Ex Parte Sorensen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

13838614 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/838,614 03/15/2013
145327 7590 07/01/2019
Alleman Hall Creasman & Tuttle LLP
900 SW 5th A venue
Suite 2300
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Herb Sorensen
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.
SHP12302 4894
EXAMINER
MILLER, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
patentdocket@allemanhall.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HERB SORENSEN
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's non-final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-18. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Shopper Scientist, LLC. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
THE INVENTION
Appellant's Specification describes a "method for analyzing shopping
behavior ... [wherein] a current number of shoppers may be detected and an
in-store service deployed in response to detecting that a current number of
shoppers exceeds a first predetermined threshold." Spec. ,r 69 (Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A system for analyzing shopper behavior within a store,
the system comprising:
a sensor system configured to:
for each of a plurality of a first group of shopper trips
in the store,
detect a wireless signal for a shopper proxy device
adjacent an entrance to the store;
detect a wireless signal for the shopper proxy
device adjacent an exit of the store;
a data analyzer computing device configured to:
determine a trip length for each shopper based on a
time between the detected presence of the detected
wireless signal at the entrance and the detected
presence of the detected wireless signal at the exit of
the store;
determine a total number of shopper trips by
multiplying a number of the detected wireless signals
by a calibration factor, the calibration factor
determined based on image data of the entrance and
exit captured by one or more cameras, and the
calibration factor relating a number of shopper proxy
devices to a total number of actual shoppers observed
in the image data during a calibration period;
calculate a first relationship that is a distribution of
the determined trip lengths over the number of
shopper trips and trip length;
2
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
determine an average trip length based on the
distribution of the first relationship;
for each of a plurality of a second group of shopper
trips in the store,
receive transaction data for a plurality of
purchase transactions at the store, and transaction
data for a plurality of items, the transaction data
for the plurality of purchase transactions including
a number of items purchased for each purchase
transaction;
calculate a second relationship that is a
distribution of items purchased in the purchase
transactions over the shopper trips;
determine an average number of items
purchased based on the distribution of the second
relationship;
wherein the sensor system is further configured to:
detect current wireless signals in the store; and
wherein the data analyzer computing device is further
configured to:
determine a current total number of shoppers in the
store by multiplying the detected current wireless signals
by the calibration factor;
determine a number of items to be purchased by
the current total number of shoppers by multiplying the
average number of items purchased by the current total
number of shoppers;
wherein the system further comprises an alert device to signal
for deploying an in-store service, the alert device being
configured to signal that the in-store service be deployed in
response to one or both of:
the data analyzer computing device determining
that the total number of shoppers exceeds a first
predetermined threshold, in which case the alert device is
configured to signal for deploying the in-store service
3
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
after a predetermined period of time following detection
that the current number of shoppers exceeds the first
predetermined threshold, the predetermined period of
time being equal in duration to the average trip length,
and
the data analyzer computing device estimating that
the number of items to be purchased by the current total
number of shoppers exceeds a second predetermined
threshold, in which case the alert device is configured to
signal for deploying the in-store service after the
predetermined period of time following detection that the
number of items to be purchased by the current total
number of shoppers exceeds the second predetermined
threshold.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review. 2
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 2-12 in the
Non-Final Office Action and on pages 3-16 in the Examiner's Answer.
2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and holds
the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection moot. See Non-Final Act. 8. Therefore, the
only rejection before us on appeal is the rejection made under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
4
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will affirm the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Appellant argues 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-18 as a group, and we
select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group (App. Br. 12), and so
the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "'[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas'" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S.
208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See id. at 219
("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
5
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 183 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract .... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at
187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving
of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
6
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted).
"A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under the Guidance, we first
look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure ("MPEP") § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See generally Guidance.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has explained that
"the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in
7
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
light of the [S]pecification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.'" Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether
the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology
or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36.
In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a "directed to" two prong
test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the
claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim "appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h).
The Specification describes the problem addressed by the claims as:
Methods of tracking customer entry into a retail
environment exist but customer volume may not correlate with
in-store service needs. For example, many customers may enter
a store in a short period of time. However, if only a portion of
the customers make purchases or the purchases are of a small
number of items, additional in-store service may be
unnecessary. In addition, deploying additional employees to
sales registers immediately following an influx of shoppers may
not be reflective of shopper behavior in a given retail
environment as some shoppers may linger in a store for an
amount of time before making a purchase.
Spec. ,r 2.
The preamble of claim 1 states it is for "analyzing shopper behavior
within a store." Understood in light of the Specification, claim 1 recites, in
pertinent part,
8
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
determine a trip length for each shopper based on a time
between the detected presence of the detected wireless signal at
the entrance and the detected presence of the detected wireless
signal at the exit of the store;
determine a total number of shopper trips by multiplying
a number of the detected wireless signals by a calibration
factor, the calibration factor determined based on image data of
the entrance and exit ... , and the calibration factor relating a
number of shopper proxy devices to a total number of actual
shoppers observed in the image data during a calibration period;
calculate a first relationship that is a distribution of the
determined trip lengths over the number of shopper trips and
trip length;
determine an average trip length based on the distribution
of the first relationship;
for each of a plurality of a second group of shopper trips
in the store,
receive transaction data for a plurality of purchase
transactions at the store, and transaction data for a plurality of
items, the transaction data for the plurality of purchase
transactions including a number of items purchased for each
purchase transaction;
calculate a second relationship that is a distribution of
items purchased in the purchase transactions over the shopper
trips;
determine an average number of items purchased based
on the distribution of the second relationship;
determine a current total number of shoppers in the store
by multiplying the detected current wireless signals by the
calibration factor;
determine a number of items to be purchased by the
current total number of shoppers by multiplying the average
number of items purchased by the current total number of
shoppers;
9
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
wherein the system further comprises an alert device to
signal for deploying an in-store service, the alert device being
configured to signal that the in-store service be deployed in
response to one or both of:
determining that the total number of shoppers exceeds a
first predetermined threshold, in which case ... deploying the
in-store service after a predetermined period of time following
detection that the current number of shoppers exceeds the first
predetermined threshold, the predetermined period of time
being equal in duration to the average trip length, and
... estimating that the number of items to be purchased by the
current total number of shoppers exceeds a second
predetermined threshold, in which case ... deploying the in-
store service after the predetermined period of time following
detection that the number of items to be purchased by the
current total number of shoppers exceeds the second
predetermined threshold.
Accordingly, the Examiner found that the claims "are directed to the
abstract ideas of collecting and analyzing shopper data to determine if extra
help is required in store based on the analysis of the collected data." (Non-
Final Act. 9.)
We agree with the Examiner's finding here because claim 1 requires
determining "if extra help is required in [a] store;" "determin[ing] a trip
length for each shopper;" determin[ing] a total number of shopper trips;"
"determin[ing] an average number of items purchased;" "determin[ing] a
current total number of shoppers in the store;" and "determining that the
total number of shoppers exceeds a first predetermined threshold." These
describe elements of "managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people" ( determining if extra help is required in store)
which is a certain method of organizing human activity which is an
10
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
abstraction. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The patent-ineligible end of the
spectrum includes certain methods of organizing human activity. Id. ( citing
Alice, 573 U.S. 219-20).
Turning to the second prong of the "directed to" test, claim 1 only
generically requires "a sensor system," "a data analyzer computing device,"
"an alert device" and "one or more cameras." These components are
described in the Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. ,r,r 20-
23, 29-30, Figures 1-3. We fail to see how the generic recitations of these
most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the
judicial exception as to "impose[] a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the judicial exception." Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
Thus, we find that the claims recite the judicial exception of a certain
method of organizing human activity that is not integrated into a practical
application.
That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to in-store customer behavior, does not make them any less abstract.
See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract.").
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must
include an "inventive concept" in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim
in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
11
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs., 566 U.S.
at 72-73).
Concerning this step the Examiner found the following:
The claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional elements or combination of
elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se [ e.g. a
sensor system, a data analyzer computing device, an alert
device, detecting a wireless signal] amount to no more than
amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea
on a computer, or by recitation of generic computer structure
that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously
known to the industry [ e.g. performing repetitive calculations;
rece1vmg, processmg, and storing data; electronic
recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; rece1vmg or
transmitting data over a network].
Non-Final Act. 10 (bracketed material in the original). We agree with the
Examiner. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea ... on a
generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to detect, determine, calculate, compute, and apply decision
criteria to data to generate a result, amounts to electronic data query and
transmit same, which are some of the most basic functions of a computer.
All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,'
12
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming"). In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant's claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis ( detect,
determine, calculate, compute, and apply decision criteria to data to generate
a result) and storing is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to
be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display,
allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was
abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than
instructions to apply the abstract ideas of managing personal behavior,
relationships or interactions between people using some unspecified, generic
computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
We have reviewed all the arguments Appellant has submitted
concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected
13
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (App. Br. 12-27; Reply Br. 2-12. 3) We find that
our analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments,
which have been made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address
various arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant lists various claim limitations (Appeal Br. 14--15, 18-19) as
examples of claimed improvements without providing evidence that they are
improvements in the computer as contrasted with managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Although
machine-based entities are by definition in some sense technological, their
use has become so notoriously settled that merely invoking them is no more
than abstract conceptual advice to use well known technology for its
intended purpose. See In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607,
612-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Using a generic telephone for its intended purpose
was a well-established "basic concept" sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.).
Although we agree with Appellant that the claims must be read, as a
whole (Reply Br. 10-11), we nevertheless find, on balance, that claim 1 is
directed to a certain method of organizing human activity for the reasons
specified above with respect to our "directed to" findings. As found supra,
claim 1 only includes the following generically recited device limitations:
3 Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
Appeal Brief have not been considered in the Reply Brief and are deemed to
be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(vii) (2004). See also, 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.39(a)(l). The claim comparison chart presented in the Reply Brief on
pages 3-7 could have been presented in the Appeal Brief because both cases
used in the comparison, Electric Power Group and Fair Warning IP, were
cited and relied on by the Examiner in the Non-final Action at pages 4 and 5
respectively. Notwithstanding, nothing in these cases changes our findings
at prong 2 of the "directed to test."
14
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
"a sensor system," "a data analyzer computing device," 'an alert device"
and "one or more cameras." What remains in the claim after disregarding
these device limitations, are abstractions, i.e., determin[ing] a trip length for
each shopper;" determin[ing] a total number of shopper trips;"
"determin[ing] an average number of items purchased;" "determin[ing] a
current total number of shoppers in the store;" and "determining that the
total number of shoppers exceeds a first predetermined threshold."
The question is whether the claims as a whole "focus on a specific
means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to
a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic
processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here we agree with the Examiner
that the claims are directed to the human behavior result of determining "if
extra help is required in [a] store." (Non-Final Act. 9.)
We also disagree with Appellant that under the holding in Enfish, our
decision would be different. (Appeal Br. 14; Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327). We
are unpersuaded by the Appellant's argument that its claims are directed to
an improvement in computer technology like that of claim 17 in Enfish and,
therefore, are patent-eligible. In Enfish, the invention at issue was directed
at a wholly new type of logical model for a computer database: a self-
referential table that allowed the computer to store many different types of
data in a single table and index that data by column and row information.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330-32. In finding the claims are "not directed to an
abstract idea," but "to a specific improvement to the way computers
operate," the Federal Circuit noted that "the claims are not simply directed to
any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a
15
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
self-referential table for a computer database." Id. at 1336-37. We find
nothing in the claims before us which arises to this level of technical
improvement/proficiency in the claimed "a sensor system," "a data analyzer
computing device," "an alert device" and "one or more cameras." Instead,
we find the claims are focused on "if extra help is required in [a] store."
Appellant further argues:
In the claimed system, a calibration factor is used to
determine a total number of shoppers in a store from a number
of detected wireless signals, each of which is associated with a
shopper. By applying a determined average trip length and a
determined average number of items purchased in a transaction
to a current total number of shoppers in the store, the system
can determine a number of items to be purchased by the current
total number of shoppers.
(Appeal Br. 16.) Appellant also argues, "it is not an essential step of the
alleged abstract idea at issue in this Appeal to generate and apply a
calibration factor to determine a total number of shopper trips .... " (Id. at
18-19.) We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments because the
calibration factor is among those items identified above as part of the
abstraction. (See Guidance, Fed. Reg. 84 at 52). Even though the
abstraction might be novel, it still is patent ineligible. "[A] claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90).
We also affirm the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11, 12,
14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because Appellant maintains the
eligibility of these claims "for at least all of the reasons discussed with
reference to claim 1" (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 20), and because Appellant does
not challenge such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). A statement which merely points out
16
Appeal2018-002440
Application 13/838,614
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(l)(vii) (2004).
For the reasons identified above, we determine there are no
deficiencies in the Examiner's prima facie case of patent ineligibility of the
rejected claims. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection
of claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-18.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 7-
12, 14, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
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
17