eBay Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2020

2019003309 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 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.
14/033,265 09/20/2013 Scot Fraser Hamilton 2043.D96US1 7534
49845 7590 07/24/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOT FRASER HAMILTON, STEVE CHENG,
LIEN EKDAHL, and AMANDA THOMAS
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, LINDA E. HORNER, and
DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–11, 14, 15, and 17–21. 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.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as eBay Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and method for recommending
selling past purchases. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a machine having a memory and at least one processor;
an inventory module, executable by the at least one
processor, configured to determine an inventory of items of a
user by retrieving information from an e-mail account of the user,
the inventory of items comprising items the user has purchased,
the retrieved information comprising indications of at least one
of the items having been purchased from a first website and at
least one other of the items having been purchased from a second
website different from the first website;
a sale price module, executable by the at least one
processor, configured to, for each item in the inventory of items,
determine corresponding sale price information, the determining
the corresponding sale price information comprising retrieving
sale price data from at least one database;
a purchase date module, executable by the at least one
processor, configured to, for each item in the inventory of items,
determine corresponding purchase date information reflecting
when the user purchased the corresponding item, the determining
the corresponding purchase date information comprising
retrieving purchase date data from the at least one database;
an item score module, executable by the at least one
processor, configured to, for each item in the inventory of items,
determine a score based on the corresponding sale price
information and the corresponding purchase date information
conditioned upon at least one condition being satisfied, the at
least one condition comprising at least one of the corresponding
sale price information of the item comprising a selling price that
satisfies a minimum threshold selling price and the
corresponding purchase date of the item reflecting a minimum
threshold amount of time has passed since the item was
purchased by the user, the item score module filtering out from
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
3
the determination of the score any item in the inventory of items
that does not satisfy the at least one condition; and
a recommendation module, executable by the at least one
processor, configured to determine at least one item from the
inventory of items to recommend for sale by the user based on
the corresponding score of the at least one item, and to display a
recommendation to sell the determined at least one item on a
device of the user in response to the user performing a
predetermined action on a website using the device.
Appeal Br. 23–24, Claims App.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–11, 14, 15, and 17–21 as
being directed to patent ineligible subject matter under the judicial exception
to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines that the claims
are patent ineligible because they are directed to an abstract idea, “without
significantly more.” Final Act. 5. Specifically, the Examiner determines
that the claims are:
directed to a series of steps/mathematical steps to determine
items to recommend for sale based on a corresponding score.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the generically recited computer elements do
not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because
they would be routine in any computer implementation.
Final Act. 5.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he limitations are merely instructions
to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a
generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry.” Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
4
The Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s determinations, and
argues that the pending claims are eligible because:
(1) the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea . . .
and (2) assuming, arguendo, that the claims at issue are
directed to an abstract idea, the claims at issue are nevertheless
directed to patentable subject matter because they contain an
“inventive concept”' that is sufficient to “transform” the
claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Appeal Br. 9.
With the exception of claims 10, 14, and 18, the Appellant argues all
of the claims together with claim 1, stating that claim 1 is representative.
See, generally, Appeal. Br.; see also id. at 12; id. at 22 (relying on
dependency for patentability of the dependent claims). Accordingly, we
discuss the Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, 14, and 18
infra. For the reasons that follow, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that the claims are patent ineligible.
The Supreme Court has set forth “a framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012)).
According to the Supreme Court’s framework, we must first determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts. Id.
If so, we must secondly “consider the elements of each claim both
individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include
‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
5
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. at 221 (alterations in
original) (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.
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of Section
101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). The Guidance provides that in conducting
Step One analysis of the Alice framework, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
Prong 1: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activity, or mental processes); and
Prong 2: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
In other words, under Prong 1, we look to whether the claim recites an
abstract idea. If the claim recites an abstract idea, we look under Prong 2 at
the claim, as a whole, and determine whether the claim is directed to the
abstract idea or, instead, is directed to a “practical application” of the
abstract idea.
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to Step Two under the
Alice framework to determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation
individually or as an ordered combination, beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field, 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 Guidance.

Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
6
Alice Step One, Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
As noted above, in applying Step One of the Alice framework, the
Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an “abstract idea.” Final
Act. 5. The Examiner explains that “[t]he claims recite a series of steps for
generating recommendations for users to sell items they have previously
purchased . . . based on a corresponding score, which is an abstract idea.”
Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). According to the Examiner, “[t]hese steps can
be performed in the human mind but for the recitation ‘at least one
processor’ and therefore the claim is directed to a mental process which is an
abstract idea” that can be performed “mentally and manually,” and is “also a
commercial interaction (directed to marketing and sales activities),” which is
a method for organizing human activity. Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims at issue recite an abstract
idea. Certain claims that recite collecting and analyzing information may be
treated as mental processes within the abstract idea category. FairWarning
IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1147 (Fed. Cir.
2016)) (explaining that analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category). Moreover, the court has
held that:
The focus of the asserted claims . . . is on collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis. . . . [W]e have treated analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental
processes within the abstract-idea category.
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
7
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
In this regard, the Revised Guidance provides the following guidance:
If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic
computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the
mind.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the
exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.”).
The Appellant argues that “claims at issue in this case cannot be
performed mentally and are not the equivalent of human mental work.”
Appeal Br. 14. However, it is not apparent why a person of ordinary skill in
the art cannot perform most of the recited functions of the “at least one
processor” and the “module(s),” including recalling what items he/she has
previously purchased, considering how much was paid for the items and/or
how much they are worth, considering how long ago the items were
purchased, and determining whether it would be worth the effort to sell the
previously purchased items, i.e. scoring the items. All of these functions can
be performed within the mind or with paper and pencil. Hence, we agree
with the Examiner that the claims at issue recite an abstract idea, at least for
the reason that various steps “can be performed in the human mind.” Ans. 6.

Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
8
Alice Step One, Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Under Prong 2 of the Guidance, we do not assume that claims reciting
an abstract idea are directed to patent ineligible subject matter because “[a]t
some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws
of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original)
quoting Alice (quoting Mayo). Instead, “the claims are considered in their
entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). If the claims
are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Guidance. If the
claims are “directed to” an abstract idea, then the inquiry proceeds to the
second step of the Alice framework. Id.
The Guidance instructs that the “directed to” issue is to be analyzed as
to whether the claims include additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. A claim that integrates a judicial
exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial
exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
Guidance.
The Appellant argues that “even if the claims at issue could somehow
be construed as being directed to an abstract idea, the claims at issue
nevertheless recite a combination of operations that constitute a particular,
practical application of that abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 16; see also id. at 14
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
9
(“the claims at issue in this case recite a practical application of any alleged
abstract idea.”). However, for the reasons discussed infra, we agree with the
Examiner’s determination that the recited “judicial exception is not
integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an
abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add a
meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.” Ans. 3–4.
In particular, the Appellant argues that “like the claims at issue in
Enfish, the claims at issue in this case focus on a specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities,” and that “the plain focus of the
claims at issue in this case is an improvement to computer functionality
(e.g., reducing computational expense to make the computer more
efficient).” Appeal Br. 12–13, citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Appellant argues that “claims of the present
application integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical
application” in that the claimed invention improves “the functioning of a
computer” (Reply Br. 2) by addressing “a problem of computational expense
associated with calculating scores for each and every item in the inventory
of items . . . by enforcing a requirement that at least one condition be
satisfied, filtering out from the score calculation process any item in the
inventory of items that does not satisfy the at least one condition” (Appeal
Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 3) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the
Appellant argues that “the claimed subject matter reduces the amount of
computer resources being consumed, providing a more efficient computer
that can work faster without being burdened by the calculation of every
single item in the inventory of items.” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 3–
4.
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
10
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s argument because, as the
Appellant acknowledges, in Enfish, the Federal Circuit considered “whether
the focus of the claims at issue was on a specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract
idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Appeal Br. 11; see
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. As the Appellant concedes, the court in Enfish
“concluded that the plain focus of the claims was on an improvement to
computer functionality itself (i.e., a self-referential table for a computer
database), not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its
ordinary capacity.” Appeal Br. 11; see Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
Unlike Enfish, wherein the claimed invention improved computer
functionality, the present claims are focused on a system having a memory
and a processor for implementing the mental process of identifying items
that can be sold. The claimed invention implements this abstract idea using
software modules generally described based on their intended function,
which are executed by the recited at least one processor. The Specification’s
description of the invention does not establish that an improvement has been
made to memory or processor beyond using a memory and a processor as
tools to implement the abstract idea. In that regard, the recited operation of
applying filters based on a sale price or purchase date is directed to
identifying the items that are more likely suitable for sale, and such filtering
can be performed mentally or manually as well. Although applying filters
may reduce the number of items that need to be scored by the processor, this
improvement is directed to executing the recited abstract idea itself, and
does not improve or otherwise change the functioning of the memory or the
processor. Software can make non-abstract improvements, but the claims
must recite improvements to computers or network functionality. See
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
11
Customedia Tech., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2020). In particular,
Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of
manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a
patentable improvement in computer technology. In those
cases, “the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in
computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas
that use computers as tools.”
Credit Acceptance, 859 F.3d at 1055 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1354); see also Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (“[T]he need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique
technical problem.”).
The Appellant further argues that “the claims at issue in this case do
not preempt basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Appeal Br.
14; see also Reply Br. 4 (“each claim as a whole is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the exception.”). In that regard, the Appellant
argues that the computer-implemented independent claim 10, for example,
requires “operations that are simply not necessary for a basic practice of
recommending items to sell based on a corresponding score,” such as
retrieving information from an e-mail account, filtering out items that do not
satisfy at least one condition, and determining a score. Reply Br. 5. The
Appellant also argues that dependent claim 14 recites weighing the scores
based on user’s buying and selling activity “which would not be infringed by
a basic practice of recommending items to sell based on a corresponding
score.” Reply Br. 5. The Appellant further also argues that dependent claim
18 recites accessing user’s buying and selling activity “which would not be
infringed by a basic practice of recommending items to sell based on a
corresponding score.” Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
12
However, the Federal Circuit has rejected such arguments and noted
that, although “the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial
exceptions to patentability,” and “preemption may signal patent ineligible
subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate
patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). The court
concluded that “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent
ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, . . . preemption
concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that the invention
described in the Specification and recited in claim 1 “fails to explicitly recite
similar improvements to any device or another existing technology as in
Enfish. At best, the improvement is related to the abstract idea.” Ans. 8; see
also Ans. 7. We also agree with the Examiner that the subject claims “do[]
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,” and the recited
computer components “do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
the abstract idea.” Ans. 6. The claims at issue merely link the use of the
judicial exception to the recited field of use or environment. Accordingly,
we proceed to the next step of the analysis under Alice.

Alice Step Two, Guidance Step 2B
In accordance with Alice, we now “consider the elements of each
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
As previously noted, the Examiner determines that “[t]he limitations
are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
13
require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities
previously known to the industry.” Final Act. 5–6; see also id. at 5 (“the
generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to
the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer
implementation.”).
The Appellant disagrees and argues that “when looking at the claims
at issue as a whole, they provide significantly more than the Examiner’s
purported abstract idea” in that they are “directed to a computer-centric
problem of computational inefficiency,” and “use computer-based
operations to solve this problem that is particular to computer technology.”
Appeal Br. 18. The Appellant again argues that the claims recite:
techniques for reducing computational expense associated with
calculating scores for items in an inventory of items by
enforcing a requirement that at least one condition be satisfied,
filtering out from the score calculation process any item in the
inventory of items that does not satisfy the at least one
condition, thereby reducing the amount of computer resources
being consumed, and providing a more efficient computer that
can work faster without being burdened by the calculation of
every single item in the inventory of items.
Reply Br. 7.
According to the Appellant, “[n]one of these were well-understood,
routine, or conventional activities, individually or in combination, at the time
of Applicant’s disclosure.” Reply Br. 7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that the claims “do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception.” Ans. 4. In particular, although the illustrative claim
1 recites a machine having a memory and at least one processor, the
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
14
Specification indicates that the recited machine may be a computer system.
See Spec. ¶ 90 (“computer system 800 includes a processor 802 (e.g., a
central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a
main memory 804 and a static memory 806, which communicate with each
other via a bus 808.”). The computer system and its processor is described
generally and generically, without specificity, and thus, the Specification
discloses a general purpose computer. See also Ans. 6 (“The at least one
processor in the claimed steps is recited at a high level of generality and is
described in the Appellant’s specification in at least paragraphs [0079-0083]
as a general purpose computer.”). The Specification does not teach anything
special about the disclosed computer system or its memory or processor, but
instead, merely discloses the use thereof in executing the recited operations
of the various “modules.” Such recitations of a generic computer with a
general purpose processor, does not add significantly more to the recited
abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (“[M]erely requir[ing] generic
computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention.”).
As noted, claim 1 further recites numerous “modules” that are
executable by the recited at least one processor. The Specification discloses
that these modules may be software executable by one or more processors
for performing the recited operations. See Spec. ¶ 78; see also id. ¶ 80
(“where the hardware modules comprise a general-purpose processor
configured using software, the general-purpose processor may be configured
as respective different hardware modules at different times”). Accordingly,
these recitations of “modules” do not refer to specific devices, but instead,
refer to software executed by the processor to perform the steps or ordered
operations of the abstract idea itself. The “inventory module” is recited as
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
15
being configured to determine an inventory of items by retrieving
information from an e-mail account as to items purchased from multiple
websites. However, this limitation basically recites obtaining data (i.e., item
information) from a database (i.e., e-mail account) for use in executing the
abstract idea. Hence, these recited modules also do not add significantly
more to the recited abstract idea.
Furthermore, the ordered combination of the limitations of claim 1
does not add significantly more to the recited abstract idea in that except for
the generic processor, the “modules” recited set forth the ordered operations
executed by the generic processor as already discussed above. Accordingly,
the ordered combination of the limitations merely implements the abstract
idea using the generic processor. Moreover, as the Examiner further
explains, displaying the recommendations “merely amounts to post-solution
activity that outputs the results (the recommendation) and is considered
insignificant extra solution activity.” Ans. 6; see also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that:
taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception
(the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered
combination adds nothing that is not already present when
looking at the elements taken individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the
functioning of a computer or improve any other technology.
Their collective functions merely provide generic computer
implementation.
Ans. 7.
The Examiner is correct that “the implementation of the abstract idea
on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add
significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
16
amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic
computer.” Ans. 6; see also id. (claimed invention “is no more than mere
instructions to apply the [judicial] exception using a generic computer
component”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Therefore, we discern no limitations in claim 1, when considered both
individually and as an ordered combination, that transform the abstract idea
of mental process into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Instead, claim 1 merely requires a general purpose processor that is operated
in a conventional manner. 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.”).
Considering the claim as a whole, the recited limitations of claim 1 merely
appends conventional activities, specified at a high level of generality, to the
judicial exception. See Guidance.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is
affirmed. In addition, the Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 10, 14,
and 18 are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed, and the rejection of these
claims is also affirmed. Moreover, the Appellant does not provide specific
arguments for the remaining rejected claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19–
21. Thus, the rejection of these claims is also affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–11, 14, 15, and 17–21
as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-003309
Application 14/033,265
17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6, 8–
11, 14, 15,
17–21
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–
11, 14, 15,
17–21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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