TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 20, 2021

2020003021 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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.
15/035,070 05/06/2016 Hongxin LIANG 3602-1241 1036
6449 7590 12/20/2021
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BLAUFELD, JUSTIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2021 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):
PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HONGXIN LIANG and
DIMITRI MAZMANOV1
________________

Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 6–13.
We reverse.
Pursuant to our discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we
newly reject claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an
exception to patent-eligible subject matter (an abstract idea) without reciting
significantly more.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Telefonaktiebolaget ML Ericsson as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 2, filed October 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A method by a user terminal [and] a related user terminal
are disclosed for managing applications that are executable by
the user terminal. Folder information is generated that defines
folders of the applications. Action rule information is generated
which defines, for each of the folders, an action to be performed
on the folder and a rule that initiates performance of the action.
A first one of the rules is determined to be satisfied. A first one
of the folders is selected which is associated with the satisfied
first rule. Applications are identified which are missing from a
memory of the user terminal that are members of the selected
first folder. The identified applications are downloaded from an
application storage node via a network to the memory of the user
terminal. Related methods and network nodes are disclosed for
managing which applications are downloaded to user terminals.
Spec. Abstr.
The following disclosure provides a more concrete example of
Appellant’s invention:
the user terminal 120 displays a user interface that allows the user
to generate action rule information 404 that defines an action to
be performed on the collection of applications l30a–f in the “Trip
to Sweden” folder, and a rule that initiates performance of the
action. In the example, the user has defined with the information
404 an action that causes the user terminal 120 to prompt the user
for permission to download (“prompt to download”) the folder
of applications defined as “Trip to Sweden” and, when
permission is granted, causes the folder of applications 130a–f to
be automatically downloaded from the application storage
node 102 without further action of the user. The user further
defines through the information 404 a rule that initiates
performance of that action based on where the user terminal 120
is located, such as a rule that is satisfied when the user terminal
404 becomes located at a defined location (Sweden).
Spec. ¶ 26 (citing Fig. 4).
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

3
STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated over Louch (US 2008/0034314 A1; published Feb. 7, 2008).
Final Act. 7–10.
Claims 1, 2, 7–9, and 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mohler (US 2011/0072492 A1; published Mar. 24,
2011) and Martone (US 2009/0100057 A1; published Apr. 16, 2009). Final
Act. 10–19.
Claims 3, 10, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Mohler, Martone, and Andreasson (US 2009/0061890 A1;
published Mar. 5, 2009). Final Act. 19–22.
Claims 4–6 and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mohler, Martone, and Louch. Final Act. 22–29.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a
limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).

CLAIMS 18–20
Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claim 18, reproduced with paragraph designations added
for clarity, illustrates the claimed subject matter that stands rejected as
anticipated by Louch.
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

4
18. A method by at least one network node, which includes a
folder ID repository node of a distributed computing system, for
managing which applications are downloaded to user terminals,
the method comprising the steps of:
[(a)] receiving folder information via the network from a
plurality of user terminals, wherein the folder information
defines folders of applications that the user terminals can select
among for downloading;
[(b)] receiving a query from one of the user terminals that
identifies a search criteria for searching among the folders of
applications defined by the folder information;
[(c)] identifying one of the folders of applications that satisfies
the search criteria; and
[(d)] communicating a list of the applications within the
identified one of the folders of applications, to the one of the user
terminals.
The Examiner’s Determinations and Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Louch
discloses every element of claim 18 because, inter alia, Louch fails to teach
“communicating a list of the applications within the identified one of the
folders of applications, to the one of the user terminals,” as required by
claim 18. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, the cited passage discloses
“the network node in Louch distributes the dashboard bundle itself—not a
list of applications within the identified one of the folders of applications.”
Id.
The Examiner does not dispute that the relied-upon passage discloses
communicating a bundled plurality of applications. Examiner’s Answer 5,
mailed Oct. 15, 2019 (“Ans.”). The Examiner does not find that Louch
additionally communicates any separate list of applications beyond
communicating the applications, themselves. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

5
reasons, “[b]y communicating a plurality of applications (the widgets in the
dashboard bundle) to a user’s personal computer, Louch’s network node
effectively communicates a list of full applications.” Id. at 5.
Analysis
The dispositive question before us is whether it is reasonable for the
Examiner to interpret the act of communicating a disclosed bundle of
applications as reading on the claim step of “communicating a list of the
applications.” Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s
interpretation is unreasonably broad because it is contrary to the well-settled
principle of claim construction that during examination of a patent
application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner points to no passage in
Appellant’s Specification that would indicate the Examiner’s interpretation
would be consistent with Appellant Specification. In fact, Appellant’s
Specification alternatively uses the term “list of applications” to refer to
something that is different from the “applications,” themselves. See, e.g.,
FIG. 1. (depicting folder information 126 as being separate and distinct from
applications 130), cited in Appeal Br. 5; see also FIG. 7 (disclosing a list of
applications is communicated at step 712, but that the applications
themselves are downloaded separately at step 714).
Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection of independent
claim 18 and also of claims 19 and 20, which depend from claim 18.

Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

6
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION FOR CLAIM 18
Principles of Law
A. SECTION 101:
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. 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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. 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
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

7
(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 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 191 (citing
Benson and Flook); see also, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an
application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure
or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
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
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 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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

8
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.
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE:
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019
Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the
availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel
are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019
Guidance Update at 1. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates at
Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).2
Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites the
following:
(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 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

9
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application.3
MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activity” in the field; 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.
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Analysis
STEP 1:
The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of
patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter. Accordingly, we turn to step 2A of
the 2019 Guidance.

3 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by
(1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s), and (2) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as
a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP
§ 2106.04(d)(II).
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

10
STEP 2A, PRONG 1:
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 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 activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitation (c) of claim 18 recites, “identifying one of the folders of
applications that satisfies the search criteria.” Identifying which folder
satisfies a received search criteria constitutes a mental process, such as an
evaluation or judgment that can be performed in the human mind. The
2019 Guidance expressly recognizes such mental processes as constituting
patent-ineligible abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, limitation (c) recites a judicial exception to patent-
eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether claim 18 recites additional elements that individually or in
combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies
considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of
elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as
an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a
computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at
55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

11
Limitations (a) and (b) of claim 18 do not add any meaningful
limitations to the abstract idea because they merely set forth steps of a
network node receiving information over the network from a user terminal:
[(a)] receiving folder information via the network from a
plurality of user terminals, wherein the folder information
defines folders of applications that the user terminals can select
among for downloading;
[(b)] receiving a query from one of the user terminals that
identifies a search criteria for searching among the folders of
applications defined by the folder information.
Both of these two data-receiving steps merely constitute insignificant
pre-solution activity:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for
use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a
claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Similarly, claim 18’s step (d) recites, “communicating a list of the
applications within the identified one of the folders of applications, to the
one of the user terminals. This final step of claim 10 does not add any
meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it merely constitutes the
insignificant post-solution activity of transmitting information or data. E.g.,
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(holding that printing or downloading generated menus constituted
insignificant extra-solution activity).
For these reasons, the additional elements of claim 18 are not directed
to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other technology
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

12
or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor are the additional elements of
claim 18 directed to a particular machine or transformation. MPEP
§§ 2106.05(b), (c). Nor do the additional elements of claim 18 add any other
meaningful limitations for the purposes of the analysis under Section 101.
MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Accordingly, claim 18 does not integrate the recited abstract idea into
a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. See 2019
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
STEP 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 18 adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that,
either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-
understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The preamble of claim 18 recites that the method is performed by
additional elements beyond the abstract idea, including “at least one network
node, which includes a folder ID repository node of a distributed computing
system.” Appellant’s Specification, by describing these computer-related
components at a high level without details of structure or implementation,
indicates that these additional computer elements are well understood,
routine and conventional:
Figure 18 is a block diagram of an example network
node 18, which may be used for the application storage node 102,
the folder ID repository node 14, and/or the social media service
network node 106. The network node 1800 can include a
network interface 1830, a processor 1810, and a memory 1820
that contain functional modules 1822. The processor 1810 may
include one or more data processing circuits, such as a general
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

13
purpose and/or special purpose processor (e.g., microprocessor
and/or digital signal processor), which may be collocated or
distributed across one or more data networks (e.g., network 110).
Spec. ¶ 49.
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification does not indicate that
consideration of these conventional elements as an ordered
combination, as broadly claimed, adds any significance beyond the
additional elements, as considered individually. Unlike independent
claims 1 and 12, independent claim 18 does not recite a final step of
downloading identified applications from an application storage node
via a network to the memory of the user terminal. Subsequent to the
step of identifying missing applications, claim 18 only recites the
insignificant post-solution activity of communicating a list.
For these reasons, we determine that claim 18 does not recite
additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination,
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning
of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, we newly reject claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter without
reciting significantly more.
Although we decline to reject any other claims pursuant to our
discretionary authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we emphasize that our
decision does not mean that the remaining claims are necessarily patent
eligible. Rather, we merely leave the patent-eligibility determination of
these claims to the Examiner. See MPEP § 1213.02.

Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

14
CLAIMS 1–17
Claimed Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter of claims 1–
17, which stand rejected as obvious over at least the combination of Mohler
and Martrone:
1. A method by a user terminal for managing applications
executable by the user terminal, the method comprising the steps
of:
generating folder information that defines folders of the
applications for a plurality of folders, responsive to input from a
user and storing the folder information in a repository node;
generating action rule information that defines, for each of
the folders of the applications, an action to be performed on the
folder of the applications and a rule that initiates performance of
the action such that rules are defined for the plurality of folders,
the action rule information being responsive to further input from
the user;
determining that a first one of the rules is satisfied;
selecting a first one of the folders of the applications associated
with the satisfied first one of the rules;
identifying applications missing from a memory of the
user terminal that are members of the selected first one of the
folders of the applications by retrieving a list of applications from
the repository node; and
downloading the identified applications from an
application storage node via a network to the memory of the user
terminal.
The Examiner’s Determinations and Appellant’s Arguments
The Examiner finds that Mohler teaches most of the limitations of
independent claim 1 (Final Act. 10–12), but
may not explicitly teach every aspect of identifying applications
missing from a memory of the user terminal that are members of
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

15
the selected first one of the folders of the applications by
retrieving a list of applications from the repository node; and
downloading the identified applications from an application
storage node via a network to the memory of the user terminal.
Id. at 12.
The Examiner finds that Martone teaches these identifying and
downloading steps of claim 1. Final Act. 12 (citing Martone ¶¶ 3, 72).
Appellant asserts,
nothing in Martone at the identified paragraphs, or elsewhere, or in
the examiner’s brief analysis teaches or suggests identifying
applications missing from a memory of the user terminal ... by
retrieving a list of applications from the repository node. Instead,
Martone simply notes that if a file is missing, it may be
downloaded. There is no indication at all that a list of applications
is retrieved from the repository node, or that missing applications
are identified by retrieving this list. Martone does not provide any
details about how missing files are identified, simply noting that if
a file is missing, it can be downloaded.
Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner responds by clarifying, inter alia, that the claim
language, “retrieving a list of applications from the repository node” is
taught by two passages of Martone’s disclosure. Ans. 7 (citing Martone
¶¶ 54, 68). According to the Examiner, Martone teaches that “[t]he group
definitions may be received in block 312.” Id. at 8 (citing Martone ¶ 68).
The Examiner further cites to the emphasized portion of the following
paragraph:
Device 202 may have a group definer 204 and may
represent a headquarters operation of a company, with devices
206, 208, and 210 representing division level operations of the
company. The device 202 may create a companywide group
definition using the group definer 204 and disseminate the
definition to the various devices 206, 208, and 210 for each
division of the company. In the embodiment, device 202 may be
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

16
a parent device with respect to the children devices 206, 208, and
210.
Martone ¶ 54, cited in Ans. 8 (italicized emphasis added).
Analysis
The passages cited by the Examiner relate to how group definitions
are transmitted. Martone ¶¶ 54, 68. The Examiner does not explain, though,
why it is reasonable to interpret Martone’s defined group definitions as
comprising a list of the applications that are included in the group. That is,
the Examiner does not explain how the relied-upon passages relate to or
teach that applications missing from a terminal’s memory are identified
specifically by the act of “retrieving a list of applications from the repository
node,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant persuades us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of that claim. We, likewise, reverse the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 7–9, and 11–13, which either depend from
claim 1 or otherwise recite similar claim language.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 3–6, 10, and 14–17, the Examiner does not rely on either of the
additional references, Andreasson and Louch, to cure the deficiency of the
obviousness rejection explained above. Accordingly, we reverse the
obviousness rejections of these claims for the reasons set forth above in
relation to claim 1. Final Act. 19–29.

Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

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 the 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. . . .
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
18–20 102(a)(1) Louch 18–20
1, 2, 7–9,
11–13
103 Mohler,
Martone
1, 2, 7–9,
11–13

3, 10, 14 103 Mohler,
Martone,
Andreasson
3, 10, 14
4–6, 15–
17
103 Mohler,
Martone,
Louch
4–6, 15–17
18  101  Eligibility      18 
Overall
Outcome
1–20 18
Appeal 2020-003021
Application 15/035,070

18
(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)