Ex Parte Mizuno

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

14133031 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017)

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