Takayuki Itoh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 31, 2019

14454329 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/454,329 08/07/2014 Takayuki ITOH
22850 7590 11/14/2019
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
439l90US8DIV 3048
EXAMINER
LIM, SENG HENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKA YUKI ITOH, TOMOHIRO TSUKIHARA,
HARUY A NISHIKUBO, and MIDORI MORIY AMA
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant 1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-13, which are the pending claims.
We heard oral argument on September 26, 2019. 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. § l .42(b ). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Gree, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are independent claims. Claim 2 is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with reference
letters added in brackets.
2. A game control method performed by a server
including a memory and a processor, the game control method
compnsmg:
[ A J storing in the memory, by the processor, user
identification information that identifies users of individual
mobile terminals of a plurality of mobile terminals that
communicate with the server;
[BJ controlling transmission, by the processor, of
instructions to a first mobile terminal of the plurality of mobile
terminals to execute a game in which a first user of the first
mobile terminal accesses a virtual container that holds a virtual
item;
[CJ receiving from the first mobile terminal, by the
processor, an indication relating to the virtual container;
[DJ opening, by the processor, the virtual container to
obtain the virtual item when the indication indicates that the first
user selects to open the virtual container;
[EJ storing in the memory, by the processor when the
virtual container is opened, information that indicates the virtual
item obtained from the virtual container in association with user
identification information of the first user;
[FJ controlling transmission, by the processor when the
indication indicates that the first user selects to gift the virtual
container to a second user of a second mobile terminal of the
plurality of mobile terminals, screen data to the second mobile
terminal indicating that the virtual container is gifted to the
second user; and
[GJ storing in the memory, by the processor when the
screen data is transmitted, information that indicates an
association between the virtual container and user identification
information of the second user.
2
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4.
Claims 2-13 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-9 of Itoh (US 8,840,467 B2, issued
Sept. 23, 2014). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Patent Ineligibility of Claims 2-13
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219.
Concepts that have been 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 v.
3
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted). "A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. ( 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.
On January 7, 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter "2019 Guidance"). The 2019
Guidance includes steps 2A and 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes). See id. at 54.
If a claim recites a judicial exception, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong
Two, and determine whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See id.; see also
MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h).
4
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Only if a claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B
of the guidance. At this step, we determine whether the claim adds a
specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-
understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Claim Grouping
Appellant argues the patent eligibility of claims 2-13 as a group.
Appeal Br. 8-14. We select claim 2 as representative, and claims 3-13
stand or fall with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Step One - Statutory Category
Claim 2 recites a method, and, accordingly, is directed to one of the
statutory classes of subject matter eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (i.e., a process).
Step 2A, Prong One - Recitation of Judicial Exception
We next look to whether claim 2 recites any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas, that is, mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes.
5
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
The Examiner determines that the claims recite an abstract idea;
namely, the recitations "identifying the user" and "open[ing] a container to
obtain an item and if the user does not open the container, the container can
be presented to another user" relate to methods of organizing human activity
and/or rules for conducting a game. Final Act. 8. As discussed below, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 2 recites abstract ideas.
Mental Process
Step A of claim 2 recites "storing ... user identification information
that identifies users." Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this
limitation involves placing information that identifies users in a storage
location. See, e.g., Spec. 25, 11. 27-28, 1. 5. Placing this information in a
storage location can be performed through observation, evaluation, or
judgment in the human mind, or on paper. Acts that can be performed in the
human mind fall within the abstract idea exception grouping of mental
processes identified in the 2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance at 52. Thus,
step A recites a mental process, which is a judicial exception.
Step B recites "controlling transmission ... of instructions ... to
execute a game in which a first user ... accesses a virtual container that
holds a virtual item." Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this
limitation involves controlling sending of instructions to a first user to
execute a game in which the first user accesses a virtual (non-physical)
container containing a virtual item. Controlling sending of the recited
instructions can be performed through human observation, evaluation, or
judgment in the human mind, or on paper. Thus, step B also recites a mental
process, which is a judicial exception.
6
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Step C recites "receiving ... an indication relating to the virtual
container." Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation
involves receiving an instruction from the first user relating to the virtual
container. See, e.g., Spec. 27, 11. 5-7. Receiving an instruction relating to a
virtual container can be performed through human observation, evaluation,
or judgment in the human mind or on paper. Thus, step C also recites a
mental process, which is a judicial exception.
Step D recites "opening ... the virtual container to obtain the virtual
item when the indication indicates that the first user selects to open the
virtual container." Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this
limitation relates to opening the virtual container to obtain the virtual item
when the first user gives this indication (instruction) in step C. We find that
opening the virtual container in step D can be performed through
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion in the human mind or on
paper. Thus, step D also recites a mental process, which is a judicial
exception.
Step E recites "storing ... when the virtual container is opened,
information that indicates the virtual item obtained from the virtual container
in association with user identification information of the first user." We
understand that this limitation relates to placing information about the virtual
item in the storage location when the virtual container is opened in step D, in
association with user identification information of the first user placed in the
storage location in step A. This placing of information in the storage
location in step E can be performed through observation, evaluation, or
judgment in the human mind or on paper. Thus, step E also recites a mental
process, which is a judicial exception.
7
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Step F recites "controlling transmission ... when the indication
indicates that the first user selects to gift the virtual container to a second
user ... [ ofJ data ... indicating that the virtual container is gifted to the
second user." We understand that this limitation relates to controlling
sending of information indicating that the virtual container is gifted by the
first user to the second user, when the first user gives this instruction to gift
in step C. The act of controlling transmission of information can be
performed through observation, evaluation, or judgment in the human mind
or on paper. Thus, step F also recites a mental process, which is a judicial
exception.
Lastly, step G recites "storing ... when the ... data is transmitted,
information that indicates an association between the virtual container and
user identification information of the second user." We understand that this
limitation relates to storing information in the storage location that indicates
the virtual item container and user identification information of the second
user, when the data is transmitted in step F. Storing this information can be
performed through observation, evaluation, or judgment in the human mind
or on paper. Thus, step E also recites a mental process, which is a judicial
exception.
Method of Organizing Human Activity
Alternatively, or additionally, we construe the limitations of claim 2
as relating to the concept of following rules or instructions in controlling a
game. Particularly, the noted limitation in step A relates to following rules
or instructions in placing information that identifies users in a storage
location. The noted limitation in step B relates to following rules or
instructions in controlling sending of instructions to a first user to execute a
8
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
game in which the first user accesses a virtual container containing a virtual
item. The noted limitation in step C relates to following rules or instructions
in receiving an instruction from the first user relating to the virtual container.
The noted limitation in step D relates to following rules or instructions in
opening the virtual container to obtain the virtual item when the first user
gives this instruction in step C. The noted limitation in step E relates to
following rules or instructions in placing information about the virtual item
in the storage location when the virtual container is opened in step D, in
association with user identification information of the first user placed in the
storage location in step A. The noted limitation in step F relates to following
rules or instructions in controlling sending of information indicating that the
virtual container is gifted by the first user to the second user, when the first
user gives this instruction to gift in step C. Lastly, the noted limitation in
step G relates to following rules or instructions in storing information in the
storage location that indicates the virtual item container and user
identification information of the second user, when the data is transmitted in
step F. Following rules or instructions is a form of managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which falls within
the abstract idea exception subgrouping of certain methods of organizing
human activity. See 2019 Guidance at 52. Thus, steps A---G recite a method
of organizing human activity, which is another judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 2 recites the abstract ideas of mental processes and
certain methods of organizing human activity, which are judicial exceptions
to patent-eligible subject matter. We proceed to Prong Two to determine
whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception.
9
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Step 2A, Prong Two - Practical Application of Judicial Exception
We next determine whether claim 2 as a whole integrates the recited
judicial exception 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.
An additional element or elements that reflect(s) an improvement in
the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field, is indicative that the additional element(s) may have
integrated the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance at
55. Appellant contends, "taken as a whole, the claimed features result in a
method for a server device that improves upon conventional game control
methods performed by servers by (1) automatically storing association
information between user identification information and contents of a virtual
container, as well as (2) automatically transmitting screen data to a second
mobile terminal." Appeal Br. 10 (boldface omitted). Appellant states that
the "storing" in feature (1) occurs "when a virtual container is opened and
when screen data is transmitted," and the "transmitting" in feature (2) occurs
"when an indication indicates that a first user selects to gift the virtual
container to a second user." Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant also contends that the claimed features provide specific
improvements in computer capabilities (i.e., server capabilities), as in
Enfzsh, based on reasons similar to features (1) and (2). Appeal Br. 10-11
(citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
10
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends the claimed features provide that "a server
facilitates mobile terminals to pass virtual containers from one terminal to
another, and facilitates the display of screen data on the mobile terminals."
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 5.
In contrast, the Examiner determines that the claimed game control
method does not provide an improvement in server capabilities because the
steps of storing and transmitting data from one device to another are general
functions performed by a server/computer. Ans. 2-3. The Examiner also
determines that, notwithstanding the recited computer-based elements, the
game control method essentially relates to a set of rules to conduct a game,
which is similar to the kind of "organizing human activity" at issue in Alice.
Id. at 3. The Examiner disagrees that the claimed method improves
computer capabilities or computer functionality itself, like the claims in
Enfish. Id. at 3--4. In contrast, the Examiner finds, claim 2 uses a computer
in its ordinary capacity to effect the rules to conduct the game. Id. at 4. The
Examiner determines that the recited computer (processor) "does not provide
a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory," as in Enfish. Id.
Claim 2 recites, as additional elements beyond the identified judicial
exceptions, the limitations that the game control method is "performed by a
server including a memory and a processor" and "a plurality of mobile
terminals ... communicate with the server." Appellant's features (1) and (2)
relate to steps E and F, respectively. Appeal Br. 10. Step E recites "storing
in the memory, by the processor ... information that indicates the virtual
item obtained from the virtual container in association with user
identification information of the first user." Step F recites "controlling
11
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
transmission, by the processor ... [ of] screen data to the second mobile
terminal." The "indication" received by the processor from the first mobile
device determines which of step E or step F is performed.
As for Appellant's contention that the claimed method "improves
upon conventional game control methods performed by servers," Appellant
does not explain persuasively how this purported improvement results from
"(1) automatically storing association information between user
identification information and contents of a virtual container" and
"(2) automatically transmitting screen data to a second mobile terminal" in
features (1) and (2). Appeal Br. 10 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellant's contention that the claimed features provide specific
improvements in server or computer capabilities is unpersuasive. Appeal
Br. 10-11. In support, Appellant relies on Enfish, in which the court
determined that the claims were "directed to a specific improvement to the
way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table." Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1336. In Enfish, the court concluded that the claims were directed to
an improvement of an existing technology, noting that the Specification
"teaches that the self-referential table functions differently than conventional
database structures" and "the claimed invention achieves other benefits over
conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and
smaller memory requirements." Id. at 1337. "In sum, the self-referential
table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data structure
designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in
memory." Id. at 13 3 9.
In contrast to Enfish, Appellant does not show persuasively how the
features of claim 2 provide any specific improvement in server or computer
12
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
capabilities. Appellant contends that this purported improvement is
achieved based on reasons similar to features ( 1) and (2). Appeal Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 5. But Appellant does not explain persuasively, or direct us to any
disclosure that shows, how storing association information in step E or G or
transmitting screen data to a mobile terminal in step F, depending on a game
user's indication, improves the way the server, including the memory and
processor, operates. Appellant does not, for example, direct us to any
disclosure "that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an
unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies
technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art." See MPEP
§ 2106.05(a). Unlike in Enfzsh, Appellant does not show with evidence that,
for example, the claimed server memory stores the information, or the
claimed server processor controls transmission of the screen data, faster or
using smaller memory requirements. Even if, as Appellant contends, the
recited server automatically stores association information between user
identification information and contents of a virtual container, and
automatically transmits screen data to a second mobile terminal, Appellant
does not show persuasively that either of these actions improves the
functionality or operation of the server. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 5.
In In re TL! Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,610 (Fed.
Cir. 2016), the court addressed the patent eligibility of a method for
recording and administering digital images utilizing a server. More
particularly, the claimed method recited, inter alia, steps of "transmitting
data including at least the digital images and classification information to a
server," "receiving the data by the server," and "storing the digital images in
the server." Id. The court determined that the claim is not directed to a
13
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
specific improvement to computer functionality, but instead, is directed to
the use of generic technology in a well-known environment, without any
claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem. Id. at
612. The court determined that the problem faced by the inventor was not
related to the structure of the server that stores information. Id. The court
found that the Specification does not describe a new server, but describes the
server "simply in terms of performing generic computer functions such as
storing, receiving, and extracting data." Id. "[T]he focus of the patentee and
the claims was not on an improved ... server." Id. at 613.
As recited in the claimed game control method, the server stores,
receives, and transmits information. Like in TL!, Appellant does not direct
us to any disclosure that the claimed server is a new server or does more
than perform generic computer functions, or that the problem faced by the
inventors was related to the server's structure. Appellant's Specification
appears to indicate that the problem addressed is accomplishing "sociality by
cooperation with companions." Spec. 2, 11. 4--8, 11-15. Appellant's Figure
10 depicts an exemplary arrangement of the game system to which the game
control method is applied. Spec. 15, 11. 13-16. The game system includes a
Web server 2 and a plurality of mobiles terminals 3A, 3B, etc., used by users
of the game system. Id. at 15, 11. 16-21. The Specification describes that
"[t]he Web server apparatus 2 is a computer which executes a game control
program which causes the mobile terminals 3A, 3B, ... to individually
execute the game." Id. at 16, 11. 3-5. The Specification states, "[t]he
hardware arrangements themselves of electronic circuits of the Web server
apparatus 2 and the mobile terminals 3A, 3B, ... are general and known,
and their description and explanation will not be given." Id. at 22, 11. 13-16.
14
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Accordingly, the Specification indicates that the server can include generic
hardware. Appellant does not show persuasively that the actions of the
server recited in claim 2 somehow improve its functionality or operation.
As for Appellant's contention that "a serverfacilitates mobile
terminals to pass virtual containers from one terminal to another" (Appeal
Br. 11; Reply Br. 5) (boldface omitted), step F does not expressly require the
virtual container to be passed from the first mobile terminal to the second
mobile terminal. Instead, step F recites that "the first user selects to gift the
virtual container to a second user of a second mobile terminal." As for
Appellant's contention that the server also ''facilitates the display of screen
data on the mobile terminals" (id.) (boldface omitted), step F does not
expressly require the server to facilitate the display of screen data on the
second mobile terminal. Instead, step F recites that the processor controls
transmission of "screen data to the second mobile terminal indicating that
the virtual container is gifted to the second user." Accordingly, Appellant's
contention does not persuade us that the claimed limitations improve the
functionality or operation of the server.
Appellant has not shown that the recited additional elements in claim
2 are particular elements or machines and more than generic elements.
Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we determine that claim 2
merely uses generic components as a tool to perform the abstract ideas. See
MPEP § 2106.05([).
Considered as a whole, claim 2, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, involves controlling a game following rules or instructions
and recites processes and concepts that can be performed in the human mind
or by hand. These steps are similar to other processes that courts have
15
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
determined are mental processes. See, e.g., Cy her Source Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (determining that a
claim whose "steps can all be performed in the human mind" is directed to
an unpatentable mental process). The recitation of computer components
does not, by itself, establish that the claim does not recite mental steps. See,
e.g., Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ("Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer
and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be
performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind."). Also, "performance
of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not
necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the ... certain
methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20."
See 2019 Guidance at 52 n. 14 ( emphasis omitted).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 2 does not recite an additional
element, or a combination of additional elements, apart from the limitations
reciting an abstract idea that applies, relies on, or uses 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. Thus, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application, and the claim is "directed to" the judicial exception. See 2019
Guidance at 54. Accordingly, we proceed to determine whether these claims
recite an "inventive concept."
16
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a
specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-
understood, routine, conventional" in the field. See 2019 Guidance.
The Examiner concludes that claim 2 does not include any additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Final Act. 8. The Examiner determines that the claim recitations
of utilizing "a processor" and "mobile terminal[ s ]" merely implement the
abstract idea at a high level of generality and fail to impose meaningful
limitations to impart patent-eligibility. Id. The Examiner states that these
elements and the mere processing of data using these elements do not set
forth significantly more than the abstract idea itself applied on general
purpose computing devices, and the computer-based components perform
purely generic computer-based functions. Id.
Appellant contends that the claimed features recite significantly more.
Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, "[t]he claims recite specific
structures and method steps, performed by a server, to facilitate the
performance of a game in which a user opens a virtual container." Id. at 13.
Moreover, Appellant contends, even assuming the claim recites an abstract
idea, the claim provides specific improvements to conventional technology,
and thus, recites significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id.
These contentions are unpersuasive. As discussed above, steps A---G
of claim 2 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas). Accordingly, Appellant
is relying on the application of those abstract ideas as the alleged inventive
concept. Appellant does not show persuasively that the abstract ideas are
17
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
applied using techniques that are not conventional and well-understood.
However, a claim's "use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention 'significantly
more' than that ineligible concept." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[A] claim for a new abstract idea is
still an abstract idea.").
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed method merely uses
generic components (server and mobile terminals) as a tool to perform the
abstract ideas. This use does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible
application of the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 212. Thus, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 3-13 fall with claim 2.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting of Claims 2-13
Appellant contends that this rejection is moot in view of the Terminal
Disclaimer filed on May 3, 2017. However, the Examiner's Answer does
not indicate that the rejection has been withdrawn. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claims 2-13 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting
as unpatentable over certain claims of Itoh.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
2-13 2-13
18
Appeal2018-001752
Application 14/454,329
Overall Outcome 2-13
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
19