William White

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 5, 2020

2020004548 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/951,555 12/06/2007 William Collins White III 104721.000006 8597
23377 7590 11/05/2020
BakerHostetler
Cira Centre 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
TURNER, SHELBY AUBURN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM COLLINS WHITE III
____________

Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 6–13, and 16–25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed October 14, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 27, 2020), Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed March 5, 2019),
and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 14, 2018).
Appellant identifies Action Airgun, LLC as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to “a process and system for distributing
information to and processing results from geographically diverse
participants in an airgun shooting sport,” and also relates to “the standard
equipment and rules associated with an airgun shooting sport that enables
geographically diverse participants to compete against each other”
(Spec. ¶ 2).
Claims 1, 16, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of enabling a
real-life, physical activity for a plurality of geographically
diverse participants including a first participant at a first location
and a second participant at a second location, the method
comprising:
[(a)] a computing system, in response to user requests,
presenting information identifying at least a first common rule
set and a second common rule set, each of the first common rule
set and the second common rule set: 1) defining a portion of the
real-life, physical activity, 2) requiring an item for participation
in the real-life, physical activity, 3) being associated with a
particular week of a competition season, and 4) requiring
completion by a specified time, wherein participation in the real-
life, physical activity by a participant generates metrics
indicative of an objective level of performance in completing the
real-life, physical activity, wherein the real-life, physical activity
comprises an airgun shooting competition including the first
participant’s interaction with a first airgun isolated over a
distance from a first airgun target and the second participant’s
interaction with a second airgun isolated over a distance from a
second airgun target;
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

3
[(b)] the computing system receiving requests for the
first common rule set from a first plurality of participants, and in
response to the requests, transmitting the first common rule set
to the first plurality of participants at geographically distant
locations;
[(c)] the computing system maintaining and displaying a
first time counter showing time left available to complete the
portion of the real-life, physical activity defined in the first
common rule set;
[(d)] the first participant shooting the first airgun at the
first airgun target at the first location;
[(e)] the second participant shooting the second airgun at
the second airgun target at the second location;
[(f)] the computing system receiving until the specified
time a plurality of metrics associated with the first common rule
set from each of the first plurality of participants;
[(g)] the computing system receiving requests for the
second common rule set from a second plurality of participants,
and in response to the requests, transmitting the second common
rule set to the second plurality of participants at geographically
distant locations;
[(h)] the computing system maintaining and displaying a
second time counter showing time left available to complete the
portion of the real-life, physical activity defined in the second
common rule set;
[(i)] the computing system receiving until the specified
time a plurality of metrics associated with the second common
rule set from each of the second plurality of participants; and
[(j)] the computing system generating a ranking
associated with at least one of the first plurality of participants
and the second plurality of participants, wherein the ranking is
indicative of a relative level of performance in completing the
airgun shooting competition.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6–13, and 16–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

4
Claims 1, 6–13, and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over International Shooting Sport Federation, “Rifle Rules
for 300 m Rifle, 300 m Standard Rifle, 50 m Rifle, 10 m Air Rifle” (Jan. 1,
2005) (available at www.issf-shooting.org) (“ISSF”) and
Abe (US 2003/0228557 A1, published Dec. 11, 2003).
Claims 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
ISSF, Berry et al. (US 2002/0115488 A1, published Aug. 22, 2002)
(“Berry”), and Abe.
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claim is patent eligible if it claims a “new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[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).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

5
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “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.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019 for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the
USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that
[are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not
“directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e.,
Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following
three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic
principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental

2 The USPTO issued an update on October 17, 2019 (the “October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) clarifying the
2019 Revised Guidance in response to public comments.
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

6
processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, 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. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Only then,
is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, the Examiner determined that the claims recite facilitating
competition between participants performing a physical activity at different
geographical locations, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people, which is a method of organizing human
activities, and, therefore, an abstract idea (Adv. Act. 2; see also Final Act. 7–
8), and that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
(Adv. Act. 2). The Examiner also determined that the claims do not include
additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself (id.; see also Final Act. 8–9).
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

7
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 6–13
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance,
Step 2A)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal
Br. 11–18, 22–24). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’
inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the
specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the
claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process
that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, as discussed below, it is clear
from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses
on an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a
technical field.
The Specification is titled “SYSTEM, METHOD, AND
APPARATUS FOR ORGANIZING AND IMPLEMENTING A REAL-
LIFE, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY,” and describes, in the Background section,
that although console-based computer gaming networks enable
geographically diverse members to play virtual games with one another,
real-life, physical activities, such as shooting sports, by their nature, present
a problem for geographically diverse participants, i.e., “[b]ecause of the
geographic distance between the players, it may be difficult for them to
participate and/or compete in such real-life, physical activities together”
(Spec. ¶¶ 3–4). The Specification describes that the claimed invention
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

8
addresses this issue by providing systems and methods that “combine real-
life players engaged in physically playing a sport using standard equipment
and rules with online community/internet usage aspects” (Spec. ¶ 8). The
invention, thus, enables geographically diverse users to participate in a
recreational and/or sporting activity, e.g., an airgun shooting sport, under a
uniform set of rules and/or conditions (id. ¶ 32).
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a method of enabling a
real-life, physical activity for a plurality of geographically diverse
participants, including a first participant at a first location and a second
participant at a second location, comprising: (1) in response to user requests,
identifying at least a first common rule set and a second common rule set for
an airgun competition, i.e.,
a computing system, in response to user requests,
presenting information identifying at least a first common rule
set and a second common rule set, each of the first common rule
set and the second common rule set: 1) defining a portion of the
real-life, physical activity, 2) requiring an item for participation
in the real-life, physical activity, 3) being associated with a
particular week of a competition season, and 4) requiring
completion by a specified time, wherein participation in the real-
life, physical activity by a participant generates metrics
indicative of an objective level of performance in completing the
real-life, physical activity, wherein the real-life, physical activity
comprises an airgun shooting competition including the first
participant’s interaction with a first airgun isolated over a
distance from a first airgun target and the second participant’s
interaction with a second airgun isolated over a distance from a
second airgun target
(step (a)); (2) in response to user requests, distributing the first common rule
set to a first plurality of the geographically diverse participants and
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

9
maintaining and displaying a first time counter showing the time available to
complete the physical activity defined in the first common rule set, i.e.,
the computing system receiving requests for the first
common rule set from a first plurality of participants, and in
response to the requests, transmitting the first common rule set
to the first plurality of participants at geographically distant
locations; [and]
the computing system maintaining and displaying a first
time counter showing time left available to complete the portion
of the real-life, physical activity defined in the first common rule
set
(steps (b) and (c)); (3) receiving, until the specified time, a plurality of
metrics based on performance of the physical activity, i.e., shooting a first
airgun at a first airgun target, from each of the first plurality of participants,
i.e.,
the first participant shooting the first airgun at the first
airgun target at the first location; [and]
the computing system receiving until the specified time a
plurality of metrics associated with the first common rule set
from each of the first plurality of participants
(steps (d) and (f)); (4) in response to user requests, distributing the second
common rule set to a second plurality of the geographically diverse
participants and maintaining and displaying a second time counter showing
the time available to complete the physical activity defined in the second
common rule set, i.e.,
the computing system receiving requests for the second
common rule set from a second plurality of participants, and in
response to the requests, transmitting the second common rule
set to the second plurality of participants at geographically
distant locations; [and]
the computing system maintaining and displaying a
second time counter showing time left available to complete the
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

10
portion of the real-life, physical activity defined in the second
common rule set
(steps (g) and (h)); (5) receiving, until the specified time, a plurality of
metrics based on performance of the physical activity, i.e., shooting a second
airgun at a second airgun target, from each of the second plurality of
participants, i.e.,
the second participant shooting the second airgun at the
second airgun target at the second location; [and]
the computing system receiving until the specified time a
plurality of metrics associated with the second common rule set
from each of the second plurality of participants
(steps (e) and (i)); and (6) ranking at least one of the first and second
plurality of participants based on their relative level of performance in
completing the airgun shooting competition, i.e., “the computing system
generating a ranking associated with at least one of the first plurality of
participants and the second plurality of participants, wherein the ranking is
indicative of a relative level of performance in completing the airgun
shooting competition” (step (j)).
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 cannot be sustained
because the claim does not recite subject matter that falls within any of the
three enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (Appeal Br. 14–16). Yet, by
Appellant’s own characterization, the claimed invention involves “providing
a fair and economical way for geographically separated competitors to
compete on a level playing field” (Appeal Br. 24). And, Appellant cannot
reasonably deny that, as recited in claim 1, distributing a common set of
rules to participants to govern their participation in an airgun shooting
competition, and thereby provide a “level playing field,” constitutes
“managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

11
(including . . . following rules or instructions).” As such, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity and,
therefore, an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.3
We also are not persuaded that claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception, i.e., the recited abstract idea, into a practical
application under Step 2A, Prong Two (Appeal Br. 6).
The 2019 Revised Guidance references MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at
https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-08.2017.) § 2106.05(a)–(c) and
(e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional
element or combination of elements may have integrated the recited judicial
exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55. In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may
have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if the
additional element (1) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a
computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
(2) applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; (3) implements the judicial
exception with, or uses the judicial exception with, a particular machine or
manufacture integral to the claim; (4) effects a transformation or reduction

3 Claim 1 also recites “receiving . . . metrics” and “generating a ranking”
indicative of a relative level of performance of the first and second plurality
of participants in completing the airgun shooting competition — acts that, as
the Examiner observes (Adv. Act. 2), can be performed by a human either
mentally or manually using pen and paper. As such, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 also can be characterized reasonably as reciting
“mental processes,” and, therefore, an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

12
of an article to a different state or thing; or applies; or (5) 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. Id.
Appellant maintains here that claim 1 “represents a ‘practical
application’ under Step 2A and is therefore eligible for patent protection
under Section 101” because “the computer system itself, as distinguished
from the participants, performs a number of the recited method steps,” and
further because the first and second airguns and first and second airgun
targets are “central and necessary limitations on the scope of protection”
(Appeal Br. 16–17). Yet, neither of these “considerations” is indicative of
an integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Indeed, the 2019 Revised Guidance makes clear that merely using a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or only generally linking the
use of a judicial exception to a particular environment or field, e.g., a
shooting competition involving airguns and airgun targets, is not sufficient
for a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appellant further argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract
idea, and is patent eligible, because the claimed invention “provides a fair
and economical way for geographically separated competitors to compete on
a level playing field without having to travel to a common venue”; and
Appellant lists a number of Federal Circuit and Board decisions that
allegedly support its position (Appeal 22–24). Appellant asserts that these
decisions are relevant because the present invention, like the claimed
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

13
inventions at issue in the decisions, “relate[s] to improvements in the manner
in which a computer is used or operates” (id.).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive at least because there is a
fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on
the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular
task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish,
in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework
because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a
self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and
retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to
which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1335–36. The alleged improvement that Appellant touts, i.e., “provid[ing]
a fair and economical way for geographically separated competitors to
compete on a level playing field without having to travel to a common
venue,” does not concern an improvement to computer capabilities. Instead,
it, at best, relates to an improvement to the abstract idea of facilitating
competition between or among participants performing a physical activity at
different geographical locations, which is not enough for patent eligibility.
See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“[P]atent law does not protect such claims[, i.e., claims to an asserted
advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how
groundbreaking the advance.”). This is particularly so, where, as here, we
find no indication in the Specification that the operations recited in claim 1
require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer
components, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the
claimed invention is implemented using other than a generic computer
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

14
component as a tool operating in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity
for receiving, storing, and processing information.
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the
additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea is no more
than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited
abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic
computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’
that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance,
Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 56. We conclude that it does not. And Appellant offers no arguments to
the contrary.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 6–13, which are not argued separately.
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

15
Independent Claims 16 and 21 and Dependent Claims 17–20 and 22–25
Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 16 and 21
(Appeal Br. 18–22) are substantially similar to Appellant’s arguments with
respect to independent claim 1, and are similarly unpersuasive of Examiner
error. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 16 and 21 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 17–
20 and 22–25, which are not argued separately.
Obviousness
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because
the combined disclosures of ISSF and Abe fail to disclose
or suggest a computer-implemented method comprising
maintaining and displaying first and second time counters
showing time left for completing a real-life, physical
activity defined in first and second common rule sets;
receiving a plurality of metrics associated with the first
and second common rule sets from each of the plurality of
participants; and generating a ranking associated with the
plurality of participants, where the ranking is indicative of
a relative level of performance in completing the activity
(Appeal 27). Appellant notes that the Examiner takes the position that “Abe
describes maintaining and displaying time counters for the time remaining in
the competition to complete an activity and thus the combined disclosures of
ISSF and Abe render Applicant’s invention obvious” (id. at 28). Appellant
asserts that this is “a hindsight-based analysis since ISSF does not
contemplate a method or system that would actually be used to enable a live
competition between groups of users at geographically-diverse locations”
(id.). But, Appellant does not adequately explain why ISSF’s disclosure
Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

16
(i.e., of a website for providing “Technical Rules for the sport of shooting to
govern the conduct of shooting events . . . to achieve uniformity in the
conduct of the shooting sport throughout the world”) cannot be combined
with Abe’s disclosure (i.e., of an electronic competition network for
transmitting, via the Internet, the progress and results of a competition held
at each of a plurality of competition sites and managing the exchange of
information such that a completion held at a plurality of competition site can
be held as though it were being held at a single competition site), as the
Examiner proposes (Final Act. 10–22), to arrive at the claimed invention.
We are not persuaded on the present record that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’ rejection of
dependent claims 6–13, which are not argued separately except based on
their dependence from claim 1 (Appeal Br. 28).
Appellant argues that claims 16 and 21 are not obvious for the same
reasons set forth with respect to claim 1, which we found unpersuasive.
Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of independent claims 16 and 21, and claims 17–20 and 22–25, which
depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–13,
16–25
101 Eligibility 1, 6–13,
16–25

Appeal 2020-004548
Application 11/951,555

17
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–13,
21–25
103 ISSF, Abe 1, 6–13,
21–25

16–20 103 ISSF, Berry, Abe 16–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 6–13,
16–25

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).

AFFIRMED