DMG Blockchain Solutions Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2021002575 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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.
15/588,542 05/05/2017 Danny Yang 139388-8003.US01 6837
22918 7590 12/13/2021
PERKINS COIE LLP - PAO General
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
IMMANUEL, ILSE I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2021 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANNY YANG, MOHAMAD EL BALAA, RUDI CILIBRASI,
and SHIHAO GUO
____________

Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK,
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY 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 1–15 and 21–25. 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 September 18, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
January 1, 2021) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed February 21,
2020). Appellant identifies DMG Blockchain, Inc. as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The Specification states, “[t]his disclosure relates to data
permissioning, access control, compliance, and sharing” and, more
particularly to “managing these interests with immutable cryptocurrency
ledgers” (Spec. ¶ 2).
Claims 1, 12, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 21, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for data access control to a data store by
an application comprising:
[(a)] restricting access to make data requests to the data
store based upon the existence of an authorization record on an
immutable cryptocurrency ledger, the authorization record
encoded to a first cryptocurrency transaction on the immutable
cryptocurrency ledger;
[(b)] verifying the existence of the authorization record
on the immutable cryptocurrency ledger in response to a data
request of the data store by a requestor; and
[(c)] facilitating the data request between the data store
and the requestor.
21. A method for data access control to a data store by
an application comprising:
[(a)] restricting access to make data requests to the data
store only to authorized users associated with a public key for
which there is an authorization record on an immutable
cryptocurrency ledger, the authorization record encoded to a first
cryptocurrency transaction on the immutable cryptocurrency
ledger, the first cryptocurrency transaction signed by a private
key paired with said public key;
[(b)] verifying the existence of the authorization record
on the immutable cryptocurrency ledger using the public key in
response to a data request of the data store by a requestor; and
[(c)] facilitating the data request between the data store
and the requestor.
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–15 and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply
with the written description requirement. 3
Claims 1–8, 10–15, and 21–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Anton et al. (US 10,356,094 B2, issued July 16, 2019)
(“Anton”) and Wong (US 2017/0178237 A1, published June 22, 2017).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anton,
Wong, and Lerner (US 2016/0085955 A1, published Mar. 24, 2016).
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 11–14).
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” 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

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 2 and 12–15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as the invention
(Ans. 17–18).
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1–15 and 21–24
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) (Ans. 17–18).
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

4
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’”
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 (Jan. 7,
2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).4 That guidance revised the USPTO’s

4 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates
the revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed.
Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

5
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
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
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

6
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, in rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
Examiner determined that the claims recite “managing interactions
according to rule[s] or instructions” and more specifically, “receiving a
request for access and[,] based on set permissions[,] processing the data
request,” i.e., “an abstract idea that is directed toward certain methods of
organizing human activity” (Final Act. 10). The Examiner also determined
that the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
(id.), and that the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (id. at 11).
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. 11–14). 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, it is clear from the Specification (including
the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an
improvement to technology and/or a technical field.
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

7
The Specification is titled “PROVIDING DATA PROVENANCE,
PERMISSIONING, COMPLIANCE, AND ACCESS CONTROL FOR
DATA STORAGE SYSTEMS USING AN IMMUTABLE LEDGER
OVERLAY NETWORK,” and discloses, in the Background section, that
“[t]he world of ‘Big Data’ is full of many entities that do not particularly
trust one another and compete directly but still benefit from mutual sharing
of data” (Spec. ¶ 3). “One . . . example of mutual benefit through data
sharing is in the training of machine learning or AI [artificial intelligence]
modules” inasmuch as the “sharing of training data between parties
improves the overall function of these modules” (id.). Yet, “[d]espite the
clear mutual benefit, where the parties do not have reason to trust one
another, precautions must be taken” (id.).
The claimed invention provides one such precautionary technique in
the form of a data management method and system that allows multiple
independent parties (who may or may not trust each other) to securely share
data, track data provenance, maintain audit logs, keep data synchronized,
comply with regulations, handle permissioning, and control who can access
the data (Spec. ¶ 15) Claim 1, thus, recites a method for data access control
to a data store by an application comprising: (1) restricting access to the data
store to only authorized requestors for whom there is an authorization record
on an immutable cryptocurrency ledger, i.e., “restricting access to make data
requests to the data store based upon the existence of an authorization record
on an immutable cryptocurrency ledger, the authorization record encoded to
a first cryptocurrency transaction on the immutable cryptocurrency ledger”
(step (a)); (2) “verifying the existence of the authorization record in response
to a data request of the data store by a requestor” (step (b)); and
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

8
(3) “facilitating the data request between the data store and the requestor”
(step (c)).
Appellant asserts that the claims are “fundamentally directed to data
and network security” and that “[a] network location for an authorization
record has no connection to how humans interact with one another” (Appeal
Br. 12). Appellant maintains that the claims do not “recite the management
of personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people,” and do
not recite subject matter that falls within the “certain methods of organizing
human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because “[p]eople are not being
managed by the claims” (id.). Yet, we agree with the Examiner that, in
restricting access to data based on the existence of an authorization record,
i.e., “verifying the existence of the authorization record . . . in response to a
data request of the data store by a requestor,” interactions between people
are being managed, i.e., one party wants access to data while the other party
has the right, via issuance of an authorization record, to permit or deny such
access (Final Act. 4).
We also are not persuaded that claim 1 includes additional elements or
a combination of elements that integrates the recited abstract idea into a
practical application. The 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP, Ninth
Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/
mpep/old/mpep_E9R08-2017.htm) § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e) in
non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional element
or combination of elements may have integrated a 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, inter alia, the
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

9
additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer
or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. At the same
time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a
tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient
to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.
Appellant argues here that “the instant claims are an improvement to
database security and access control through use of a cryptographic ledger”
(Appeal Br. 13). And Appellant asserts that “inclusion of an authorization
policy on an immutable cryptographic ledger . . . serves to improve a field of
technology” (id.). Yet, Appellant does not claim to have invented
cryptographic ledgers, and there is no indication here that the immutable
cryptographic ledger is being used other than in its ordinary capacity (i.e., as
a database to store authorization information) or that the structure and/or
function of the cryptographic ledger is altered in any way.
Storing data in an immutable cryptographic ledger, as compared to
another storage medium, may well enhance the security of the data to the
extent that data, once stored in the cryptocurrency ledger, are difficult to
remove or alter. But, we are not persuaded that this is a technological
improvement. Instead, to the extent that “inclusion of an authorization
policy on an immutable cryptographic ledger” amounts to an improvement
at all, that improvement is to the abstract idea of restricting access to data to
only authorized users, which is not enough for patent eligibility. See SAP
Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

10
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.”).
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
claim does not include additional elements or a combination of elements that
integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. 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,” i.e., whether an additional element or
combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial
exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in
the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not include any such
elements or combination of elements. 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
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

11
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–15 and 21–25,
which fall with claim 1.
Written Description
Section 112(a) of the patent statute reads, in part, “[t]he specification
shall contain a written description of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The purpose of this written description requirement is to “ensure that the
scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach
the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the
patent specification.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336,
1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The requirement, thus,
“ensures that the public receives a meaningful disclosure in exchange for
being excluded from practicing an invention for a period of time.” Id.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the
art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter at the time the application was filed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In particular, the
specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner
understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the
inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; see also Ariad,
598 F.3d at 1351; Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim
Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 61–62
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 § 112 Guidelines”). The written description
requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure; however,” a
description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the
requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (citation omitted).
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

12
In rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner noted
that the claim recites that “the first cryptocurrency transaction[, as recited in
independent claim 21,] is signed by a data store private key associated with
the data store” (Final Act. 13). And the Examiner determined that the claim
is properly rejected as failing to comply with the written description
requirement because “[t]he specification does not provide support for the
data store signing a transaction and having a private key that is associated
with it” (id. at 14).
Appellant argues that Examiner’s characterization of claim 25 is
incorrect, and that the recitation in claim 25, i.e., that the transaction is
signed by a “data store private key,” is fairly interpreted “as a private key
associated with a data store, but not that the data store is processing or
instigating the signature” (Appeal Br. 9–10). Appellant, thus, asserts, “all
that need be supported is the association between the data store and a private
key” — support that Appellant maintains is provided in paragraph 33 of the
Specification (id. at 10 (noting that paragraph 33 states, “‘For example, one
set of account keys (public and private) of the blockchain layer 26 may be
used by the control node 24 on behalf of a group of users of the
application 30 to store data access control permissions for the whole group.
In another example, a given set of account keys may pertain specifically
to a subset of data within the data store 22.’ (emphasis supplied)” and
concluding that “[t]he account keys pertain to data in the data store —an
unambiguous connection.”)).5

5 Paragraph 33 reads:
In some embodiments, at least some of the account keys (public and
private) remain as inaccessible data within the control node 24. The
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

13
Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner explains that the
phrase “data store private key” is interpreted to mean “the private key
belongs to the data store, similar to a ‘user private key’ belonging to the
user” such that “if the limitation calls for the transaction to be signed by the
‘data store private key[,]’ . . . the private key that belongs to and is
associated with the data store is used” (Ans. 4). The Examiner maintains
that this interpretation is consistent with Appellant’s other claims that use
the same language format (id. at 4–5 (noting that claim 10 recites “wherein
the requester is authenticated for data access control using native
cryptocurrency features of a private key associated with the requester” and
that claim 24 recites “the read record encoded to a second cryptocurrency
transaction signed by the private key, the private key associated with the
requester”)); and the Examiner opines that if Appellant intended “data store
private key associated with the data store” to mean “a private key associated
with the data store, the claim limitation would simpl[y] state ‘wherein the
first cryptocurrency transaction is signed by a private key associated with the
data store,’ it does not” (id. at 5).
Appellant does not address this line of reasoning in its Appeal Brief.
And Appellant did not file a Reply Brief in these proceedings.

account keys pertain to no particular user or application and are
created for the purposes of record keeping. For example, one set of
account keys (public and private) of the blockchain layer 26 may
be used by the control node 24 on behalf of a group of users of the
application 30 to store data access control permissions for the whole
group. In another example, a given set of account keys may pertain
specifically to a subset of data within the data store 22. It is
unnecessary for any actual user to directly access these accounts;
thus, the control node 24 performs all handling of such accounts.
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

14
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
Obviousness
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 21
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Anton, on which the
Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest “restricting access to make
data requests to the data store based upon the existence of an authorization
record on an immutable cryptocurrency ledger, the authorization record
encoded to a first cryptocurrency transaction on the immutable
cryptocurrency ledger” and “verifying the existence of the authorization
record on the immutable cryptocurrency ledger in response to a data request
of the data store by a requestor,” i.e., steps (a) and (b), as recited in claim 1,
and similarly recited in claims 12 and 21 (Appeal Br. 16–17). Appellant
concedes that Anton teaches “cryptographic transactions (with data
organisms), and these data organisms are verified for uniqueness” (id. at 16).
But, Appellant argues that Anton does not teach “encoding anything extra to
the cryptocurrency ledger that isn’t normally there — especially not an
authorization record that is used to validate access to a data store” (id.).
Appellant further maintains that the datastore of Anton is not view
restricted, and that although a user cannot change recorded blocks in the
Anton datastore, there are no limits on users requesting data from the Anton
datastore (Appeal Br. 16–17). Appellant asserts, “for a cryptographic
network to function (including that described by Anton), it requires
numerous peer computer nodes all freely sharing the datastore with one
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

15
another” (id. at 17). Therefore, according to Appellant, “Anton would . . .
fail to function if access was restricted to the datastore.”
Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner cites column 9,
lines 34–42; column 10, lines 35–43; and the Abstract of Anton as
disclosing “restricting access to make data requests to the data store based
upon the existence of an authorization record on an immutable
cryptocurrency ledger,” as called for in the independent claims (Ans. 12).
And the Examiner cites column 14, lines 30–37; column 19, lines 15–43,
column 26, lines 20–23; column 29, lines 64–67; column 30, lines 1–11; and
column 34, lines 7–19 of Anton as disclosing “verifying the existence of the
authorization record on the immutable cryptocurrency ledger in response to
a data request of the data store by a requestor,” i.e., step (b), as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 12 and 21 (id. at 14–15).
Pointing to column 9, lines 34–42 and column 10, lines 35–43, the
Examiner, thus, notes that Anton states that a data resource control network
carries out transactions between and/or among data resources within a
datastore, authenticates a device requesting access to the datastore,
authorizes utilization of a particular data resource, and/or controls use of
data resources through a use policy (Ans. 13). And, relying on the further
cited portions of Anton, the Examiner takes the position that Anton discloses
that transaction records, on the immutable ledger, contain a use policy,
which has user/device permissions, and that Anton details an authorization
process based on an access request (id. at 14–15).
Appellant does not address the cited portions of Anton in its Appeal
Brief. And, as described above, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

16
We are not persuaded, on this record, that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Dependent Claims 2–11, 13–15, and 22–25
Appellant does not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of any of dependent claims 2–11, 13–15, and 22–25 (Appeal
Br. 17 (“In view of the above remarks, a specific discussion of the dependent
claims is considered to be unnecessary.”)). Therefore, we sustain the
rejections of dependent claims 2–11, 13–15, and 22–25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15, 21–
25
101 Eligibility 1–15, 21–
25

25 112(a) Written
Description
25
1–8, 10–
15, 21–25
103 Anton, Wong 1–8, 10–
15, 21–25

9 103 Anton, Wong,
Lerner
9
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 21–
25

Appeal 2021-002575
Application 15/588,542

17
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