Ex Parte ZHU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2018

13593556 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/593,556 08/24/2012 Yang-Ming ZHU
24737 7590 05/15/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2006P01363US03 5263
EXAMINER
AMIN, JW ALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANG-MING ZHU, XIANGYU WU,
CHARLES A. NORTMANN, RONALD W. SUKALAC,
STEVEN M. COCHOFF, L. ALAN LOVE,
RICHARD CHENG-HSIU CHEN, CHRIS A. DAUTERMAN,
MADHA VI AHUJA, and DAWN M. MANIA WSKI
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 68-74, 76-87, 89, and 91-93. 2 Claims 1-67 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 4.
2 Claims 75, 88, and 90 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim and are not before us. Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds these
claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Id.
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
medical imaging systems and methods, particularly multi-modality systems,
such as PET-CT systems. Spec. 1, 11. 6-8. 3 The Specification explains that
a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner "creates images of high
metabolic activity in the body, rather than creating images of surrounding
anatomy." Id. at 1, 11. 12-14; 4, 11. 17-18. A computed tomography (CT)
scanner allows "doctors to see the internal structures within the human
body." Id. at 1, 11. 13-14; 4, 11. 10.
Claim 68 is representative and reproduced below:
68. A medical imaging system comprising:
a display for displaying a user interface screen;
an interface component for controlling the user interface
screen to display images of DICOM[4J formatted medical
imaging data;
one or more processors programmed to perform steps of:
3 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 27, 2016
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Dec. 23, 2016 ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief filed July 13, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed May 16, 2017 ("Ans."); and the original Specification filed Aug. 24,
2012 ("Spec.").
4 "DICOM®-Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine- is the
international standard for medical images and related information. It defines
the formats for medical images that can be exchanged with the data and
quality necessary for clinical use." See
https://www.dicomstandard.org/about/ (last accessed on May 7, 2018).
2
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
processing DICOM formatted medical imaging data into
images;
defining attributes of a layout of series of images of
DICOM formatted medical imaging data to be displayed on the
display for a view by a user;
building a complete display protocol for selected image
data based at least on the defined layout attributes, wherein the
selected image data includes studies including series;
based on studies sorting rules, determining a succession
in which the studies are to be displayed;
based on series role sorting rules, selecting a reference
series in the study determined to be displayed first; and
based on series sorting rules and the selected reference
series, determining a preferred order for series display.
App. Br. 31-32 (Claims App.).
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 68-74, 76-87, 89, and 91-93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Final Act. 2-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Briefs and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-12) and in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-57), and we concur
3
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider
and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Applicable Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas are not patentable." See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. For
example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. The
"directed to" inquiry asks not whether "the claims involve a patent-ineligible
concept," but instead whether, "considered in light of the specification, ...
'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal
citations omitted). In that regard, we determine whether the claims "focus
on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are
4
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
"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) (internal citation omitted).
If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claim is
not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it is considered patent eligible
under § 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect,
Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, 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." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
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. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
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.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal citation omitted).
Examiner's Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that claim 68 is directed to "a system for building
a display protocol based on the defined layout attributes and sorting rules for
displaying DICOM formatted medical image data." Ans. 4. In particular,
the Examiner finds:
5
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
Id.
In other words, the claim describes a process of building a
display protocol. A display protocol is merely organization of
information to be displayed to the user. In other words, the
claim recites comparing (sorting) and organizing information
for display. This is simply the organization and comparison of
data which can be performed mentally and is an idea by itself.
It is similar to other concepts that have been identified as
abstract by the courts, such as using categories to organize,
store and transmit information in Cyberfone, or comparing new
and stored information and using rules to identify options in
SmartGene. Therefore, claim 68 is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding step two of Alice, the Examiner concludes the claim
elements, taken individually and collectively, do not amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Id. at 5-7. Specifically, the Examiner
finds:
The claim recites the additional limitations of a medical imaging
system comprising a display for displaying a user interface
screen, an interface component for controlling the user interface
screen to display images and one or more processors for building
the display protocol and processing DICOM formatted medical
imaging data into images. Processing DICOM data into images
is considered to be a generic computer process of converting
images into a different format. The system comprising the
display, interface component and the processor is recited at a
high level of generality and in its broadest reasonable
interpretation simply performs the generic computer functions of
processing and displaying information routinely used in
computer applications. These limitations merely indicate the
claimed system is used in a computing environment. . . .
Moreover, these additional limitations are well-understood,
routine and conventional limitations that amount to mere
instructions to implement the abstract idea of building a display
protocol on a computer. Generic computer components recited as
performing generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine and conventional activities amount to no more than
6
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The
use of generic computer components to display information
through a user interface screen does not impose any meaningful
limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus,
taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not
already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves
the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer
implementation.
Id. at 5---6.
Appellants 'Arguments 5
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection under§ 101 "does not
comply with the USPTO's current subject matter eligibility guidance." App.
Br. 16-22. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to explain why
each claim is unpatentable and be sufficiently clear and specific to provide
sufficient notice of the reasons for ineligibility. Id. at 17-18. According to
Appellants, the Examiner fails to compare the claims to other claims found
to be directed to an abstract idea, and "only compares its generalization of
5 In the Conclusion of the Argument section of the Appeal Brief (see App.
Br. at 25-29), Appellants refer to certain claims individually. Although
independent claims 68, 78, 81, and 83 are separately mentioned, Appellants
present substantially the same arguments for each of them and focus on
claim 68 in the Appeal Brief. Similarly, although certain of the dependent
claims are separately mentioned, Appellants merely recite that the
limitations of each claim constitute an improvement in the field of medical
image analysis and use a rule to arrive at a particular solution as in McRO.
Thus, we consider the claims as a group. We consider claim 68 to be
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and, therefore, we
decide the rejection of the claims on the basis of representative claim 68.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
the alleged abstract idea ('simply the organization and comparison of data')
to the generalized abstract ideas of Cyberfone and SmartGene." Id. at 19.
Appellants also argue the Examiner oversimplified the claims and failed to
account for the "indications" the claims are directed to an improvement in
computer-related technology, as in McRO. Id. at 20-22. Appellants further
assert that because the Examiner did not follow the USPTO guidance,
Appellants are not sufficiently on notice of the reasons for ineligibility and
are unable to effectively respond. Id. at 22.
Regarding step one of the Alice or Mayo analysis, Appellants argue
"the claims are directed to, in part, displaying a user interface on a display of
a medical imaging system and an interface component for controlling the
user interface screen to display images derived from DICOM formatted
medical imaging data." Id. at 23. Appellants also argue the claims here are
"inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from the types of
concepts found by the courts to be abstract." Id. at 24 (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Appellants further argue the claims are
analogous to those in DDR Holdings, LLC and are not "directed to 'mental
steps which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper.'" Id.
(internal citation omitted). Regarding step two of the Alice or Mayo
analysis, Appellants argue "the claimed features include improvements in
medical imaging system user interfaces and layouts ... [that] are not routine
or conventional in the field of medical imaging, as evidenced by overcoming
the prior art rejections." Id. at 25. Appellants also argue that like the claims
in DDR Holdings, the claims here recite a specific way to display a layout
for a medical imaging system processing DICOM formatted data based on
specific rules. Id.; Reply Br. 6. Thus, according to Appellants, "the claims
8
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
do recite additional elements that amount to more than any judicial
exception and qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101."
App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 6.
USPTO Guidelines and Prima Facie Rejection
First, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in concluding the claims are patent ineligible because the
Examiner did not follow certain Patent Office subject matter eligibility
guidelines. See App. Br. 16-22; Reply Br. 3---6. We have considered these
guidelines, which are based on controlling case law and USPTO policy at
the time the guidelines were issued. However, the Board applies relevant
U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit case law to the facts of each patent
application on appeal.
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner did not explain why each claim is ineligible and provide sufficient
notice of the reasons for ineligibility to enable Appellants to effectively
respond. App. Br. 17-18, 22. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the
Examiner analyzed each of the independent claims-68, 78, 81, 83, and
93-and explained the reasons that each claim is directed to an abstract idea
and why the additional limitations of the claims do not amount to
"significantly more" than the recited abstract idea. Final Act. 2-12. The
Examiner also addressed all of the dependent claims and concluded they
recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claim and do not
recite sufficient additional elements to amount to "significantly more" than
the abstract idea. See id. at 4, 7, 8, 10.
9
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
The Examiner is merely required to provide Appellants reasonable
notice as to the basis of the § 101 rejection. The notice requirement is set
forth by 35 U.S.C. § 132.
[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
"notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." 3 5
U.S.C. § 132. That section "is violated when a rejection is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and
seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller,
906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the Examiner stated
the statutory basis for the rejection and performed the two-part Alice test.
See Final Act. 2-12. Thus, we conclude the Examiner provided an adequate
explanation of the rejection under § 101 and met the notice requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 132.
Third, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner oversimplified the claims and failed to consider "indications" of
how the claimed invention improves computerized technology, as in McRO.
See App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 5. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, we
find the Examiner considered the claim limitations in reasonably sufficient
detail, including the recited layout attributes and sorting rules. See Ans. 2-7;
Final Act. 2--4. We also are not persuaded that Appellants' claims produce
an improvement in computer-related technology, as in McRO. The claims in
McRO recited a "specific ... improvement in computer animation" using
"unconventional rules that relate[ d] sub-sequences of phonemes, timings,
and morph weight sets." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1302---03, 1307---08, 1314--15.
10
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
Moreover, it was not the mere presence of unconventional rules in McRO
that led to patent eligibility; rather, it was that the rules were used "in a
process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. Here, Appellants have not shown how the claimed
sorting rules are used in a process to achieve an improved technological
result. Although Appellants argue that the descriptions in the Specification
that the display protocol "can be built on the fly" and "the optimal layout is
automatically selected based on the data selection" (see App. Br. 21-22)
describe improvements in computer-related technology, claim 68 does not
specify any specific rules or steps that improve an "existing technological
process." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14.
Alice Step One
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in concluding claim 68 is directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter-an abstract idea. Claim 68 recites a medical imaging system
comprising: (1) a display for displaying a user interface screen; (2) an
interface component to display images of DI COM formatted medical
imaging rules; (3) one or more processors to perform the steps of-
( a) processing DI COM image data into images, (b) defining attributes of a
layout of a series of images of DI COM data to be displayed, ( c) building a
display protocol for selected image data based on the defined layout
attributes, wherein the data includes studies including series, ( d) determining
a succession in which the studies are to be displayed based on studies sorting
rules, ( e) selecting a reference series to be displayed first based on series
sorting rules, and (t) determining a preferred order for series display based
on series sorting rules. App. Br. 31-32 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds
11
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
claim 68 describes a process of building a display protocol, which is merely
the organization of information to be displayed to the user. Ans. 4, 7.
Consistent with the Examiner's findings, we find claim 68 recites a display,
an interface component to display images, and a processor to process image
data, and identifying and organizing data into a format or protocol for
display.
Considering claim 68 as a whole, we agree with the Examiner's
conclusion that claim 68 is directed to an abstract idea-the idea of building
a display protocol based on defined layout attributes and sorting rules for
displaying DICOM formatted medical image data. We see no meaningful
difference in claim 68 and similar or analogous claims in other cases that our
reviewing court has found are directed to an abstract idea. See Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 'l Ass 'n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The concept of data collection, recognition,
and storage is undisputedly well-known"); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims focus on the abstract
idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin.
Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that the claimed
invention is directed "to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data of particular documents").
The Examiner also concluded that the display protocol of claim 68 "is
simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed
mentally and is an idea by itself." Ans. 4. Contrary to Appellants' argument
(see App. Br. 24), we also conclude that the steps recited in claim 68 could
be "performed mentally" by a human with pen and paper. In that regard, our
12
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
reviewing court has held that "analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, ...
[are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter."
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d 1266,
1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 6
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the claims
are, in part, directed to a "user interface" and "an interface component for
controlling the user interface screen" and that the claims are "inextricably
tied to computer technology" and distinct from claims found to be abstract.
App. Br. 23-24. Appellants have not identified any disclosure in the
Specification, or provided other persuasive evidence or technical reasoning,
of a technological advance or improvement in the claimed user interface and
interface component. Although claim 68 utilizes computer technology, for
the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded that claim 68 produces an
improvement in computer-related technology, as in McRO. In that regard,
Appellants have not identified any disclosure in the Specification, or
provided other persuasive evidence or technical reasoning, that the hardware
or software components of claim 68, including the "layout attributes" and
6 See also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even
when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme
Court in Gottschalk v. Benson").
13
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
"sorting rules," provide a technological advance or improvement to
computer technology or data processing. Nor do the claims recite any such
technologic advance or improvement.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims
are analogous to those in DDR Holdings. App. Br. 24. In DDR Holdings,
the disputed claims solved an Internet-specific problem with an Internet-
based solution that was "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order
to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1257-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014). According to the Federal Circuit, "DDR Holdings
does not apply when ... the asserted claims do not 'attempt to solve a
challenge particular to the Internet."' Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi.
Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re TL!
Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The
claims here do not attempt to solve such a challenge particular to the
Internet.
Alice Step Two
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding step
two of the Alice analysis. First, Appellants argue the claimed features
include improvements that "are not routine or conventional in the field of
medical imaging, as evidenced by overcoming the prior art rejections."
App. Br. 25. However, a finding of novelty or non-obviousness does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
patent-eligible. Although the second step in the Mayo/Alice framework is
termed a search for an "inventive concept," the analysis is not an evaluation
of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for "an element or
14
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
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."' Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
72-73). "Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not
by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry." Ass 'n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). A novel and non-obvious
claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89
( 1981) ("The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the
process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of
a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject
matter").
Second, Appellants again argue the claims here are much like those in
DDR Holdings because they recite a specific way to display a layout for
medical imaging data, including those based on specific rules. App. Br. 25.
As previously discussed, however, DDR Holdings is not persuasive because
Appellants' claims do not "attempt to solve a challenge particular to the
Internet." Smart Sys., 873 F.3d at 1375 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Additionally, as discussed supra, Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence or technical reasoning establishing that there
are any technological advances or improvements in claim 68 's computer
hardware, software, or image data processing system. Claim 68 does not
"focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology," but is "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract
idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes and machinery." McRO, 837
F.3d at 1314. This is not enough to transform an abstract idea into patent-
15
Appeal2017-009782
Application 13/593,556
eligible subject matter. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (explaining that
claims that "amount to 'nothing significantly more' than an instruction to
apply the abstract idea ... using some unspecified, generic computer" "is
not 'enough' to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention"
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77, 79)); Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342
("[T]he claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with
insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it").
As indicated supra, the Examiner finds, and we agree, there is nothing
in the limitations of claim 68, considered "both individually and as an
ordered combination," that transforms the claimed abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 68 under§ 101. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 78, 81, 83, and 93,
and dependent claims 69-74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84--87, 89, 91, and 92.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 68-74, 76-87, 89, and
91-93 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv)(2016).
AFFIRMED
16