Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

13861525 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/861,525 04/12/2013
26201 7590 06/28/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Trey Moore
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.
23956-0026001 2470
EXAMINER
COBANOGLU, DILEK B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN TREY MOORE,
THOMAS SCOTT WADE, and LLOYD KORY BROWN
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
Technology Center 3600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-17, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosure relates "to displaying patient data and/or
information on mobile devices." Spec. ,r 2. More specifically, Appellants'
claimed invention relates to a patient monitoring system including a docking
station that monitor patients' physiological characteristic data and a tablet
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
docked in the docking station that executes a patient monitoring application
enabling the tablet to serve as a patient monitoring device. Spec. ,r,r 4, 41-
42, 48, 53-55, Figs. 4-6B. In response to determining the tablet is docked,
the tablet operates in a single application mode, in which only the patient
monitoring application can be executed. Spec. ,r,r 11, 50, 56. The tablet
then receives patient data from sensors, processes the data to generate
graphical representations of the data, and displays the representations on its
display. Spec. ,r,r 31, 41--44. Claims 1, 13, and 14 are independent claims,
and claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method executed using one or
more processors, the method comprising:
generating an electrical communication between a tablet
computing device and a docking station of a patient monitoring
system when the tablet computing device is docked into the
docking station, the tablet computing device being configured to
execute a plurality of applications and operating as a patient
monitoring device, and the docking station monitoring
physiological characteristics of one or more patients;
determining, based on the electrical communication and
by the tablet computing device that the tablet computing device
is docked into the docking station, and in response, executing, by
the tablet computing device, a patient monitoring application and
preventing execution of other applications of the plurality of
applications;
receiving, by the tablet computing device, one or more
signals reflective of patient data associated with the one or more
patients, at least a first sub-set of the patient data being associated
with a patient of one or more patients and being provided from
one or more sensors that are responsive to the physiological
characteristics of the patient and that are in direct communication
with the tablet computing device;
processing the patient data to generate one or more
graphical representations reflective of the patient data; and
2
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
displaying the one or more graphical representations on a
touchscreen display of the tablet computing device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-6; Ans. 3---6.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner concludes claims 1-7 and 9-1 7 are directed to
judicially excepted subject matter. Final Act. 2---6; Ans. 3---6. Appellants
argue the§ 101 rejection of all claims as a group. Appeal Br. 15-19; Reply
Br. 3-5.
Appellants assert the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 7-12, 14--15; Reply Br. 3-10. Specifically, Appellants argue the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed subject matter
"is physical to the extreme" and addresses a problem rooted in computer
technology. Appeal Br. 15-1 7. Appellants further argue the Examiner fails
to (1) identify an abstract idea recited in the claims, (2) explain why the
alleged abstract idea corresponds to concepts the courts have identified as
abstract, (3) identify a relevant "appropriate court decision," and ( 4) address
why any additional elements, individually or in combination, fail to add
significantly more to the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 17-19.
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573
U.S. 208,217 (2014). In addition, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office recently published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the
3
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance").
If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter),
we determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially
recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of our inquiry, we "look at
the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the
claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter."
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). The Guidance directs us to address this inquiry using the
following two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial
exception ( e.g., an abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception
integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Under the Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application, the claim is patent eligible under § 101. 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54--55. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., the claim both
recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a
practical application), we next determine whether the claim provides an
inventive concept, which includes determining whether any element, or
combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, we conclude Appellants' claims recite an abstract idea because
they recite mental processes. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
4
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps,
there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being
performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper."). More
specifically, Appellants' claims generally are directed to receiving and
processing patient data to generate and display a graphical representation
reflective of the data. This is consistent with how Appellants describe the
claimed invention. See Spec. ,r,r 2 ("Implementations of the present
disclosure are directed to displaying patient data and/or information on
mobile devices."), 41--42 (describing a patient monitoring device as
including a tablet and a data collection system, which may include
peripheral devices ( e.g., sensors) "responsive to physiological characteristics
of a patient," and explaining that the tablet may be connected via wired
and/or wireless connections), 43 (describing embodiments where the tablet
receives data from the sensors, processes the data, and displays graphical
representations of the data), Figs. 3, 5. Consistent with our Guidance and
case law, we conclude that receiving and processing patient data to generate
and display a graphical representation reflective of the data is a mental
process and, therefore, an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Univ. of
Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co, 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) ( concluding claims to collecting physiologic data from disparate
medical devices, converting the data to a common format, analyzing the
data, and displaying the data were directed to an abstract idea); see also
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ( explaining that "analyzing information by steps people go through in
5
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
their minds" is a mental process within the abstract idea category and
concluding claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" were abstract);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017) ( concluding claims that focused on collecting, displaying
and manipulating data were directed to an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite
elements of the abstract idea of receiving and processing patient data to
generate and display a graphical representation reflective of the data
emphasized in italics:
1. A computer-implemented method executed using one or
more processors, the method comprising:
generating an electrical communication between a tablet
computing device and a docking station of a patient monitoring
system when the tablet computing device is docked into the
docking station, the tablet computing device being configured to
execute a plurality of applications and operating as a patient
monitoring device, and the docking station monitoring
physiological characteristics of one or more patients;
determining, based on the electrical communication and
by the tablet computing device that the tablet computing device
is docked into the docking station, and in response, executing, by
the tablet computing device, a patient monitoring application and
preventing execution of other applications of the plurality of
applications;
receiving, by the tablet computing device, one or more
signals reflective of patient data associated with the one or more
patients, at least a first sub-set of the patient data being
associated with a patient of one or more patients and being
provided from one or more sensors that are responsive to the
physiological characteristics of the patient and that are in direct
communication with the tablet computing device;
processing the patient data to generate one or more
graphical representations reflective of the patient data; and
6
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
displaying the one or more graphical representations on a
touchscreen display of the tablet computing device.
Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there
are "any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s)" and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at
54--55 (emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
("MPEP") § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Appellants argue the claim recites concrete, physical, and tangible
subject matter that "is physical to the extreme" because the claim recites a
tablet and a docking station. Appeal Br. 15-16. We do not find this
argument persuasive because eligibility does not depend on whether the
claimed subject is concrete or physical. If that were the case, which it is not,
all claims reciting a computer would necessarily be patent eligible. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 224 (explaining that a computer's existence in the physical
rather than conceptual realm is not relevant to the analysis).
Here, the additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception
itself fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. Similarly,
the additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims
do not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a "particular
machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) );
7
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
(iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see
MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Rather, the additional elements simply refine the recited abstract idea
or add insignificant extra-solution activity. Although not argued, we note
that, to the extent the displaying step may not be considered part of the
abstract idea, it is merely post-solution activity that presents the output
generated by the abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(g);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054,
1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) ajfd, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that
"providing data ... [is] insignificant post-solution activity").
The physical elements Appellants point to--the recited tablet
configured to execute a monitoring application, docking station, and patient
monitoring system-are generic computer components recited at a high level
of generality. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 41 ( describing the tablet executing a
monitoring application and the docking station as elements of a patient
monitoring system, and describing these elements and the peripheral devices
(e.g., sensors) at a high level of generality without providing any alleged
improvement to these components). Generating an electrical communication
between the tablet and the docking station and determining the tablet is
docked are generic computer functions recited at a high level of generality.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 53-55 (generally describing (1) that the tablet may be
docked in a docking station and (2) physical embodiments of the combined
system, but failing to provide any technical detail that would constitute an
alleged improvement to the any of the devices, their arrangement, or their
functions). Accordingly, these limitations simply recite the use of generic
8
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea. 84 See Fed.
Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(±).
The only remaining additional element is the recited step of
"preventing execution of other applications" on the tablet computing device
in response to determining the tablet is docked. This is the element on
which Appellants focus their arguments. Specifically, Appellants argue this
feature demonstrates the claimed subject matter is rooted in computer
technology. Appeal Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 3--4. Essentially, Appellants
contend using a tablet as a monitoring device introduces problems that did
not exist previously because tablets include other components ( e.g., cameras
and software) and can execute applications beyond a monitoring application.
Appeal Br. 15-1 7. Appellants argue these introduced problems are
"technological problems" and the claims "provide a concrete technical
solution ... to address problems fundamentally rooted in computer
technology ... to achieve an improvement in computer functionality."
Appeal Br. 18. Appellants argue this distinguishes Appellants' claims from
the claims at issue in Electric Power. Appeal Br. 18.
Although the argued limitation relates to disabling a function provided
by the tablet device, which is indisputably a technological component, we
disagree that the claim recites an improvement to the functionality of a
computer, other technology, or a technical field. First, to the extent
Appellants assert using a tablet to monitor patient data is a technological
improvement, we disagree. As explained in OIP Technologies, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), "relying on a
computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 224
9
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
("use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions,
and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept).
However, we understand Appellants' argument to assert the
technological improvement lies not simply in using a tablet to collect,
analyze, and display results, but in preventing execution of other
applications when the tablet is docked. Appeal Br. 15-18. Nevertheless, we
find this aspect of the claims also fails to claim an improvement to the
functionality of a computer or other technology sufficient to provide an
inventive concept.
Appellants identify a tablet's ability to perform multiple functions as
an alleged problem of using a tablet as a patient monitoring device. Appeal
Br. 16 (citing Spec. ,r 47 (disclosing that tablets may include a camera and
software for obtaining images and/or video)). Appellants then quote claim
language and disclosures in the Specification that demonstrate the ability to
disable functionality other than the monitoring application and conclude the
claims therefore provide a technical solution (i.e., single-application mode)
to a technological problem (i.e., the need to lock out other functionality) that
is rooted in computer technology. Appeal Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 4. Although
Appellants provide no further explanation and fail to explain why there is a
need to lock out other functionality, we infer Appellants contend this
solution is needed in order to have "the technology work reliably and
efficiently over potentially low speed, low bandwidth, and sometimes
intermittent wireless connections." Spec. ,r 3.
Notably, however, Appellants neither claim nor describe any
technological improvement that carries out this functionality. Rather,
Appellants' merely claim a goal for how the system can operate and appear
10
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
to presume the technical capability to lock out other features is present in
tablets generally. Although Appellants point only to paragraph 4 7, each
reference we find in the claims and Specification to the "single-application"
mode or locking out other features simply describes the existence of, and
desire to use, this lock out feature but fails to disclose how this function is
carried out. Spec. ,r,r 11, 50-52, 56. In other words, the Specification
describes the lock out capability in a manner that indicates a person of
ordinary skill in the art would know how to make and use the feature such
that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of this
additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Thus, we are not persuaded
this limitation recites a technological improvement; rather this limitation
merely recites insignificant activity that uses existing features to restrict the
capabilities of the tablet as a precursor to collecting patient data using a data
monitoring application to conserve resources.
By contrast, in DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit determined "the
claimed solution amount[ ed] to an inventive concept for resolving [a]
particular Internet-centric problem," i.e., a challenge unique to the Internet.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59 (Fed. Cir.
2014); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that "[i]n DDR Holdings, we held that claims
'directed to systems and methods of generating a composite web page that
combines certain visual elements of a 'host' website with content of a third-
party merchant' contained the requisite inventive concept"). The Federal
Circuit explained that the patent-eligible claims specified "how interactions
with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result ... that overrides
the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the
11
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
click of a hyperlink." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258. The court reasoned
that those claims recited a technological solution "necessarily rooted in
computer technology" that addressed a "problem specifically arising in the
realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. Here,
unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, Appellants' claims rely on
disabling other software applications on a tablet, which the Specification
suggests is not a technological improvement, but simply a feature that can be
activated on a tablet or a desired functional goal.
Similarly, to the extent Appellants rely on BASCOM Glob. Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred. See Appeal Br. 14. In BASCOM, the
court found "the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements
is a technical improvement," and, when construed in favor of
BASCOM, 1 the claims may be read to improve an existing technological
process. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. As discussed above, the claims do
not improve an existing technological process, but rather use existing
technology to perform the abstract idea or claim a desired functional goal.
Additionally, unlike the arrangement of elements (i.e., installation of a
filtering tool at a specific location) in BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349-
50, Appellants' claims do not recite a non-conventional and non-routine
arrangement of known elements.
Appellants' claims are not similar to the claims found eligible in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) and Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36
1 In BASCOM, BASCOM appealed the district court's granting of a motion
to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1341
12
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
(Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims in McRO-unlike the claims here-recited a
"specific ... improvement in computer animation" using "unconventional
rules" that related "sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight
sets" to automatically animate lip synchronization and facial expressions for
three-dimensional characters that only human animators could previously
produce. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1302---03, 1307---08, 1313-15. In McRO, "the
incorporation of the claimed rules" improved an existing technological
process. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
In contrast, Appellants' claims do not improve an existing
technological process. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36 (distinguishing
between claims wherein the focus of the claims is on an improvement in
computer capabilities and those that invoke a computer as a tool). The
claims introduce a tablet to perform patient monitoring functions, then
disable certain tablet features. In other words, Appellants merely claim
using known technology (i.e., a tablet) to perform its known function of
executing software applications as a tool to assist in an existing patient
monitoring process and disabling unwanted functions on the tablet. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (using a computer to perform known processes is not
enough to supply an inventive concept). Appellants' argument essentially
asserts disabling unwanted tablet functions is a technological improvement.
Appellant's use of the tablet, however, amounts to using technology as a
tool, not improving computer capabilities. See Enfzsh, 822 F3.d at 1335-36.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we
analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine whether there are
13
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure
the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 72-73, 77-79 (2012)). As stated in the Guidance, many of the
considerations to determine whether the claims amount to "significantly
more" under step two of the Alice framework are already considered as part
of determining whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a
practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis,
we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination of
limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at
a high level of generality. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
As with the integration into a practical application analysis discussed
above, an inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of
nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd.
v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 ( explaining that, after determining a claim
is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the
claims before us?"' ( emphasis added, brackets in original)
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)). Instead, an "inventive concept" is
furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the
claim in addition to the judicial exception and sufficient to ensure the claim
as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception
itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218-19 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73); see BSG
TechLLCv. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
( explaining that the Supreme Court in Alice "only assessed whether the
14
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
claim limitations other than the invention's use of the ineligible concept to
which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional,"
(emphasis added)).
Appellants' claims fail to recite specific limitations ( or a combination
of limitations) that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Rather, the only additional elements (i.e., the patient monitoring system,
docking station, tablet, generating step, determining step, executing step
(i.e., the single-application mode limitation), and the displaying step) are
generic computer components recited at a high level of generality or basic
computer functions, none of which recite limitations beyond what was well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See Berkheimer Memo 2
§ III.A.I; Spec. ,r,r 41, 50-55; see also Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic
computer components such as an "interface," "network," and "database" fail
to satisfy the inventive concept requirement).
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner
error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
2 "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.)" at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419 .PDF ( explaining that a specification that describes additional
elements "in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the
particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)" can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional).
15
Appeal2018-006262
Application 13/861,525
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter without
significantly more.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16