Johnson Controls Technology Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2022

2021004883 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2022)

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. 15/895,836 02/13/2018 Robert D. Turney 17BE197-US (116048-0379) 9261 146598 7590 01/11/2022 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2146 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2022 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): ipdocketing@foley.com uspatents@jci.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT D. TURNEY and SUDHI R. SINHA Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard on December 13, 2021. A transcript of that hearing will be added to the record once available. We REVERSE. Pursuant to our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection for claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Johnson Controls Technology Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed February 26, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to “a maintenance system that uses a predictive optimization technique to determine an optimal maintenance strategy for the building equipment.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 By way of background, according to Appellant, “[i]t can be difficult to accurately predict the costs and benefits of various maintenance tasks when determining which maintenance tasks should be performed” for building equipment. Id. ¶ 5. Accordingly, Appellant’s model predictive maintenance system for building equipment includes an operational cost predictor “to predict a cost of operating the building equipment over the duration of [an] optimization period based on equipment performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment.” Appeal Br. 27. Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with certain dispositive limitation(s) at issue italicized and paragraph designators added for clarity, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A predictive maintenance system for building equipment, the predictive maintenance system comprising: 2 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed February 13, 2018 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed July 23, 2020; (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 11, 2021; and (4) the Reply Brief filed August 10, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 3 [(a)] an equipment controller configured to operate the building equipment to affect a variable state or condition in a building; [(b)] a maintenance cost predictor configured to predict a cost of performing maintenance on the building equipment over a duration of an optimization period; [(c)] an operational cost predictor configured to predict a cost of operating the building equipment over the duration of the optimization period based on equipment performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment; and [(d)] an objective function optimizer configured to optimize an objective function to predict a total cost associated with the building equipment over the duration of the optimization period, the objective function comprising the cost of operating the building equipment and the cost of performing maintenance on the building equipment. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Masayuki et al. (JP 2003141178 (A), published May 16, 2003) (“Masayuki”), Discenzo et al. (US 8,126,574 B2, issued Feb. 28, 2012) (“Discenzo”), and Farahat et al. (US 2017/0309094 A1, published Oct. 26, 2017) (“Farahat”). Final Act. 3-6. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 4 Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Masayuki, Discenzo, and Farahat to teach or suggest “an operational cost predictor configured to predict a cost of operating the building equipment over the duration of the optimization period based on equipment performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment.” Final Act. 3-6; Ans. 3-5 (citing Masayuki ¶¶ 2, 7, 10, Discenzo 4:61-65, Figs. 8, 9, 11 and Farahat ¶ 42). Of particular relevance, the Examiner relies on Discenzo and Farahat to teach “predict a cost of operating the building equipment . . . based on equipment performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment.” Id. The Examiner determines that motivation existed to apply the teachings of Discenzo and Farahat to Masayuki. Final Act. 5-6. Appellant argues that none of the cited references teach or suggest an operational cost predictor, as claimed, because, in claim 1, “‘the maintenance’ that contributes to the ‘equipment performance’ considered by the operational cost predictor refers to maintenance actions that occur over the duration of the optimization period.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant continues that “[f]or example, the operational cost predictor can determine how future maintenance actions occurring over the duration of the optimization period will improve the performance of building equipment after the maintenance actions are performed” and “ [a]s such, the cost of operating the building equipment predicted by the operational cost predictor is a function of equipment performance, which in tum is a function of the maintenance actions that will occur over the duration of the optimization period.” Appeal Br. 7. Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 5 We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Masayuki’s design support system for buildings teaches predicting a cost of operating building equipment over a period based on performance of the building equipment including maintenance costs, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Masayuki teaches calculating maintenance cost based on “performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. Masayuki ¶ 2. Furthermore, although Farahat “evaluates the effectiveness of a maintenance action or a group of actions in improving the performance of equipment and its components,” we agree with Appellant that Farahat fails to teach or suggest “‘predict[ing] a cost of operating the building equipment . . . that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment,’” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Farahat ¶ 42). Discenzo merely discusses applying “real-time diagnostics and prognostics techniques” to improve equipment maintenance and therefore also fails to teach this aspect of the claim. Discenzo 4:61-65. Accordingly, given the current record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Masayuki, Discenzo, and Farahat, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests “an operational cost predictor configured to predict a cost of operating the building equipment over the duration of the optimization period based on equipment performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 6 the merits of Appellant’s other arguments seeking to distinguish claim 1 from the cited prior art. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, which recite a limitation commensurate to that at issue in claim 1. Appeal Br. 28-31. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 8, or 15. New Ground of Rejection for Claims 1-20 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. However, the Supreme Court has held that § 101 includes implicit exceptions-laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas-which are not patent-eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In January 2019, the Office issued the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”), which addresses the manner in which § 101 case law is to be applied by the Office. In October 2019, the Office issued an update to explain further the manner in which the Guidance should be implemented. See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites /default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (“Guidance Update”). The Board is required to adhere to these guidance documents as a matter of Office policy. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. The Guidance sets forth a four- part analysis for determining whether a claim is eligible subject matter under § 101; the four parts are labeled here as Step 1, Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B. Id. at 53-56. Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 7 Guidance Step 1 First, under “Step 1,” we consider whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories set forth in § 101, namely “[p]rocess, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-54; see 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite a system (i.e., a “machine”). As such, the claims are directed to a statutory class of invention within § 101 and we proceed to the next step. Guidance Step 2A Prong 1 (Judicial Exceptions) Second, under “Step 2A Prong 1,” we evaluate “whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 216-17. Apart from additional elements discussed separately below, we first look to whether claim 1 recites certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as commercial and business activities, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).3 Limitation (a) of claim 1 recites, in part, “operate the building equipment to affect a variable state or condition in a building.” The portions of the Specification cited by Appellant in support of this limitation describe such control activities broadly to encompass various types of human- performed tasks, e.g., operating a controller to control “temperature, humidity, etc.” Appeal Br. 4 (citing Spec. ¶ 146). Limitation (a) recites a step focused on “managing personal behavior,” which is a long-practiced 3 The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 8 human activity, because under a broadest reasonable interpretation, a person could have operated a thermostat to control a temperature within a building. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Limitation (a), therefore, recites an abstract idea in the form of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and in particular, managing personal behavior. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (indicated as abstract “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” including “managing personal behavior.”). Limitation (b) recites, in part, “predict a cost of performing maintenance on the building equipment over a duration of an optimization period.” The portion of the Specification cited by Appellant (Appeal Br. 4) in support of this limitation describes such calculations broadly as calculating “the cost of performing maintenance on connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period” based on an equation that “include[s] two variables or parameters.” (Spec. ¶ 171). The Specification discloses no algorithm or technical detail to support an assertion that this ordinary calculation of maintenance costs based on two parameters could not be practically performed in the mind. Id. That is, a person could have calculated maintenance costs mentally or with pen and paper without analyzing a large amount of data and hence this activity can be characterized as entailing a mental evaluation that can be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, limitation (b) recites a type of abstract idea recognized by the Guidance. MPEP § 2106.04(a); see also Guidance Update at 9 (“A claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper recites a mental process”) (emphasis omitted). Limitation (c) recites, “predict a cost of operating the building equipment over the duration of the optimization period based on equipment Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 9 performance of the building equipment that results from performing the maintenance on the building equipment.” The portion of the Specification cited by Appellant (Appeal Br. 4) in support of this limitation describes such calculations broadly as calculating “the operating cost of connected equipment 610 over the duration of the optimization period” based on an equation that “include[s] three variables or parameters.” Spec. ¶ 153. The Specification discloses no algorithm or technical detail to support an assertion that this ordinary calculation of maintenance costs based on three parameters could not be practically performed in the mind. Id. That is, a person could have calculated the operating cost mentally or with pen and paper without analyzing a large amount of data and hence this activity can be characterized as entailing a mental evaluation that can be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, limitation (c) recites a mental process, which is a type of abstract idea recognized by the Guidance. Guidance Update at 9. Limitation (d) recites, “optimize an objective function to predict a total cost associated with the building equipment over the duration of the optimization period, the objective function comprising the cost of operating the building equipment and the cost of performing maintenance on the building equipment.” This limitation recites mathematical calculations, which fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas in the Guidance. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1). The portion of the Specification cited by Appellant (Appeal Br. 4) in support of this limitation describes that “[o]bjective function optimizer 940 can optimize the objective function j to determine the optimal values of the binary decision variables Bmain,i and Bcap,i over the duration of the optimization period.” Spec. ¶ 203. “[O]bjective function j [is generated] by summing the operational cost term, the Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 10 maintenance cost term, and the capital cost term” of the equipment over the duration of the optimization period. Id. ¶ 200. The Specification further explains that “[o]bjective function optimizer 940 can use any of a variety of [known] optimization techniques to formulate and optimize the objective function j” such as “integer programming, mixed integer linear programming, stochastic optimization, convex programming, dynamic programming, or any other optimization technique.” Id. ¶ 203. As such, the Specification supports our determination that limitation (d) recites mathematical concepts, which is a type of abstract idea recognized by the Guidance. In summary, apart from additional elements discussed separately below, each of limitations (a) through (d) recites a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the Guidance. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”). Guidance Step 2A Prong 2 (Practical Application) Third, having determined that claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea, we evaluate whether “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55; MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception.” Id.; see Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012). This evaluation is Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 11 conducted by first “[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s),” and then “evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. We discern no additional elements or combination of elements recited in claim 1 that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 does not expressly recite a computer, processor, memory, or other computer hardware. As claimed, limitations (a) - (d) may be broadly interpreted to recite software modules to be executed on a generic computer. Appellant cites to element 602 in support of the claimed predictive maintenance system. Appeal Br. 4. The Specification discloses that “model predictive maintenance system 602 can be a component of a remote computing system or cloud-based computing system configured to receive and process data from one or more building.” Spec. ¶ 108. “In other embodiments, model predictive maintenance system 602 can be . . . a computer workstation, a client device, or any other system or device that receives and processes monitored variables from connected equipment 610.” Id. Claim 1, then, does not recite any additional element beyond the abstract idea. However, even if we interpret claim 1 as implicitly reciting a computer, the addition of a generic computer to execute the claimed limitations does not add any meaningful limits to the recited abstract idea. Such generically claimed computer components would amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the additional elements of a computer or processor, even if recited in claim 1, Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 12 are not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); Guidance Update at 11-12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). For these reasons, claim 1 is not directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Additionally, none of the remaining indicia of integration identified by the Guidance are present in the claim. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). For example, the claim does not recite a particular machine and, instead, generically recites a predictive maintenance system implemented on a generic computer. Nor does the claim recite the “[t]ransformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010); MPEP § 2106.05(c). Claim 1 does not transform an article, i.e., some type of tangible or physical object, but instead transforms an intangible concept, i.e., information, from one form to another. That is, the claim simply collects and analyzes building equipment-related data to calculate “a total cost associated with the building equipment” over a specific time period. See MPEP § 2106.05(c); see also Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972) (holding that an algorithm that merely transforms data from one form to another is not patent-eligible). In summary, even if claim 1 were to recite a computer or processor, that element is not applied in the claim in any meaningful way beyond Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 13 generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. We, therefore, determine claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in technology or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception. Guidance Step 2B (Inventive Concept) Finally, having concluded that claim 1 is “directed to” a judicial exception, we turn to whether the claim provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements, individually or as an ordered combination, amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. To determine whether the claim provides an inventive concept, the additional elements are considered- individually and in combination-to determine whether they (1) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (2) simply append well- understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. In our discussion of Step 2A, Prong 1 above, we determined that limitation (d) is abstract because it recites a mathematical concept. However, even if we were to determine that limitation (d) does not recite a mathematical concept and is consequently an additional limitation beyond the abstract idea, limitation (d) would still not amount to “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception because it merely recites well- understood, routine or conventional activity. Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 14 The Office’s Berkheimer Memorandum4 requires that when performing an analysis to determine whether “an additional element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine or conventional activity,” the rejection must be supported with a written finding that may include a “citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” Berkheimer Memorandum at 3 (§ III. A.). Here, the portion of the Specification cited by Appellant (Appeal Br. 4) in support of limitation (d) describes that “[o]bjective function optimizer 940 can optimize the objective function j to determine the optimal values of the binary decision variables Bmain,i and Bcap,i over the duration of the optimization period.” Spec. ¶ 203. The Specification further describes limitation (d)’s optimizing of objective function j as a well understood, routine, and conventional calculation: Objective function optimizer 940 can use any of a variety of optimization techniques to formulate and optimize the objective function j. For example, objective function optimizer 940 can use integer programming, mixed integer linear programming, stochastic optimization, convex programming, dynamic programming, or any other optimization technique to formulate the objective function j, define the constraints, and perform the optimization. These and other optimization techniques are known in the art and will not be described in detail here. Spec. ¶ 203. 4 USPTO memorandum issued on April 19, 2018, titled “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.).” Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 15 Accordingly, we determine that even if limitation (d) were to recite an additional element beyond claim 1’s abstract idea, that additional element merely recites well-understood, routine or conventional activity and therefore does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification does not indicate that consideration of the claim elements as an ordered combination adds any significance beyond the additional element, as considered individually. Rather, the Specification indicates that the invention is directed to an abstract idea that may be made more efficient with generic computer components. That is, even assuming claim 1 were to recite a computer, such generic hardware adds nothing more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity, specified at a high level of generality, to the application of one or more longstanding human activities, mental processes, and mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). In addition to the Guidance, our reviewing court has also indicated that performing an abstract idea on generic computer components cannot confer patentability. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (concluding that claims “simply instruct[ing] the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer” are not patent eligible); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 222) (“after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “[o]ur law demands more” than claim language that “provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it”); Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 16 Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”). Accordingly, we reject claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. We designate this rejection as constituting a new ground under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). As to independent claims 8 and 15, we conclude that these claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. As to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, we conclude that they merely recite further details of the judicial exception. Nor do we find that these claims recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We newly reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. Appeal 2021-004883 Application 15/895,836 17 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: FINALITY AND RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Rule 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1-20 103 Masayuki, Discenzo, Farahat 1-20 1-20 101 Eligibility 1-20 Overall Outcome 1-20 1-20