John R. Semler

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

13326045 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2020)

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.
13/326,045 12/14/2011 John R. Semler P-76521-US 4002
137540 7590 01/28/2020
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
Given Imaging Ltd.
1500 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
TOWA, RENE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
rs.patents.two@medtronic.com
uspto@pearlcohen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN R. SEMLER
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045
Technology Center 3700
Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–15, and 17–21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Given Imaging
Ltd., Covidien Sales LLC, and Medtronic PLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a process for determining the location of an
ingested capsule as it transitions between segments of the digestive tract.
Spec. ¶ 2. As stated by Appellant, “the general object is to provide a method
for determining the movement of an ingestible capsule from a first segment
of the gastrointestinal [(“GI”)] tract to a second segment of the
gastrointestinal tract based on pressure and pH.” Id. ¶ 8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A method of determining a location of an ingested capsule
comprising a pH sensor and a pressure sensor, the method
comprising the steps of:
recording pH measurements from said pH sensor as a
function of time as said capsule moves through at least a portion
of a gastrointestinal tract;
recording pressure measurements from said pressure
sensor as a function of time as said capsule moves through at
least the portion of said gastrointestinal tract;
conditioning the recorded pressure measurements by
filtering out sets of data points whose peaks are above or below
a predetermined threshold;
detecting contractions from the conditioned pressure
measurements, wherein a contraction is detected by an increase
in pressure over a baseline pressure and a subsequent return
below the baseline pressure;
deriving a frequency of the contractions as a function of
time and said pressure measurements; and
determining whether said capsule is at a first position
between the ileum and the caecum[2] of said gastrointestinal tract
based on a correlation between a variation in said frequency of
contractions and a variation in said pH.

2 The term “caecum” may also be spelled “cecum.”
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

3
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
D’Andrea US 2003/0191430 A1 Oct. 9, 2003
Meron US 6,950,690 B1 Sept. 27, 2005
Iddan US 2005/0228308 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Horn US 2006/0069317 A1 Mar. 30, 2006
Takizawa US 7,144,366 B2 Dec. 5, 2006
Catherine J. Pfister et al., Development of a Three-Channel, 24-h
Ambulatory Esophageal Pressure Monitor, 36 IEEE Transactions on
Biomedical Engineering, 487–490, Apr. 1989 (hereinafter “Pfister”)

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–15, and 17–19 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more.
II. Claims 1, 5–7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Iddan, Pfister, and Horn.
III. Claims 2, 8, 9, 15, 17–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Iddan, Pfister, Horn, and Meron.
IV. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Iddan, Pfister, Horn, and D’Andrea.
V. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Iddan, Pfister, Horn, and Takizawa.

Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

4
OPINION
Rejection I–Eligibility (Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12–15, and 17–19)
In determining that claim 1 recites a judicial exception without
significantly more, the Examiner finds that claim 1 is “directed to the
abstract idea of determining the location of a swallowable capsule within the
gastrointestinal tract based on measured characteristic physiological
parameters of the gastrointestinal tract.” Final Act. 2. More generally, the
Examiner characterizes the steps recited in claim 1 as (i) collecting,
analyzing, and manipulating data or (ii) diagnosing an abnormal condition.
See id. at 2–3. The Examiner concludes that the remaining limitations
recited in claim 1, “when considered both individually and as a whole[,] do
not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Id. at 4.
Appellant argues that the method of claim 1 improves the existing
technological process of locating an in-vivo capsule. See Appeal Br. 12–16.
Specifically, Appellant contends that prior art methods of locating such
capsules based on detecting radio frequency (“RF”) signals, acceleration,
and pH levels were less accurate than the method recited in claim 1. See id.
at 12–13.
In response, the Examiner finds that any improvement provided by the
claimed method is merely an improvement to the abstract idea to which
claim 1 is directed, not an improvement in technology that transforms the
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Ans. 11–12.
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
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

5
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
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. See Alice, 573 U.S. 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.”
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. Kappos, 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
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 (Gottschalk v. 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 182 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))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

6
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal citation
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. (alteration in the 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.
In January of 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Memorandum”).
Under Step 2A of that 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) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, in Step
2B, to whether the claim:
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

7
(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 Memorandum.

Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites “[a] method of determining a location of an ingested
capsule” (Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.)), and, therefore, falls into the process
category of statutory subject matter.

Step 2A, Prong 1 – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Claim 1 also recites, in part, “recording pressure measurements from
[a] pressure sensor as a function of time[, and] conditioning the recorded
pressure measurements by filtering out sets of data points whose peaks are
above or below a predetermined threshold.” Id. Conditioning data by
excluding high and low points is an evaluation that can be performed in the
human mind, or with pen and paper. In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-Based
Hereditary Cancer Test Pat. Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(concluding that the concept of “comparing BRCA sequences and
determining the existence of alterations” is an “abstract mental process”);
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that “a process of organizing information through
mathematical correlations” is an abstract idea). Thus, the conditioning step
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

8
of claim 1 is a mental process, which is one of the groupings of abstract
ideas identified in the Memorandum.
The outcome of our analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1, requires us to
proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.

Step 2A, Prong 2 – Integrated Into a Practical Application
In Step 2A, Prong 2, we determine whether the recited judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by (a)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application. See Memorandum. This
evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional
elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use 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
exception. See id.
One way the claim may integrate the exception into a practical
application is by improving another technology or technical field (see Alice,
573 U.S. at 225; Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), and, as noted above,
Appellant argues that the method recited in claim 1 provides such an
improvement (Appeal Br. 12–16; Reply Br. 3–4). Specifically, Appellant
refers to paragraphs 4, 5, and 35 of the Specification as supporting a finding
that, as compared to prior art methods, the method recited in claim 1
provides a more accurate result in detecting the location of the ingested
capsule. Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

9
Discussing prior art processes, paragraph 4 of the Specification
explains that the using RF signals to detect ingested capsules may require
multiple antennas and that the results of tracking via RF may be impacted by
patient movement and by the type of bodily tissue surrounding the capsule.
The Specification also teaches that accelerometers may be used to determine
capsule location, “but such methods also have disadvantages, such as drift,
non-linear progression and rotational inaccuracy.” Spec. ¶ 4. Paragraph 5
of the Specification discusses prior art detection of ingested capsules via pH
measurement and explains that one drawback to such a method is that “often
there are not significant pH variations correlated with certain regions of the
gastrointestinal tract, and patients with gastrointestinal maladies may have
abnormal readings.” The Specification further discloses that the use of pH
and pressure measurements, in combination, to locate an ingested capsule
improves accuracy by reducing errors in detection created by changes in pH
caused by bacterial overgrowth. Spec. ¶ 37.
The Federal Circuit addressed the patent-eligibility of a similarly
claimed tracking method in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and determined that the claims were “directed to a
new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an
object on a moving platform,” and, therefore, not directed to an abstract
idea. Thales, 850 F.3d 1349. We reproduce the method claim at issue in
Thales below.
22. A method comprising determining an orientation of an object
relative to a moving reference frame based on signals from two
inertial sensors mounted respectively on the object and on the
moving reference frame.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

10
Id. at 1345–1346. Finding that claim 22 in Thales was directed to an
improvement of a technology, the court said, “[j]ust as claims directed to a
new and useful technique for defining a database that runs on general-
purpose computer equipment are patent eligible . . . so too are claims
directed to a new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently
track an object on a moving platform.” Id. at 1349.
Like claim 22 in Thales, claim 1 on appeal recites a method of
determining a position of a physical object using measurements from two
different sensors (two inertial sensors in Thales—a pH and a pressure sensor
in claim 1). In Thales, the court found that the recited method used “inertial
sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the
relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference
frame.” Id. at 1348–1349 (emphasis added). Like the claim at issue in
Thales, the method recited in claim 1 is directed to providing more accurate
location information. See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 5, and 37. In light of the similarities
between patent-eligible claim 22 in Thales and claim 1 on appeal, we agree
with Appellant that claim 1 is directed to an improvement in technology.
Accordingly, claim 1 integrates the recited mental process into a practical
application, and, therefore, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Consequently, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and
4–6 depending therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we need not proceed
to step 2B (see Memorandum). Independent claims 7 and 15 are
substantially similar in scope to claim 1, and, for the same reasons, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 15 and associated dependent claims
8–10, 12–14, and 17–19.

Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

11
Rejection II–Iddan, Pfister, Horn (Claims 1, 5–7, 13, 14, and 20)
Appellant argues for the patentability of the claims subject to
Rejection II, as a group. Appeal Br. 20. We select claim 1 as representative
of the group, and claims 5–7, 13, 14, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Iddan to disclose many of the steps recited in
claim 1, including recording pH measurements as a function of time and
detecting contractions, and relies on Pfister to teach the step of conditioning
recorded pressure measurements. Ans. 15 (citing Iddan ¶¶ 29, 30, 33, 34,
40, 42, 43, 55; Pfister 13–14). The Examiner finds that Iddan and Pfister
“fail to disclose a step of deriving a frequency of the contractions as a
function of time and said pressure measurements.” Id. at 16.
To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Horn, finding this
reference teaches “peristaltic contractions that may occur naturally in the GI
tract may occur in different frequencies and/or with durations in different
organs in the GI tract . . . may be used to identify a location in the GI tract.”
Id. (citing Horn ¶ 25). The Examiner also finds that Horn discloses using
image data (which incorporate the frequency data) and other data to
determine the location of the in-vivo capsule. Ans. 15–19 (citing Horn ¶¶
20, 23, 25; Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that the data other than image data
may include pH measurements. See id. at 17–18. Thus, the Examiner finds
that Horn discloses the use both of the frequency of peristaltic contractions
and pH measurements in order to determine location within the GI tract.
Appellant argues that Horn fails to disclose or suggest deriving a
frequency of contractions as a function of time and pressure measurements.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

12
Appeal Br. 17–19.3 Specifically, Appellant contends, “at most Horn (at
paragraph [0025]) discloses determining contractile activity based on a
variation in image intensity, which is not the same as ‘deriving a frequency
of the contractions as a function of time and said pressure measurements’, as
recited in independent claim 1.” Id. at 20. Appellant argues “Horn, para.
[0025], merely teaches a vague relationship between contraction frequency,
image intensity, and location. This cannot teach or suggest the more precise
relationship between variation in contraction frequency and location, as
claimed. No frequency as such is derived in Horn, para. [0025].” Reply Br.
5.
The Examiner has the better position on this point. Paragraph 25 of
Horn states “the peristaltic contractions that may occur naturally in the GI
tract may occur in different frequencies and/or with durations in different
organs in the GI tract[, and] . . . specific regions in the GI tract may have
characteristic frequency patterns of contractile activity.” Accordingly, Horn
teaches that different frequencies of peristaltic contractions correspond to
different parts of the GI tract. Horn further teaches that this frequency data
is conveyed as image intensity. “Contractile activity may result, for
example, in a change of intensity of image frames.” Id. Horn further
explains that this change in image intensity is used to determine the location
of the in-vivo capsule. “[A] change in a pattern of intensity levels, or an
event in the pattern of intensity levels may be used to detect transition from
one region in the GI tract to another.” Id. Thus, Horn uses the frequency of

3 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rationale for making the
proposed modification to the process disclosed by Iddan. See Appeal Br.
17–21.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

13
contractions, communicated based on image intensity, to determine the
location of the in-vivo capsule. The fact that the frequency of contractions is
conveyed in the form of a change in intensity of image frames does not
undermine the Examiner’s finding that Horn teaches using the frequency to
identify a location in the GI tract. Rather, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would understand that because Horn teaches that certain frequencies of
contractions correspond to particular parts of the GI tract, and Horn
determines location based on these frequencies, Horn must determine what
the frequencies are in order to produce the proper change in intensity of
image frames. Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Horn meets the “deriving a frequency of the
contractions as a function of time and said pressure measurements”
requirement in claim 1.
Appellant asserts, “Horn does not disclose utilizing ‘a variation in said
pH’, let alone correlating ‘a variation in said pH’ and ‘a variation in said
frequency of contractions.’” Appeal Br. 19.
Appellant’s argument regarding the failure of Horn to disclose using a
variation in pH is unavailing inasmuch as Horn explicitly discloses the use
of pH variation to determine the location of an in-vivo capsule. 4 Horn ¶¶
23, 27.
Appellant next argues “Horn does not disclose or suggest
‘determining whether said capsule is at a first position between the ileum
and the caecum of said gastrointestinal tract based on a correlation between

4 The Examiner also finds that paragraph 5 of Appellant’s Specification
admits that pH levels have been correlated with transitions from the stomach
to the small bowel and from the distal small bowel to the colon. Ans. 24.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

14
a variation in said frequency of contractions and a variation in said pH’, as
recited in independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 19. In this regard, Appellant
argues “considering any two of pixel parameters, structure related
parameters, or sensor parameters such as pH or temperature is not the same
as ‘a correlation between a variation in said frequency of contractions and a
variation in said pH.’” Id.
In response, the Examiner interprets the term “correlation” as recited
in claim 1, stating, “Appellant’s [S]pecification does not provide nor refer to
any mathematical function to compute a correlation but merely refers to a
comparison of the simultaneous changes in the graphs of the respective
variables (i.e.[,] any two of pH, pressure, and frequency of contractions) to
corroborate the location of the capsule.” Ans. 23 (emphasis added). In light
of this interpretation, the Examiner finds the simultaneous use of two
distinct parameters (a variation in said frequency of contractions and a
variation in said pH) to determine the location of the in-vivo capsule in Horn
amounts to using a correlation between these parameters.
In reply, Appellant argues “Horn merely states that a confidence level
of a transition between GI tract regions increases when more than one
parameter indicates a shift in value at the same time or location: this cannot
teach or suggest the correlation of the specific parameters claimed.” Reply
Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that the use of the determination of a
variation in pH in combination with a determination of a variation in a
frequency of contractions amounts to using a correlation between these two
parameters. Appellant’s Specification states, “[b]y basing location on both
pH and pressure patterns, one can more accurately determine the movement
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

15
of ingested capsule 20 from one segment of the gastrointestinal tract to a
second segment of the gastrointestinal tract of a subject.” Spec. ¶ 35. The
Specification further explains, “[i]n comparing patterns from a subject with
the reference templates for both pH and pressure, if there is a correlation
between a variation in pH B and a variation in frequency of contractions D
and/or motility index F, then a determination of the capsule’s location may
be more accurate” and “[w]ithout this correlation, the capsule being located
at or near the ileo-caecal junction is less certain.” Id. Thus, like the use of
variation in pH and contraction frequency disclosed by Horn, Appellant’s
determination of a “correlation” amounts to determining where both
parameters provide an indication of a particular location, thus enhancing the
likelihood of an accurate determination of location in the GI tract.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “correlation” is
consistent with Appellant’s Specification, and the Examiner properly applied
this interpretation in finding that Horn discloses basing its determination on
a correlation between parameters, as claimed.
As for the determining that the capsule is located in a “first position
between the ileum and the caecum,” the Examiner states:
Since pH has been correlated with two transitions in the
gastrointestinal tract (e.g.[,] the transition between the stomach
and the small bowel and the transition between the small bowel
and the colon), in using pH to determine the location of a capsule
as taught by Horn et al. (see at least par 0022-0023 & 0027), Horn
et al. clearly teach a method comprising determining whether a
capsule is at the ilea-caecal transition (i.e.[,] a first position
between the ileum and the caecum) of said gastrointestinal tract
based on a variation (i.e.[,] noticeable/significant change) in said
pH.
Ans. 27.
Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

16
Horn states “[t]he confidence level that a transition from one region to
another, e.g., a transition from the small intestine to the cecum occurred
and/or that an event was identified may be determined (206).” Horn ¶ 29
(emphasis added). Horn also describes using a change in color or pixel
value to determine a transition from the small bowel to the large intestine.
See id. ¶ 34. Horn explains, “[a]rrival to a specific location, for example, the
cecum may be identified.” Id. ¶ 23 (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner’s
finding that Horn teaches determining whether a capsule is in a position
between the ileum and the caecum is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the
patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1. Claims 5–7, 13, 14, and 20 fall with claim 1.

Rejections III–V— Iddan, Pfister, Horn, Meron, D’Andrea, Takizawa
(Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17–19, and 21)
Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of claims 2,
4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17–19, and 21 aside from those discussed above regarding
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20–21. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we
sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17–19, and 21
(Rejections III–V).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

Appeal 2019-000298
Application 13/326,045

17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10,
12–15, 17–
19
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–10,
12–15, 17–
19
1, 5–7, 13,
14, 20
103(a) Iddan, Pfister, Horn 1, 5–7, 13,
14, 20

2, 8, 9, 15,
17–19, 21
103(a) Iddan, Pfister, Horn,
Meron
2, 8, 9, 15,
17–19, 21

4, 12 103(a) Iddan, Pfister, Horn,
D’Andrea
4, 12
10 103(a) Iddan, Pfister, Horn,
Takizawa
10
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–10,
12–15, 17–
21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED