to the number of
times a subscriber engaged with a first group and a second
group, the groups identified through subscriber interactions
with email links and web pages; and
a module hosted on a computer system comprising at
least one processor and memory comprising program code
which when executed by the subscriber profiling system causes
the subscriber profiling system to perform
a weighting operation based on at least one of a
plurality of variables related to the subscriber behavior
related to the number of times the subscriber engaged
with the first group and the second group, the weighting
operation determining a first group relevance and a
second group relevance for the subscribers; and
a selection operation for selecting content to
include in a marketing message to the subscriber, the
content based on the first group relevance and the second
group relevance for the subscriber based on the
determination made by the weighting operation.
Br. 21-22 (contested weighting operation limitation emphasized in italics).
Rejections
A. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4--5.
B. Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by "Applicant's Background[,] see at least paragraphs
2
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
[0006-0008]," hereinafter "AAPA" (Applicant's Admitted Prior Art).
Final Act. 5-6.
C. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over AAP A in view of Schadt et al. (US 2007 /0260523
Al, published Nov. 8, 2007) (hereinafter "Schadt"). Final Act. 6-7.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by AAPA?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 19 and 20 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of AAP A and Schadt?
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and any evidence
presented. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We highlight and address specific findings
and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Mayo/Alice Analysis under 35 USC§ 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
3
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLSBankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an
abstract idea. Abstract ideas may 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 inquiry
ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
Cir. 2017).
Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the
elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). We consider the question of
whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities
of the computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract
idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
4
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
We, therefore, decide under step two whether the claims: (a) set forth
an inventive concept that provides a specific means or method that improves
the relevant technology, or (b) are directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and
machinery. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
Rejection A under 35 US.C. § 101
Regarding the first part of the Alice/ Mayo analysis, the Examiner
concludes claims 18-20 are directed to the abstract idea of "managing ad
campaigns based on interactions/engagements which is considered a
fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human
activities." Final Act. 4 (some emphases omitted). 1
Regarding the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, the Examiner
finds that claims 18-20 do not recite "limitations that are 'significantly
more' than the abstract idea because the claims do not recite 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." Id. The Examiner finds that "[t]he limitations are merely
instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no
more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are
1 "Patent eligibility under§ 101 presents an issue of law." Accenture Glob.
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
5
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry." Id. at 4--5 (emphasis added). 2
In the Answer, the Examiner further explains the basis for the§ 101
rejection of claims 18-20 as follows:
The process could be done by a human analog (by hand or merely
thinking). The limitations are merely instructions to implement
the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a
generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously
known to the industry. This concept is not "necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks" (see DDR Holdings,
LLC vs Hotels.com et al (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Furthermore, this
concept is similar to the concepts of data recognition and storage,
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify
options, orgamzmg information through mathematical
organizations, and structuring a sales force or marketing
company, which have all been found by the courts to be abstract.
Ans. 2-3 (bolding, underlining, and italics omitted) (first and second
emphasis added).
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 18-20 are not patent-
eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Mayo/Alice Analysis -Step 1
In response, and regarding Alice Step 1, Appellant contends that
"Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) does not mention a weighting
2 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811F.3d1314, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). In particular, "[ t ]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881F.3d1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
6
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
feature much less the weighting operation recited in the claims. The Schadt
et al. reference also fails to teach a weighting feature." Br. 10.
Appellant further contends:
Appellant respectfully submits that a weighting operation for
determining relevance of a first group and a second group which
is based, at least in part, on the recency of a subscriber's
engagement with a first group or the recency of the subscriber's
engagement with a second group is the additional element that
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. As
pointed out and explained below (See Argument D and
Argument E), this is one novel and unobvious aspect of the
invention of claims 18-20. A weighting operation based on
recency of the subscriber's engagement is not taught nor
suggested by the AAP A or the Schadt et al. [references]. The
Examiner has failed to find references which show or suggest this
aspect of the invention. Therefore, it is inventive and is
significantly more than just an abstract idea.
Br. 10, emphases added.
Appellant's arguments directed to a purported point of novelty are not
persuasive. The Supreme Court emphasizes: "[t]he 'novelty' of any
element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance
in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981 ). Our reviewing court further guides that
"[ e ]ligibility and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see
also Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that "[ e ]ven assuming" that a particular claimed
feature was novel does not "avoid the problem of abstractness").
7
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
Appellant also argues that the Examiner "identifies a particular
abstract idea [but] has not demonstrated how this abstract idea is embodied
in the pending claims." Br. 11. We disagree. The Examiner has shown that
the abstract idea of managing ad campaigns based on
interactions/engagements is embodied in the claims. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-
3. For example, claims 18-20 recite records of subscriber online behavior
related to the number of times a subscriber "engaged" with a first group and
a second group and program code for selecting content to include "a
marketing message," the content based on at least the number of times the
subscriber "engaged" with the first group and the second group.
Appellant further urges that the pending claims are not of a scope to
preempt the purported abstract concept of managing ad campaigns based on
interactions/engagements. Br. 11.
However, our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: "[ w ]hile
preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument regarding the
absence of complete preemption.
Moreover, but for the recitation of a generic processor or computer,
we find at least the recited functions of implementing a mathematical
algorithm ("a weighting operation based on at least one of a plurality of
variables" - claim 18) and the "selection operation" (id.) could be performed
as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely
mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer,
8
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.");
see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47
(2016) ("While the Supreme Court altered the § 101 analysis since
CyberSource in cases like Mayo and Alice, we continue to 'treat[] analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the
abstract-idea category."') (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Thus, we conclude claims 18-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a
fundamental economic practice 3 ("a selection operation for selecting
content to include in a marketing message to the subscriber" - claim 18),
that could be performed as mental steps, albeit with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner's legal conclusion that claims 18-20 on appeal are directed to the
abstract idea of a fundamental economic practice that could be performed as
mental steps. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2 (by "merely thinking").
Mayo/Alice Analysis - Step 2
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, 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
3 The Examiner concludes "the claims are directed towards the concept of
managing ad campaigns based on interactions/ engagements which is
considered a fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing
human activities; therefore the claims are drawn to an abstract idea." Final
Act. 4, Emphasis added.
9
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
Regarding Alice Step 2, Appellant contends:
the pending claims include recitations that amount to
significantly more than the basic idea itself. The claims provide
a specific, concrete and meaningful application that represents an
improvement in the field of internet marketing by providing a
technical solution to finding the most relevant content to present
to an online shopper. Determining the relevance and using the
relevancy results to select the most relevant content to provide a
user provides meaningful limitations beyond generally linking
the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
Br. 12.
We particularly note the Appellant does not contest the Examiner's
finding that the claim limitations are "merely instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to
perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry." Final Act. 2
(italics emphasis added).
The Examiner makes similar findings in the Examiner's Answer:
The computer system and processor are generically recited
and can merely be general purpose computers that perform
basic computer functions of retrieving, storing, manipulating,
and processing data, which are all well-understood, routine and
conventional. The database and memory are generically recited
and are merely used to store and retrieve data in a well-
understood, routine, and conventional way. The limitations
amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a
computer. Taking these computer limitations as an ordered
combination adds nothing that is not already present when the
10
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
elements are taken individually. Therefore, the claim does not
amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea and
the additional limitations add no inventive concept.
Ans. 3 (emphases added).
Nor does Appellant file a Reply Brief in further response to the
Examiner findings. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. Arguments not made are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We note Appellant's claimed system is implemented on "a computer
system comprising at least one processor and memory," i.e., a generic
computer system, which performs the recited "weighting" and "selection"
operations (functions) in accordance with the program code instructions.
See Claim 18.
Our reviewing court provides guidance regarding the use of such
generic computers and/or computer/network components. See Elec. Power
Grp. LLC, 830 F.3d at 1355 ("We have repeatedly held that such invocations
of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are
'insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application' of an
abstract idea.") (quoting buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Intellectual Ventures Iv. Capital One
Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the claims
recite both a generic computer element-a processor-and a series of
generic computer 'components' that merely restate their individual
functions. . . . That is to say, they merely describe the functions of the
abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply not enough under
step two.").
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred,
because Appellant does not substantively explain how the recited
11
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
functionality of claims 18-20 improves the functioning of the generically
recited computer, processor, or memory. To the extent that Appellant's
recited functions may be performed faster or more efficiently using a
computer, our reviewing court provides applicable guidance:
While the claimed system and method certainly purport to
accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
computer, rather than the patented method itself See Bancorp
Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 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.").
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphases added).
Although independent claim 18 includes "a subscriber profile
database ... and records of subscriber online behavior related to the number
of times a subscriber engaged with a first group and a second group," we
conclude Appellant's claims 18-20 are not directed to a specific
improvement in the way computers operate as embodied in the claimed
database, as was found by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
In particular, the court found Enfzsh 's invention was an "improvement
of an existing technology" that, unlike conventional relational and object-
oriented databases, did not require a programmer to predefine a structure to
which subsequent data entry must conform. Enfish,, 822 F.3d at 1337; see
also id. at 1339 ("[T]he self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal
is a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory."). In contrast, we find Appellant's
12
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
claims merely include a conventional database that contains records of
subscriber online behavior.
Nor do we find Appellant's claims similar to the claimed solution the
court held to be patent-eligible in DDR Holdings. Here, we conclude
Appellant's claimed solution is not rooted in computer technology, such that
the invention on appeal overcomes a problem specifically arising in the
realm of computers, including computer networks, as was the case with the
type of claim the court concluded was patent-eligible in DDR Holdings.
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257.
Moreover, we find claims 18-20 are silent regarding specific
limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory,
network, database, or Internet. Because none of Appellant's claims are
directed to an improvement in a processor, database, or other
computer/network component, we conclude that none of the claim
limitations, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently
transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Mayol Alice analyses,
that each of Appellant's claims 18-20, considered as a whole, is directed to
a patent-ineligible abstract idea (under step one), and under step two, does
not recite something "significantly more" to transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application.
Therefore, we conclude the additional elements recited in the claims
of a database, computer system, processor, and memory without more, and
the inclusion of the weighting and selecting functions that may be performed
without a computer as mental steps (although more slowly than a computer
13
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
using pen and paper), do not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection A under
35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 18-20, as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter. 4
Rejection B of Independent Claim 18 under§ 102 (a)
Issue: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), did the Examiner err in
finding AAP A expressly or inherently discloses the contested weighting
operation limitation:
a weighting operation based on at least one of a plurality of
variables related to the subscriber behavior related to the number
of times the subscriber engaged with the first group and the
second group, the weighting operation determining a first group
relevance and a second group relevance for the subscribers[,]
as recited in independent claim 18? 5
Appellant contends, inter alia:
Simply put, the Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAP A) fails to
teach the weighting operation based on subscriber behavior as
recited in claim 18. More specifically, there is no teaching in the
AAP A of ". . . perform[ ing] a weighting operation based on the
subscriber behavior related to the number of times the subscriber
engaged with the first group and the second group.
Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).
4 To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 3 7
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
5 We give the contested claim limitation the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
14
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
In response, the Examiner further explains the basis for the rejection:
AAP A teaches that email is an effective marketing tool. Among
other things, online marketers use email to acquire new
customers and to retain and communicate with current
customers. When used with web analytics, an eMarketing
system can give the online marketer a tremendous amount of
insight into who is visiting and buying the marketer's product
(paragraph [004]). Each email sent out on a marketing campaign
is trackable and can provide an enormous amount of valuable,
actionable data that can be used to further refine the marketer's
targeting efforts and messages including improving the targeting
and relevance of outgoing messages (paragraph [006]). A
marketer may distribute an email newsletters with several links
(these links are well-known in the art as hyperlinks to websites).
If a customer interacts with a link (understood as an interaction
or visit to a website), the eMarketing system puts the customer
into the group related to that link. AAP A teaches that a
subscriber clicks on 25 links related to men's shoes and 1 click
on a link related to women's shoes. It is apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the subscriber that has clicked on 25
links related to a certain topic (men's shoes) is more interested in
that topic and the relevancy of those links is higher than the link
that has received only 1 click (paragraphs [007-008]).
Ans. 4--5.
We find the Examiner's rejection does not provide a specific mapping
of the contested weighting operation of claim 18 to a specific corresponding
feature found in AAPA. See Spec. i-fi-16-8. We particularly note, in the
Final Action, the Examiner maps the entirety of claim 18 to "(Applicant's
Background see at least paragraphs [0006-0008])" and does not point to any
passage in AAP A that discloses the claimed weighting operation or
otherwise explain how AAP A discloses the claimed weighting operation. 6
6 See 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) ("When a reference is complex or shows or
describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular
15
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
Final Act. 5---6. Nor do we find the cited paragraphs 6-8 of AAPA
expressly or inherently describe a "weighting operation," within the meaning
of independent claim 18.
In the Answer, the Examiner further states: "[i]t is apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the subscriber that has clicked on 25 links
related to a certain topic (men's shoes) is more interested in that topic and
the relevancy of those links is higher than the link that has received only 1
click." Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner's conclusory assertion is insufficient to show that
AAP A discloses the claimed weighting operation. Under § 102, what is
apparent or suggested to an artisan having ordinary knowledge in the art is
insufficient to establish express or inherent anticipation. Our reviewing
court guides: "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745,
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons argued by Appellant
(Br. 13-14), we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's
anticipation Rejection B of independent claim 18.
Rejection C of Claims 19 and 20 under§ 103(a)
Based upon our review of the record, we find the Examiner has not
established how the additionally cited Schadt reference overcomes the
aforementioned deficiencies of AAP A. See Final Act. 6-7. Accordingly,
part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence
of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each
rejected claim specified."), emphases added.
16
Appeal2017-003766
Application 12/172,028
we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's§ 103 Rejection
C of dependent claims 19 and 20.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 18-20, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 18, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a), as being anticipated by AAPA.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 19 and 20, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of AAP A and Schadt.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 18 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 19 and 20 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision 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 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17