Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2019

14567224 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/567,224 12/11/2014
40412 7590 03/25/2019
IBM CORPORATION-AUSTIN (JVL)
C/0 LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carville 0. Allen
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
A US920 l 40448US 1 6469
EXAMINER
YIP,JACK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
leslie@vI-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CORVILLE 0. ALLEN, ANDREW R. FREED, and
STEPHAN J. ROORDA
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, ARTHUR M. PESLAK, and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 International Business Machines Corporation ("Appellant") is the
Applicant and is identified as the real party in interest. 37 C.F.R. § 1.46;
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 11, and 18 are cancelled. Id. (Claims App.).
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and
reads:
1. A method implemented by an information handling
system that includes a memory and a processor, the method
compnsmg:
analyzing a plurality of posts included in a plurality of
threads of one or more threaded discussions, wherein the
analyzing further comprises:
identifying a parent post in one of the threads;
identifying one or more possible answers included in one
or more child posts that refer to the parent post; and
scoring the identified possible answers by submitting the
identified possible answers to a question answering (QA) system
pipeline, wherein the QA system pipeline treats the identified
possible answers as candidate answers to the parent post, and
wherein the QA system pipeline determines a QA answer score
for each of the identified possible answers; and
returning at least one of the identified possible answers as
an answer to the parent post based on the respective scoring.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Yoshida (US 2012/0116982 Al, published
May 10, 2012).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yoshida and Brill (US 2004/0254917 Al, published Dec.
16, 2004).
2
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yoshida and Goto (US 2006/0078862 Al, published Apr.
13, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Patent Ineligible Subject Matter (Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20)
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("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. Kappas, 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
3
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 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
Supreme 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 176; see also id. at 192 ("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 Supreme 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. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, 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 tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted). "A
4
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to
ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under Step 2A of
that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
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, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); 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.
See Memorandum.
5
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Step 1 - Statutory Category
Appellant argues all of the claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20
together in contesting the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Appeal Br.
6-10. Accordingly, we decide the appeal of this rejection based on claim 1,
with claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 standing or falling with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (permitting the Board to select a single claim
to decide the appeal as to a ground of rejection of a group of claims argued
together).
Claim 1 recites a series of steps, and, therefore, is a process. See
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
Step 2A, Prong One - Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One,
we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract
ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because
we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. See
Memorandum.
Here, the Examiner determines claim 1 recites a "pre-computer
analogue" of a method of choosing an answer, including the steps of
"identifying a question," "identifying a plurality of answers to the question,"
"voting on answers," and "choosing the best answer based on the outcome of
voting." Final Act. 2. The Examiner concludes claim 1 recites a certain
method of organizing human activity. Id.
6
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Appellant does not address the Examiner's determination that claim 1
recites a method of organizing human activity, and, thus, does not apprise us
of any error in this determination. See Appeal Br.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method of
organizing human activity. The following group of limitations of claim 1
recite this method: "analyzing a plurality of posts included in a plurality of
threads of one or more threaded discussions," "identifying a parent post in
one of the threads," "identifying one or more possible answers included in
one or more child posts that refer to the parent post," "scoring the identified
possible answers," and "returning at least one of the identified possible
answers as an answer to the parent post based on the respective scoring."
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). These limitations pertain to searching threads
in threaded discussions for relevant posts (information). Such threaded
discussions represent interactions between people. The "analyzing"
comprises following a procedure to analyze the posts. "Scoring the
identified possible answers" and the subsequent "returning" step is
analogous to the practice of "up-voting," in which forum users are allowed
to vote for the correct answer. See Spec. ,r 1. In Voter Verified, Inc. v.
Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018),
the court found that the concept of ''voting, verifying the vote, and
submitting the vote for tabulation" is a "fundamental activity" that humans
have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea. The noted
group of limitations in claim 1 recites managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people, including social activities and
following rules or instructions. These concepts are an abstract idea under
the 2019 Guidance. See Memorandum.
7
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Additionally, claim 1 recites a mental process. Particularly, each of
the limitations in claim 1 that recite a method of organizing human activity
noted above can, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind.
Namely, "analyzing a plurality of posts included in a plurality of threads of
one or more threaded discussions" is an observation or evaluation of posts.
Likewise, "identifying a parent post in one of the threads" is an observation
or evaluation of the posts. "Identifying one or more possible answers
included in one or more child posts that refer to the parent post" involves an
opinion or judgment about the child posts. "Scoring the identified possible
answers" is an opinion or judgment as to the relative value or ranking, for
example, of the identified possible answers. Finally, "returning at least one
of the identified possible answers as an answer to the parent post based on
the respective scoring" is an opinion or judgment as to which of the scored
identified possible answers to return. Mental processes are another abstract
idea under the 2019 Guidance. See Memorandum.
Because we conclude claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to
Prong Two to determine whether the claim is "directed to" the judicial
exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2 - Practical Application
As noted, if a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
8
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
See Memorandum. This evaluation requires an additional element or a
combination of additional elements in the claim to 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 exception.
Here, claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial
exception; namely, "scoring the identified possible answers"
by submitting the identified possible answers to a question
answering (QA) system pipeline, wherein the QA system
pipeline treats the identified possible answers as candidate
answers to the parent post, and wherein the QA system pipeline
determines a QA answer score for each of the identified
possible answers.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
Appellant asserts the claims are directed to "specific improvements in
the technical field of QA computer systems, and particularly in the technical
field of online threaded discussions." Id. at 6. Appellant also contends,
"[the] claims are 'directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a
problem in the software arts'" and "the claimed invention does not merely
invoke the computer as a tool." Id. According to Appellant, "[w]hen
viewed as a whole and in light of Appellant's Specification, it is clear that
Appellant's claimed invention improves the capabilities of the QA computer
system and the online threaded discussion system, such that the system
returns better and more accurate answers." Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
Appellant states, "One skilled in the art understands the complexity of a QA
computer system, and Appellant's Specification points out, in very specific
detail, an example of just such a complex computer system." Reply Br. 4
(citing Spec. ,r,r 15-22; Fig. 1).
9
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
We are unpersuaded by these contentions. Claim 1 recites the
function of the QA system pipeline-i.e., the QA system pipeline "treats the
identified possible answers as candidate answers to the parent post, and ...
determines a QA answer score for each of the identified possible answers."
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). To the extent Appellant is contending that the
recited QA system pipeline should be construed as a "complex computer
system" (Reply Br. 4), we decline to do so. First, claim 1 recites no specific
structural limitations of the QA system pipeline. Second, Appellant does not
establish, with evidence, that a QA system pipeline has a particular known
meaning in the art, or direct us to a specific definition of this term in the
Specification. We note Appellant's Specification describes, "[i]n some
illustrative embodiments, QA system 100 may be the IBM Watsonâ„¢ QA
system ... , which is augmented with the mechanisms of the illustrative
embodiments described hereafter." Spec. ,r 19 ( emphasis added). This
description discloses that this particular QA system is exemplary only and
may be used in some embodiments. We construe the method of claim 1 not
to be limited to utilizing this exemplary QA system, or even any specific QA
system pipeline. See SuperGuide v. DirecTV Enters., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004) ("a particular embodiment appearing in the written
description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader
than the embodiment").
The preamble of claim 1 recites "an information handling system that
includes a memory and a processor." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The
memory and processor are not recited in the claim body. Id. Under the
broadest reasonable construction, the method of claim 1 can be implemented
using a generic memory and processor. Consistent with this construction,
10
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Appellant concedes that "the claims can be performed on a general purpose
computer or include some generic computer elements." Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 4. Accordingly, "with the exception of generic computer-implemented
steps, there is nothing in [ claim 1 itself] that foreclose[ s] [it] from being
performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper." See Intellectual
Ventures I LLCv. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We also are not persuaded that the claimed method reflects an
improvement in "the capabilities of the QA computer system and the online
threaded discussion system, such that the system returns better and more
accurate answers." Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not
expressly recite a QA computer system, but recites "scoring the identified
possible answers" by submitting them to a QA system pipeline. Appellant
does not explain persuasively how the performance of this scoring by
implementing the method improves the information handling system or a
QA computer system. Also, claim 1 does not expressly recite an "online
threaded discussion system." Nor does Appellant explain persuasively how
the language of claim 1 reflects that any "online threaded discussion system"
is improved by implementing the claimed method. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the language of claim 1 reflects any improvement in
technology.
Appellant references the Specification as describing problems
associated with searching known forums for answers. Appeal Br. 9-10
( citing Spec. ,r 1 ). But even accepting that some forums "may not" always
provide "the most relevant answer for a user's specific question" (see Spec.
,r 1 ), Appellant does not explain persuasively, or show with persuasive
evidence, how the claimed method "returns better and more accurate
11
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
answers for the user," as compared to any specific system. For example, we
note claim 1 does not specify how the "possible answers" are "identified"
"in one or more child posts that refer to the parent post." And, claim 1
recites "returning at least one of the identified possible answers as an answer
to the parent post based on the respective scoring." Id. at 15 (Claims App.)
( emphasis added). This recitation does not limit how many identified
"possible answers" are "returned," or require these possible answers to have
any particular "QA answer score." Accordingly, Appellant's contention that
the claimed method "returns better and more accurate answers for the user"
. .
1s unpersuasive.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the claimed method
provides an improvement to the functioning of a "QA computer system," or
to any other technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant's contention that "Appellant claims specific improvements in the
technical field of QA computer systems, and particularly in the technical
field of online threaded discussions," is likewise not persuasive. See Appeal
Br. 6. As we conclude claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B to determine whether the
claim adds a specific limitation that is not "well-understood, routine,
conventional" in the field.
Step 2B- Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites a generic computer and
typical components of a generic computer, performing the routine and
conventional function of implementing instructions of an abstract idea on a
computer. Final Act. 3. The Examiner specifically notes claim 1 recites an
12
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
information handling system including a memory and a processor, and that
these computer components are recited at a high level of generality. Id.
Appellant contends that the limitations in claim 1 of "analyzing a
plurality of posts included in a plurality of threads of one or more threaded
discussions," "identifying a parent post in one of the threads," "identifying
one or more possible answers," and "returning at least one of the identified
possible answers as an answer to the parent post based on the respective
scoring" "amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself." Appeal
Br. 9. However, the pertinent issue is whether the additional elements
recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim elements in addition to those that recite an
abstract idea) are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. As explained in BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F .3d
1281, 1290 (2018), "[i]t has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention's
use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the
inventive concept that renders the invention "significantly more" than that
ineligible concept."
As discussed above, apart from the "analyzing," "identifying," and
"returning" limitations, which recite an abstract idea, the only additional
elements recited in claim 1 are "wherein the QA system pipeline ...
determines a QA answer score for each of the identified possible answers."
Appellant acknowledges "the claims can be performed on a general purpose
computer or include some generic computer elements." Appeal Br. 8; Reply
Br. 4. Appellant does not show persuasively that submitting the identified
possible answers to a QA system pipeline, as recited in claim 1, amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
13
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 3, 5-10,
12-17, 19, and 20, which fall with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Anticipation by Yoshida (Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19)
The Examiner finds Yoshida discloses all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 3--4. As for the claimed "scoring" step, the Examiner cites Yoshida
Figure 1 ("Vote Best Answer 116"), Figure 5 ("Like, Dislike and Best
Answer votes"), Figure 15 ("Best Answer"), and Figure 25 ("threaded
discussions" and "'Best Answer'"). Id. at 4.
Appellant contends Yoshida discloses a user "'entering a question,
such as a question related to the forum"' (Appeal Br. 11 ( citing Yoshida ,r
92)), and that "a user may also vote on answers to questions by selecting
'best answer, like or dislike vote, and/or other links"' (id. (citing Yoshida ,r
70)). Appellant asserts allowing a user to vote on answers in Yoshida does
not disclose the use of a QA system pipeline, as claimed. Id.
Yoshida describes, for example, " [ u] sers who post questions in the
forum can read posted replies, vote to like or dislike as well as vote an
answer as best" (Yoshida ,r 67 ( emphasis added); see also Fig. 2), and
"[u]sers who do not post a question can read replies and vote to like or
dislike a reply" (id. ,r 68 (emphasis added); see also Fig. 3). As for the
embodiment shown in Figure 2, Yoshida describes, "[i]n step 214, the user
system sends a request to the server to record the vote ( which may trigger
the server to compute the total votes)." Id. ,r 70. Accordingly, Yoshida
discloses that users of the system vote on questions, and the server may
compute the total votes.
14
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Appellant states, "the cited sections of Yoshida [by the Examiner]
may bear some similarity to some of the elements of claims 5, 12, and 19 ."
Appeal Br. 11. Claim 5, for example, recites "calculating a structural score
based on the identified agreement levels found in the identified child posts."
See Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Appellant explains that Figure 17 of
Appellant's application depicts "structured scoring," particular at step 1760.
Id. at 10-11. Step 17 60 states, "Identify agreement, up-vote, 'me-too' s',
'+ 1 s', 'likes,' 'dislikes,' etc. in child post to parent post"). Although
Yoshida describes that voters can vote with "like," "dislike," and "best
answer," which is similar to language in step 1760 in Appellant's Figure 17,
we agree with Appellant that this does not establish Yoshida discloses the
claimed step of "scoring." That is, even assuming the voting on answers
described in Yoshida corresponds to the claimed "scoring," the voting is
done by users of the system. The Examiner does not establish, with
evidence, Yoshida discloses scoring answers "by submitting the identified
possible answers to a question answering (QA) system pipeline ... wherein
the QA system pipeline determines a QA answer score for each of the
identified possible answers," as required by claim 1. In the claimed method,
the QA system pipeline is not the same as a user (i.e., a person) in Yoshida.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims
2 and 5 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Yoshida. Independent
claims 8 and 15 both recite, in part, the "scoring" limitation as in claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 17, 19-20 (Claims App.). For reasons similar to those for
claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, and of dependent
claims 9, 12, 16, and 19, as anticipated by Yoshida.
15
Appeal2018-003924
Application 14/567 ,224
Obviousness over Yoshida and Brill (Claims 3, 10, and 17)
The Examiner's reliance on Brill in rejecting dependent claims 3, 10,
and 17 fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of respective parent
claim 1, 8, or 15. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 3, 10, and 1 7 as unpatentab le over Yoshida and Brill.
Obviousness over Yoshida and Goto (Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20)
The Examiner's reliance on Goto in rejecting dependent claims 6, 7,
13, 14, and 20 fails to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of parent claim 1,
8, or 15. Final Act. 8-10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 as unpatentable over Yoshida and Goto.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Yoshida is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yoshida and Brill is REVERSED.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yoshida and Goto is REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended according to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16