Ex Parte BARKAN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2019

13751516 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/751,516 01/28/2013 Rafael BARKAN 122066 7590 04/02/2019 M&B IP Analysts, LLC 500 Headquarters Plaza Morristown, NJ 07960-7070 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. SEBAP0692 5186 EXAMINER PAULSON, SHEETAL R. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): pair@mb-ip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com michael. benshimon@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAFAEL BARKAN and YGAL SHASHA Appeal2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY,Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claim 10 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 6(b ). We affrrm. 1 According to Appellants, no assignment has been recorded. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Embodiments of Appellants' invention relate to "the field of data modeling and analysis of medical information." Spec. ,r 2. Exemplary Claim 1. A method for generating an event sequence repository for compressing medical data recorded in a database, the method compnsmg: mapping the recorded medical data related to a plurality of actors from the database into a set of base events according to mapping rules, wherein each base event comprises an actor identifier, a timestamp, an event identifier and one or more attributes associated with the base event; performing the following operations, each operation performed on at least one base event of the set of base events to defme one or more processed events, wherein the operations are performed based on at least one of the actor identifier, the timestamp, the event identifier and the attributes of the base events: classifying the at least one base event by mapping the at least one base events into a single classified base event, categorizing the at least one base event by mapping the at least one base event based on one or more attribute values into specific one or more categories, comparing each base event of the at least one base event to a predecessor base event of the same kind, according to specific one or more comparison rules, to establish whether a change has occurred, merging two or more base events of the at least one base event into a single merged base event based on specific one or more merging rules, and filtering one or more base events by deleting irrelevant events 2 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 from the at least one base event; generating a primary sequence of events for each actor, each primary sequence of events including the defmed one or more processed events related to that actor ordered chronologically in timeÂ· ' manipulating each primary sequence of events to generate one or more inferred events, wherein the one or more inferred events are not included in the received medical raw data, wherein each of the generated inferred events is at least indicative of a compliance with a medical care schedule of the actor; inserting the one or more inferred events into a respective primary sequence of events in chronological order; and compressing the recorded medical data representing the medical data recorded for each actor in the database by the primary sequence in the event sequence repository. Br. 16-17 (Claims Appendix). Rejections A. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. Final Act. 2. B. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e), as anticipated by Hawkins et al. (U.S. 2009/0192823 Al, pub. July 30, 2009) ("Hawkins"). Final Act. 7. 2 2 Because the Examiner refers repeatedly to Hawkins '823 in the detailed statement of rejection (Final Act. 7-12), we consider the Examiner's reference to "Morita et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0192823)" in the heading of the anticipation rejection to be a typographical error. Final Act. 7. 3 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. We highlight and address specific fmdings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Rejection A underÂ§ 101 of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more? Principles of Law An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S. C. Â§ 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamondv. Diehr, 450U.S.175, 185(1981)). 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. Alice Corp. v. CLSBankint'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). In accordance with that framework, we frrst 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."). 4 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 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 (Parkerv. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding ofrubberproducts"(Diamondv. Diehr,450U.S. 175,193 ( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n. 7 (quoting Corningv. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267---68 (1854))); andmanufacturingflour (Benson, 409U.S. at69 ( citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). InDiehr, 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." Di ehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having said that, the 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 oftheAlice andMayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive 5 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at221 (quotation marks omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (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. USPTO Patent Subject Matter Eligibility 2019 Revised Guidance The USP TO recently published revised policy guidance on the application ofÂ§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "2019 Revised Guidance"). This new guidance is applied in this opinion. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") Â§Â§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 3 2019RevisedGuidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a 3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 08-2017 (rev. Jan. 2018). 6 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. When the judicial exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and is patent eligible underÂ§ 101. Id. Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at217-18. For example, we 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 Â§ 2106.05(d)); or ( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Because there is no single defmition of an "abstract idea" under Alice step 1, the PTO has recently synthesized, for purposes of clarity, predictability, and consistency, key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the "abstract idea" exception includes the following three groupings: 1. Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; 2. Mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and 7 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 3. Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). According to the 2019 Revised Guidance, "claims that do not recite [subject] matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas," except in rare circumstances. Even if the claims recite any one of these three groupings of abstract ideas, these claims are still not "directed to" a judicial exception ( abstract idea), and thus are patent eligible, if "the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception." 2019RevisedGuidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. For example, additional limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include: 1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a); 2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP Â§ 2106. 05(b ); 3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP Â§ 2106. 05( c ); and 4. Applying or using 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 - see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(e). 8 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 In contrast, additional limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include: 1. Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(Â±); 2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(g); and 3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55 ("Prong Two"). The Examiner's Rejection under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 101 The Examiner concludes the claim 1 limitations mapping, performing categorizing, comparing, merging, fl ltering, generating and compressing, recite an "idea of itself." Final Act. 3--4 ( emphasis added). The Examiner determines the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of: "generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a memory, a processor, etc.)." Final Act. 5. The Examiner thus concludes that claims 1-10 are not patent eligible under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 101. Final Act. 6. 9 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 We review this rejection de nova by applying the 2019 Revised Guidance. The Judicial Exception Under the 2019 Revised Guidance ( 1 ), we consider whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) mental steps, and ( c) certain methods of organizing human activities. Claim 1 recites the following enumerated limitations: (1) mapping the recorded medical data related to a plurality of actors from the database into a set of base events according to mapping rules, wherein each base event comprises an actor identifier, a timestamp, an event identifier and one or more attributes associated with the base event; (2) performing the following operations, each operation performed on at least one base event of the set of base events to defme one or more processed events, wherein the operations are performed based on at least one of the actor identifier, the timestamp, the event identifier and the attributes of the base events: (3) classifying the at least one base event by mapping the at least one base events into a single classified base event, ( 4) categorizing the at least one base event by mapping the at least one base event based on one or more attribute values into specific one or more categories, ( 5) comparing each base event of the at least one base event to a predecessor base event of the same kind, according to specific one or more comparison rules, to establish whether a change has occurred, ( 6) merging two or more base events of the at least one base event into a single merged base event based on specific one or more merging rules, and 10 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 (7) filtering one or more base events by deleting irrelevant events from the at least one base event; (8) generating a primary sequence of events for each actor, each primary sequence of events including the defmed one or more processed events related to that actor ordered chronologically in timeÂ· ' (9) manipulating each primary sequence of events to generate one or more inferred events, wherein the one or more inferred events are not included in the received medical raw data, wherein each of the generated inferred events is at least indicative of a compliance with a medical care schedule of the actor; (10) inserting the one or more inferred events into a respective primary sequence of events in chronological order; and ( 11) compressing the recorded medical data representing the medical data recorded for each actor in the database by the primary sequence in the event sequence repository. We conclude each of claim 1 limitations (1) through (10), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a step that alternatively could be performed as a mental process- i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions - a specific subject matter group that is identified as an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Guidance. We address claim 1 limitation (11) separately, infra. In particular, limitation (1) provides mapping the medical data of a patient (i.e., an "actor" as claimed) from a database into a set of events [categories]; limitation (2) provides for performing operations on the events; limitation (3) provides for classifying an event; limitation ( 4) provides for categorizing an event; limitation (5) provides for comparingevents; 11 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 limitation ( 6) provides for merging events based on rules; limitation (7) provides for filtering events by deleting irrelevant events; limitation (8) provides for generating a primary sequence of events related to the actor [(patient)]; limitation (9) provides for manipulating each primary sequence of events to generate inferred events which are not included in the raw data; and limitation ( 10) provides for inserting an event into a primary sequence of events in chronological order. In considering Appellants' independent claims 1, 19, and 20 as a whole, we conclude the aforementioned steps of Appellants' invention could alternatively be practiced by a person as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper, by mentally processing medical patient data. Thus, after applying the 2019 Revised Guidance, and considering the claim as a whole, we conclude Appellants' claims 1-9 and 11-20 fall into the category of mental processes, an abstract idea. Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application Regarding the 2019 Revised Guidance (2), and for the reasons that follow, we conclude that Appellants' claims 1-9 and 11-20 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP Â§Â§ 2106.05(a). MPEP Â§ 2106. 05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field" [R-08.2017] This section of the MPEP guides: In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport( s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or "any other technology or technical field ... While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the 12 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A)." The MPEP instructs: "Thus, an examiner may evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A or Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis." MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a) (emphasis added). Here, we consider the question of whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of the computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfish, LLCv. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Br. 9. In support, Appellants contend: Appellants' claims are directed to a specific and concrete, not abstract, way of technically handling the particular technical problems ofhandling raw medical data, and specifically compressing such raw data into events that can be easily searched. Appellants specifically argue: "the claims at least result in reduced memoryusage due to the recited compression of the data." Br. 10. We agree with Appellants. Id. We conclude the last-recited compressing limitation ( 11) of claim 1 ("compressing the recorded medical data representing the medical data recorded for each actor in the database by the primary sequence in the event sequence repository") integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of compressing data to reduce memory usage. We are 13 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 persuaded by Appellants' argument because compressing the recorded medical data imp roves database usage ( claims 1, 19, 20), and memory usage ( claim 19), because the compressed data uses less memory and/or database space than non-compressed data. We emphasize that "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Â§ 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89 ( emphasis added). Our reviewing court guides that "[ e ]ligibility and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Medi a Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, on this record, under step 2A, prong 2, we are of the view that Appellants' claims operate the recited generic computer components in a manner that realizes an improvement in database and memory functionality. Accordingly, we conclude Appellants' claims include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP Â§Â§ 2106.05(a), as discussed above). The Inventive Concept Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, 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 adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 14 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 Since we have concluded that Appellants' abstract idea is integrated into a practical application our analysis ends at step 2A, prong 2. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we do not reach Step 2B. Therefore, we conclude the rejected claims are not "directed to" a judicial exception and are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection A under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 of claims 1-9 and 11-20. Rejection B underÂ§ 102(e) of Claims 1-9 and 11-20 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Hawkins? Analysis Appellants urge that Hawkins is not available as prior art. Br. 13. We note Appellants' invention on appeal has an effective filing date of January 28, 2013. However, Appellants' claim entitlement to the benefit of the 60/928,077 provisional application filing date of May 8, 2007, as follows: This application is a continuation application of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/663,471, filed on September 6, 2010 and entitled METHOD, SYSTEM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR EVALUATING A STATUS OF AP ATIENT, which is a national phase filing of PCT Application Serial No. PCT /IL2008/000627 filed May 6, 2008, which in tum claims the benefit ofU. S. Patent Application No. 60/928,077 filed May 8, 2007, all of which are incorporated in their entirety herein by reference. Spec. ,r 1; See also Br. 13. Appellants further contend Hawkins' provisional application, although having a filing date of April 26, 2007, does not support claim 1 's 15 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 limitations of (8) "generating a primary sequence of events ... ," (10) "inserting the one or more inferred events into a respective primary sequence of events in chronological order," and (9) "manipulating each primary sequence of events to generate one or more inferred events, wherein .... " Br. 14. Appellants thus contend: Accordingly, Hawkins cannot be relied upon to show at least some of the claimed features as of the date of the 12/110,053 application (i.e., the priority application). At best, the appropriate reference date for Hawkins would be the filing date of the subsequent application, namely November 25, 2008. Notably, both the filing date of the instant PCT filing (May 6, 2008) and the priority date for the instant PCT filing (May 8, 2007) predate November 25, 2008. Br. 14. The Examiner responds to Appellants' arguments by pointing to specific sections ofHawkins' provisional application (See Ans. 15, citing Hawkins 60/926,356, p. 6, para. 1 ), and finding that Hawkins's provisional application teaches the disputed limitation (8) "generating of primary sequence of events ... with a priority date of April 26, 2007." Ans. 15. The Examiner further points out that Appellants' own provisional application '077 does not provide support for the disputed limitation ( 10) "inserting the one or more inferred events ... , " although the present application ('627) does. Id. However, the Examiner fmds Hawkins' '356 provisional application discloses the disputed limitation (10) "inserting the one or more inferred events .... " Ans. 15-16. The Examiner specifically fmds: 16 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 Hawkins provisional application 60/926,356 discusses providing presentation panes representing a specialized view and the presentation pane can be set to be context sensitive respective to factors including patient personalized data, nature of the medical case, and/or current workflow as a whole or even adjustment to the current step within the overall workflow (p. 4, para. 3); therefore Hawkins teaches insertion of inferred events into a sequence of events in chronological order and receiving the priority date of April 26, 2007. Ans. 16. Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's additional findings and conclusions in the Answer, as Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, the Examiner's additional fmdings in the Answer are unrebutted. To gain the benefit of the provisional filing date, Appellants' and Hawkins' applications must satisfy 35 U.S.C. Â§ 119(e)(l) (2006), which provides that: An application for patent filed under section 111 (a) or section 363 of this title for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the fl rst paragraph of sec ti on 112 of this title in a provisional application filed under section 111 (b) of this title, by an inventor or inventors named in the provisional application, shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the provisional application filed under section 111 (b) of this title .... 35 U.S.C. Â§ 119(e)(l) (2006) (emphases added). "In other words, the specification of the provisional must' contain a written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,' 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, ,r 1, to enable an ordinarily skilled artisan to practice the invention claimed in the non-provisional application." Dynamic Drinkware, LLCv. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting New Railhead 17 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 Mfg., L.L. C. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 298 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed.Cir.2002)) ( emphasis added). Applying this guidance here, we do not presume that, for the claims of the non-provisional applications, the statutory requirements of written descriptive support and enablement are met by the provisional applications. "[B]ecause the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application." DynamicDrinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380. As there is no presumption, the burden is on the party seeking to rely on the provisional date to provide evidence that the claims of the subsequent non-provisional application are supported and enabled by the specification of the provisional application. Here, Appellants have the burden to show that the claims of instant Application No. 13/751,516 on appeal are fully supported and enabled by their relied-upon provisional disclosure: U.S. Patent Application No. 60/928,077, filed on May 8, 2007. See Spec. 1. On this record, Appellants have not met their burden. Appellants did not provide further rebuttal to the Examiner's additional findings and clarifications in the Answer, because no Reply Brief was filed. Therefore, on this record, we find Appellants have not shown reversible error in the Examiner's legal conclusion that Hawkins is available as prior art under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 102( e ). Because Appellants do not otherwise contest the Examiner's fmding of anticipation over Hawkins, we affrrm the Examiner's anticipation rejection B of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e)overHawkins. 18 Appeal 2018-000890 Application 13/751,516 CONCLUSIONS Underthe Revised Guidance, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under U.S.C. Â§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20under35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e), as anticipated by Hawkins. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11- 20 under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. We affrrm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11- 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e), as anticipated by Hawkins. Because we have affrrmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affrrm the Examiner's decision. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(a)(l). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 19