Robert Alexander et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2021

2020003133 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021)

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.
10/822,999 04/13/2004 Robert Minter Alexander IV COF5002 4661
150308 7590 01/13/2021
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
CAPITAL ONE
600 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30308
EXAMINER
PRASAD, NANCY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2021 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):
Katherine.swider@troutmansanders.com
capitalonepatents@troutman.com
patents@troutman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT MINTER ALEXANDER IV
and CHARLES AARON ROSENBLATT
____________

Appeal 2020–003133
Application 10/822,999
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Robert Minter Alexander IV and Charles Aaron Rosenblatt
(Appellant2) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed June 28, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December
6, 2019), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed November 1, 2018).
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

2

43–48 and 50–69, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of providing transactional access to a
demand deposit account while imposing a credit card interchange rate on the
respective transaction. Specification 1:5–9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 43, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
43. A method for processing a purchase transaction between an
account holder and a merchant, the method comprising:
[1] identifying a credit account and a demand deposit account,
the credit account and demand deposit account each
associated with a predetermined account number of the
account holder,
the credit account including credit account data stored in
one or more memory units of a first financial institution,
and demand deposit account including deposit account
data stored in one or more memory units of a second
financial institution,
the second financial institution being different from the
first financial institution;
[2] receiving, at the first financial institution, transaction data
via an authorization network,
the transaction data being associated with a purchase
transaction initiated by the account holder with the
merchant using the credit account,
the purchase transaction having a transaction amount;

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Capital
One Services, LLC (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

3

[3] providing authorization data to the merchant via the
authorization network for the purchase transaction including:
[3.1] determining, from the received transaction data,
both the predetermined account number associated with
the credit account and the transaction amount,
[3.2] comparing remaining credit of the credit account
with the transaction amount,
[3.3] providing authorization data to the merchant via the
authorization network
if the remaining credit of the credit account is
greater than or equal to the transaction amount,
and
[3.4] providing authorization data to the merchant via the
authorization network by providing transactional access
to a second demand deposit account associated with the
account holder so as to cover the transaction amount or a
portion thereof not covered by the credit account
if the remaining credit of the credit account is less
than the transaction amount;
[4] transferring,
via the authorization network and after providing
the authorization data,
at least a portion of the transaction amount from the first
financial institution system associated with the credit
account to pay the merchant;
[5] using one or more computer processors, automatically
requesting from the second financial institution, an automated
clearing house transfer of the transaction amount
from the second financial institution associated with the
demand deposit account to the first financial institution
associated with the credit account
while imposing a credit card interchange rate on the
purchase transaction,
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

4

the request made via an automated clearing house
network,
and
wherein the second financial institution associated with
the demand deposit account is electronically coupled to
the first financial institution associated with the credit
account;
[6] receiving the automated clearing house transfer via the
automated clearing house network;
and
[7] updating the credit account data and demand deposit
account data.
by effectuating an increase or decrease thereof, respectively, based on
the automated clearing house transfer of the transaction amount.
Claims 43–48 and 50–69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
This is the second time this application is appealed. This is the first
time there is a rejection before us under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims have
been substantially amended since the prior appeal.
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

5

STEP 13
Claim 43, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as
an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a 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.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

6

whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 43 recites identifying account data, receiving transaction data,
providing authorization data, determining account number data, comparing
amounts data, transferring amount data, requesting a data transfer, imposing
an interest rate on data, receiving transferred data, and updating amount
data. Identifying, comparing, determining, and imposing an interest
calculation are rudimentary forms of data analysis. Providing, requesting,
and transferring data are transmitting data. Updating data is modifying data.
Thus, claim 43 recites analyzing, receiving, transmitting, and modifying
data. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details
for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all
possible means.
From this we see that claim 43 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

7

extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 43 recites the concept of
managing commercial transactions. Specifically, claim 43 recites operations
that would ordinarily take place in advising one to perform a commercial
credit transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest. The
advice to perform a commercial credit transaction with a credit account and
imposing credit interest involves requesting a commercial payment transfer,
which is an economic act, and providing authorization data to the merchant,
which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For
example, claim 43 recites “requesting . . . an automated clearing house
transfer of the transaction amount,” which is an activity that would take
place whenever one is managing commercial transactions electronically.
Similarly, claim 1 recites “providing authorization data to the merchant,”
which is also characteristic of commercial payment management.

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

8

The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to collecting and
analyzing transaction data related to an account holder. Ans. 6.
The preamble to claim 43 recites that it is a method for processing a
purchase transaction between an account holder and a merchant. The steps
in claim 43 result in managing commercial transactions by performing a
commercial credit transaction with a credit account and imposing credit
interest absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional
computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 2 and 6 recite receiving data.
Limitations 1, 3–5, and 7 recite generic and conventional analyzing,
transmitting, and modifying of commercial transaction data, which advise
one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus
recite advice for performing a commercial credit transaction with a credit
account and imposing credit interest. To advocate performing a commercial
credit transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at 1:5–9 describes the invention as relating to
providing transactional access to a demand deposit account while imposing a
credit card interchange rate on the respective transaction. Thus, all this
intrinsic evidence shows that claim 43 recites managing commercial
transactions. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial
transactions is fundamental to commercial transactions. The concept of
managing commercial transactions by performing a commercial credit
transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest is one idea for
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

9

matching payment resources with transactions. The steps recited in claim 43
are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting, recognizing, and storing data fed into an ATM).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of analyzing, receiving,
transmitting, and modifying data mimic human thought processes of
observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 43, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data analysis, reception,
transmission, and modification and does not recite an improvement to a
particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims
not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation”). As such, claim 43 recites analyzing, receiving,
transmitting, and modifying data, and not a technological implementation or
application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 43 recites
managing commercial transactions by performing a commercial credit
transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest, which is a
commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

10

human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract
idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 43 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 2 and 6 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this.
Steps 4, 5, and 7 recite basic conventional data operations such as
generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 1 and 3 recite generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

11

purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 43 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial transactions by performing a commercial credit
transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest as performed
by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the
parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to
process those parameters, and does not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 43 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different
generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of managing commercial transactions by performing a
commercial credit transaction with a credit account and imposing credit
interest under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 43 at issue
amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing
commercial transactions by performing a commercial credit transaction with
a credit account and imposing credit interest 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.

8 The Specification describes a processing unit. Spec. 8:10.
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

12

None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 43 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial transactions by advising one to perform a commercial
credit transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest, as
distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying
that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall
within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract
ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 43 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

13

Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[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 for analyzing, receiving, transmitting, and modifying data amounts
to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (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,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can
be achieved by any general purpose computer without special
programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

14

manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not
contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more
than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As
to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing
information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that
limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.”
SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 43 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data analysis-reception-
transmission-modification is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (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) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 43 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 43 is representative. The other independent method claim 60 is
substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method
claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

15

claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to
the practical application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial transactions by advising one to
perform a commercial credit transaction with a credit account and imposing
credit interest, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Answer 3–22 and reach similar legal
conclusions. There is no Reply Brief. We note in particular the following.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “Appellant
submits the claims do not contain any features related to the abstract idea.”
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

16

Br. 14. As determined in the analysis above, the claims are directed to the
judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing
human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of
managing commercial transactions by advising one to perform a commercial
credit transaction with a credit account and imposing credit interest, without
significantly more.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the claims recite
“a series of steps and specific elements that lead to a useful result.” Br. 16.
Reciting a series of steps only ensures a claim fits within the statutory
category of a process. The elements are specific only in the sense they are
specified using words. The steps are all generic receiving, analyzing,
transmitting, and updating of data. The data labels cannot confer eligibility.
As to leading to a useful result, that alone is insufficient. “That the
automation can ‘result in life altering consequences,’ is laudable, but it does
not render it any less abstract.” Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen.
Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims would not
preempt the idea. Br. 17. “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to
disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo [/Alice] framework,
as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made
moot.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims contain
an inventive concept that is also found in the specific ordered combination
of the limitations, similar to the Federal Circuit’s findings in BASCOM
(BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

17

2016)). Br. 17–18. Initially, we remind Appellant that BASCOM did not
find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the Appellees did not
provide sufficient evidence to support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which
facts are presumed in the non-movant’s favor.
The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in
“installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-
users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This
design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer
and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350.
The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 43–48 and 50–69 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 43–48 and 50–69 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis Affirmed Reversed
43–48, 50–69 101 Eligibility 43–48, 50–69

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)(1)(iv) (2011).

Appeal 2020-003133
Application 10/822,999

18

AFFIRMED