Ex Parte MizunoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 201714133031 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/133,031 12/18/2013 Shinji MIZUNO 159228 2971 759025944 OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 05/30/2017 EXAMINER RADA, ALEX P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3716 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2017 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): OfficeAction25944@oliff.com j armstrong @ oliff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHINJI MIZUNO Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Shinji Mizuno (Appellant)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Gree, Inc. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A communication system comprising: a plurality of communication terminals, each of the terminals comprising a touch screen and configured to: (1) display, on the touch screen: a first request button configured to draw once a card of a competitive game between at least two users of the plurality of communication terminals, and a second request button configured to guarantee a win by drawing continuously a number of cards equal to a predetermined winning threshold value; and (2) determine if either the first or second request buttons have been touched, and when the first or second buttons have been touched transmit a virtual item request of the competitive game to a competitive game server; and a competitive game server configured to: when the virtual item request from one of the plurality of terminals is received in response to the first request button being touched: (A) increment a stored reception count, which indicates a number of times a virtual item request has been received by any user of the plurality of terminals, (B) determine whether the stored reception count has reached the predetermined winning threshold value, (C) when the stored reception count has reached the predetermined winning threshold value: (i) increment a stored win count that indicates a number of wins of the user of the requesting terminal, and (ii) transmit a first virtual item of the competitive game, a second virtual item of the competitive game, a winning image, and the 2 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 number of wins of the user to the requesting terminal, and (D) when the stored reception count is less than the predetermined winning threshold value transmit only the first virtual item of the competitive game and the number of wins of the user to the requesting terminal; and when the virtual item request from one of the plurality of terminals is received in response to the second button being touched: (i) increment the stored win count, and (ii) transmit the first virtual item of the competitive game, the second virtual item of the competitive game, the winning image, and the number of wins of the user to the requesting terminal. REJECTION Claims 1—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo 3 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293—94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 1294 (citation omitted). In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “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.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’- i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “‘[sjimply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of 4 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [inMayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294). Moreover, our reviewing court has “determin[ed] that methods of managing a game of bingo were abstract ideas” and denied patentability of such concepts. In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Planet Bingo, LLCv. VKGSLLC, 576 F. App’x. 1005, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). DISCUSSION Claims 1—7, 11—17, and 21: Appellant groups independent claims 1 and 11 together in contesting the rejection. Appeal Br. 8—12. Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent claims 2—7, 12—17, and 21, aside from their dependence on either claim 1 or claim 11. Id. at 12. We select claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2—7, 11—17, and 21 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Applying the principles set forth in 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), as updated by July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45429 (July 30, 2015), the Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as “directed to an abstract idea of a communication system ... of managing competitive game play.” Ans. 2-4; Final Act. 2-4. According to the Examiner, the claims describe an “underlying management scheme” by which requests are received from a display screen displaying a first request button configured to draw a single card and a second button configured to guarantee a win by drawing continuously a number of cards; each time a request is received 5 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 from the first request button being pressed, a reception count is incremented and a determination is made whether the reception count has reached a predetermined winning threshold value; when the winning threshold is reached, a win count is incremented to indicate the number of wins of a user, and a first item and a second item of the game are transmitted to the requesting user’s terminal; when the winning threshold has not been reached, only the first item and number of wins are transmitted to the requesting terminal; and when the second button is selected, the stored win count is incremented, and the first and second items, the winning image, and the number of wins are transmitted to the requesting user’s terminal. See Ans. at 2—3; Final Act. 2—3. The Examiner finds that “[t]his management scheme is organizing human activity in a gaming environment.” Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds that “the abstract idea [of claim 1 ] is similar to the abstract ideas of managing risk (hedging) during consumer transactions as held in Bilski and mitigating settlement risk in financial transaction as held in Alice, and managing a game of bingo as held in Planet Bingo.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, in accordance with the first step of the Alice framework, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Id. Turning next to the second step of the Alice framework, the Examiner discusses the additional elements of claim 1, and determines that the claim does “not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Id. at 3^4. According to the Examiner: Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the computer components at each step of the management process perform purely generic computer function. Moreover, the 6 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: (i) mere instruction to implement the idea on a computer, and/ or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry[.] Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea. As was the case in Alice, “the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is “[pjurely conventional.” The claims do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id. at 3^4 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea “implemented on a generic computer.” Id. at 4. Appellant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible for the reasons identified in Example 2 of the Interim Guidance, which was modeled after the technology in Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RCT). Appeal Br. 9; see Examples: Abstract Ideas, issued Jan. 27, 2015, Example 3 (Digital Image Processing). Appellant points out that “[conventional competitive game servers only allow for transmitting one card draw at a time,” thereby requiring the player to touch the card draw button a number of times equal to the number needed to guarantee a win. Appeal Br. 9. In contrast, the system of Appellant’s claim 1 permits the player to touch the second request button a single time to request the number of cards needed to guarantee a win, thereby consolidating a plurality of requests into one request transmission and, consequently, reducing the amount of data to be transmitted and processed. Id. at 9—10. Moreover, the server in Appellant’s invention recognizes when 7 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 the second request button is touched and “does not need to perform the additional processing of determining whether the winning threshold limit has been reached.” Id. Thus, Appellant contends that “[b]y reducing the amount of data to be transmitted and reducing processing load, the claims improve the functioning of the computer itself.” Id. at 10. The invention in RCT involved halftoning techniques, which place the dots of primary colors in a formation that gives the visual illusion of many more shades of gray or varying colors, thereby allowing computers to present many shades and color tones with a limited number of pixel colors. RCT, 627 F.3d at 862—63. Thresholding, which is one method of halftoning, uses a two-dimensional array called a “mask.” Id. at 864—65. The invention recited in the claims in RCT improved upon previous halftoning techniques by developing an improved mask called a “blue noise” mask, which requires less processor power and memory than previous masks and results in faster computation while improving image quality. Id. The provision of a second request button, in the system of Appellant’s claim 1, to permit transmission of a single request, does not provide an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself. Rather, as the Examiner points out, the claimed plurality of computer terminals, touch screen, and game server perform basic, conventional functions of displaying, determining which button on the touch screen has been touched (i.e., conventional user interface processing), incrementing and storing an appropriate count depending on which button has been touched (i.e., conventional updating of a counter), in accordance with the rules of the game, comparing the stored winning count to a predetermined threshold winning count (i.e., conventional comparator), in accordance with the rules 8 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 of the game, and transmitting data for display at the terminals depending on which button has been touched by the receiving terminal. Ans. 7. These functions “are all nothing more than just program elements that manage[] the game and results of the game play.” Id. Appellant does not provide any evidence that processing of multiple transmission requests from multiple touches of a single card draw button presented a problem for conventional competitive game servers, or that consolidating such plurality of requests into one request transmission in fact limits the number of requests to be transmitted. See Ans. 7—8. Permitting the player to touch a button once to transmit a request for a plurality of cards equal to a predetermined winning threshold value may simply provide the player with the opportunity to accumulate more guaranteed wins during the duration of the game by touching the second button the same number of times that the player could touch the first button. Thus, providing the second button would simply improve the player’s score, without reducing the amount of data transmitted or the processing load resulting therefrom. Appellant submits that the Specification of the present application provides evidentiary support for the asserted network efficiency improvement. Reply Br. 3 (citing Appeal Br. 9-10). However, paragraphs 30, 34, 43, 48, 51, 58, 60, and 61 of the Specification, which are cited on page 9 of the Appeal Brief, do not discuss either a network efficiency problem with conventional competitive game servers or an improvement thereof afforded by Appellant’s claimed invention. Paragraph 30 discloses that a “win” is recorded each time the reception count for all item acquisition requests reaches a multiple of a predetermined value, such as 48. Paragraph 34 discloses that the control unit of the competitive game server resets the 9 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 reception count counter to zero when the reception count reaches the predetermined value (e.g., 48) or any multiple of that predetermined value. Paragraph 43 describes second request button 2113 as “an input interface for transmitting an item acquisition request continuously 48 times, which equals the predetermined value.” However, paragraph 43 does not disclose any reduction in the amount of data transmitted or the processing load resulting from the provision and use of this button. Paragraph 48 merely refers to the flowchart in Figure 6, which depicts the operations of the communication system. Paragraph 51 discusses step S3 (determining whether the value of the reception count is the predetermined value) of the flowchart of Figure 6. Paragraph 58 discloses that the control unit may provide all users with an additional item when the total of the second item transmission count for all users reaches a predetermined value (e.g., 48). Paragraphs 60 and 61 disclose that the predetermined value need not be 48, but, rather, may be a value less than or greater than 48, and that the reception count being a multiple of the predetermined value includes the case of the reception count being a single multiple of the predetermined value. Appellant does not direct our attention to any portion of the Specification addressing server or network efficiency or processing load. Rather, paragraph 5 of the Specification indicates that the invention is directed to “a program that can increase the variations on methods for acquiring an item in a game and enhance interest in the game.” Moreover, claim 1 does not recite any means of limiting the total number of requests, whether by touching the first button or touching the second button, by any player. Thus, it is not clear how the claimed system would necessarily result in a reduced amount of data transmission or 10 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 processing load. Further, the Specification does not explicitly disclose such a limit. Without an explicit limit on the number of total item requests that any player may make, it is not apparent how the consolidation of multiple item requests with a single touch of the second button necessarily would result in any reduction in the amount of data transmitted or the processing load. Nevertheless, even assuming the consolidation afforded by the provision of the second request button would reduce the amount of data transmitted to the server for processing, as discussed above, such a reduction merely reduces the load on the server; it does not cause the computer itself to function more efficiently or in an improved manner. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to persuade us that the consolidation of item request transmissions afforded by the claimed second request button of claim 1 “improve [s] the functioning of the computer itself’ or “effect[s] an improvement in any other technology or technical field” in the manner alluded to in Alice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Rather, for the reasons explained by the Examiner (Ans. 3—4), the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of managing the competitive game, which entails rewarding the player each time a second button is touched and each time the player’s item request using the first button causes the tally of all player item requests to reach a predetermined value, using some unspecified, generic computer. As the Examiner points out, “[t]he improvement is toward more for the convenience of the game play rather [than] to the computer itself.” Id. at 8. Appellant also argues that claim 1 is patent eligible for the reasons identified in Example 2 of the Interim Guidance, which is based on a claim in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LLC, et al., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 11 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 2014). Appeal Br. 10; see Examples: Abstract Ideas, issued Jan. 27, 2015, Example 2 (E-Commerce Outsourcing System/Generating a Composite Web Page). Appellant contends that, like the claims in DDR, Appellant’s claimed system is rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem arising specifically in the realm of computer networks. Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant submits that “the claims at issue provide an improved look and feel for a card drawing game over a communication system that overcomes a problem specifically arising in competitive game servers.” Id. Specifically, Appellant argues that, in the system of claim 1, “when a winning card is drawn, the user sees not only the number of wins, but also a winning image.” Id. at 11 (citing Fig. 4(a); Spec., paras. 31, 44). Thus, according to Appellant, the system of claim 1 “enhances usability by providing a visibly perceptible element” that “catches the eye.” Id. Appellant asserts that provision of this eye-catching winning image solves the problem that conventional competitive game servers, which do not display a corresponding visibly perceptible winning image upon acquisition of an item, “are perceived as monotonous or uninteresting.” Id. Appellant contends that “[t]he problem of monotonous or uninteresting distribution/transmission of winning items is necessarily rooted in the realm of networked display systems providing a card drawing game.” Id. The claims at issue in DDR address the problem of retaining website visitors who would otherwise be transported away from the host website after clicking on an advertisement on the host website and activating a hyperlink. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. The DDR claims call for a web server that “directs the visitor to an automatically-generated web page that combines visual Took and feel’ elements from the host website and product 12 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 information from the third-party merchant’s website related to the clicked advertisement.” Id. This permits visitors “to purchase products from the third-party merchant without actually entering that merchant’s website.” Id. at 1258. In other words, the DDR claims, which were held not to be directed to an abstract idea, do not just display an eye-catching image to attract the interest and attention of the user. Rather, the DDR claims automatically generate a hybrid web page that permits users visiting a host website to view and purchase products from a third-party merchant, whose ads are displayed with hyperlinks on the host website, without leaving the host website and entering that merchant’s website. Thus, the solution set forth in the DDR claims “is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. The system claimed in DDR does not merely present “visually perceptible elements” in the abstract. Rather, it “stores ‘visually perceptible elements’ corresponding to numerous host websites” each “displaying at least one link associated with a product or service of a third-party merchant,” automatically identifies the host when this link is activated, and instructs a “server of an ‘out-source provider’ to construct and serve to the visitor a new, hybrid web page that merges content associated with the products of the third-party merchant with the stored ‘visually perceptible elements’ from the identified host website.” Id. at 1257. In contrast, upon determining either that the stored reception count has reached the predetermined winning threshold value or upon receiving a request in response to the second button being touched, Appellant’s claim 1 13 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 transmits a non-specific “winning image,” in addition to the requested virtual item and the number of wins of the user requesting the item. Appeal Br. A-l—A-2 (Claims App.). Unlike the “visually perceptible elements” of the DDR claims, which correspond to the host web pages, and thus will offer a look and feel of the host web page when presented on the hybrid web page, the non-specific “winning image” of Appellant’s claim 1 are not rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem arising in the realm of computer networks. Even assuming that the claimed “winning image” is eye-catching or entertaining, thereby making the game attractive and entertaining for the player, providing such aesthetic features to products and services generally to make them attractive to consumers is a conventional and fundamental concept in commerce. This is not a concept unique to the internet, and is not rooted in computer technology. The recitations in claim 1 directed to transmitting a “winning image” amounts to nothing more than appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, and, thus is “not ‘enough’ to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294). Appellant insists that the claimed improvement (presenting a winning image, which helps the user to more easily determine if they have won and appears to be part of the game, thereby causing the game to have a more interesting display element), solves a problem that is unique to competitive game servers, because “[cjards cannot count on their own, and cannot transmit game items.” Reply Br. 5. Be that as it may, humans conducting the game can count, and cards can be used to display items, including winning images, as well as to tally numbers of wins. As such, the claims are directed merely to using a computer to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., the 14 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 game). As the Examiner points out, the claimed computer functions “are all nothing more than just program elements that manage[] the game and results of the game play.” Ans. 7. In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents a new argument, likening Appellant’s claim 1 to those at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 1. In particular, Appellant contends that, like the McRO claims, claim 1 incorporates “specific rules for automating a previously-manually performed machine-to- human task that constitutes an improvement over current industry practice and do[es] not preempt all approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques.” Id. at 2. Thus, Appellant submits that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Id. Our reviewing court has noted that “some improvements in computer- related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract” and that “[sjoftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court defined the question “in the first step of the Alice inquiry” as being “whether the focus of the claims is on [a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335—1336. The court found that the “plain focus of the claims” in Enfish was “on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id at 1336. In Appellant’s claim 1, the rules applied (i.e., determining whether a request has been received in response to the first button or the second button 15 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 being pushed, which count to increment, and which information to transmit) amount to simply the rules of the competitive game. For the reasons discussed above, they do not effect an improvement to computer functionality itself, but, instead, focus on a process (i.e., managing a game) that qualifies as an abstract idea, for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Appellant contends that the Examiner misinterprets In re Smith. Reply Br. 6. In particular, Appellant asserts that the improvement claimed in claim 1 “is not directed at wagering (exchanging financial obligations), but network load reduction for superfluous tasks, and adding a displayable game element to the card drawing process.” Id. Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to a system for receiving requests from users for game items, transmitting the requested item(s) in response to the request, and, in accordance with a set of rules, determining if the requesting user is a winner and, if so, transmitting a winning image and the number of wins of the user. Appeal Br. A-l—A-2 (Claims App.). The process of requesting and delivering items set forth in the claims is analogous to the process of buying and selling products or services (a fundamental economic concept). Moreover, Appellant’s Specification characterizes the requests for items within the competitive game realm as a “request to purchase an item.” Spec., para. 4. Further, the requested items are used, in essence, as chances for winning, and, in that sense, amount to wagers. As such, whether the currency for purchasing items within the competitive game realm is financial currency or virtual game currency, the Examiner’s characterization of claim 1 as being directed to an abstract idea that “is similar to the abstract ideas of managing risk (hedging) during consumer transactions as held in Bilski and 16 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 mitigating settlement risk in financial transaction as held in Alice'1'’ is reasonable. See Ans. 3, 6 (emphasis added). Appellant additionally points out that the court noted in In re Smith “that claims directed to conducting a game using a new or original deck of cards (for example a 1,000 card deck) could potentially survive step two of Alice.” Reply Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive because it does not elaborate on the applicability of this statement from In re Smith to claim 1, and, notably, does not identify any element or combination of elements of Appellant’s claim 1 “that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself,’” as required under step two of Alice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2—7, 12—17, and 21, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 8—10 and 18—20, 22, and 23: Appellant groups independent claims 8—10 and 18—20 together in contesting the rejection. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent claims 22 and 23, aside from their dependence on either claim 8 or claim 18. Id. at 13. We select claim 8 as representative of this group, and claims 9, 10, 18—20, 22, and 23 stand or fall with claim 8. Appellant argues that claim 8 “provide[s] a specific improvement to a networked system[] providing an online card game that is a transformative inventive concept because [it provides] visibly perceptible elements for 17 Appeal 2017-005331 Application 14/133,031 enabling ease of use.” Id. at 12. This line of argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection, for the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, as well as claims 9, 10, 18— 20, 22, and 23, which fall with claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is AFFIRMED. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation