Ex Parte Bawadhankar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 2018

14033276 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/033,276 09/20/2013 12684 7590 01/03/2019 Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME 20 South Clark Street Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Dhiraj Bawadhankar 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. 4672-13003BUS 1745 EXAMINER TROTTER, SCOTTS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2019 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): mail@lsk-iplaw.com docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com pair_lsk@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte DHIRAJ BAWADHANKAR, FATEEN SHARABY, and SUNHIL CUTINHO Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JASON J. CHUNG, 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 a Final Rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We Affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention generally relates to "post-order management of financial instruments." Title. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., which is the assignee of the present application. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Exemplary Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for managing a plurality of orders for a financial instrument, each of the plurality of orders indicative of an executed trade between two counterparties wherein each of the plurality of orders has at least one counterparty in common with the others of the plurality of orders, the method comprising: accepting, by a processor, the plurality of orders for clearing, each of the plurality of orders being characterized by one or more economic factors, the plurality of orders being characterized by a first result based on each of the one or more economic factors; sending, by the processor, based on the accepting, a cleared confirmation message indicating that the plurality of orders has been cleared; receiving, by the processor, notification to group the plurality of cleared orders; terminating, by the processor responsive in real time to receipt of the notification, the plurality of cleared orders, computing one or more economic factors of a single order characterized by a second result approximately identical to the first result and creating the single new order characterized by the computed one or more economic factors; and sending, by the processor, a cleared confirmation message for the single new order. App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). (Contested limitations emphasized). 2 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Rejections A. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. 2 Final Act. 3. B. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Claus et al. (US 2007/0143203 Al; publ. June 21, 2007) ("Claus"), Allen et al. (US 2002/0138401 Al; publ. Sept. 26, 2002) ("Allen"), Chait et al. (US 2006/0235785 Al; publ. Oct. 19, 2006) ("Chait"), and Hawkins et al. (US 5,497,317; iss. Mar. 5, 1996) ("Hawkins"). Final Act. 8. Grouping of Claims Based upon Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-23, rejected underÂ§ l 03 rejection B, on the basis of representative claim 1. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular rejected claims or issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§4I.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. Regarding rejections A and B, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-18), and (2) the findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in 2 See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) Â§ 706.03(a) (9th Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). 3 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 16-17). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below. Rejection A under 35 US.C. Â§ 101 Issue: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more? Mayo/Alice Analysis Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). 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, 82-84 (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, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an abstract idea. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. 4 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 If the "acts" of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the acts are not being applied to appropriate subject matter. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972). "Phenomena of nature, thoughjust discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work." In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67). Moreover, if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under Â§ 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011). If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). 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." Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We, therefore, decide under step two, whether the claims: (a) set forth an inventive concept that provides a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology, or (b) are directed to a result or effect that itself is 5 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. The Examiner's Rejection A under 35 USCÂ§ 101 Regarding the first step of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes that claims 1-23 are directed to a judicial exception, i.e., "the concept of managing a plurality of orders for a financial instrument including accepting a plurality of orders for clearing where each order is characterized by economic factors; confirming that the order has been cleared; grouping the plurality of cleared orders; [and] terminating the orders." Final Act. 4. The Examiner thus concludes the claims are directed to "a fundamental economic activity (abstract idea) simply being carried out via an electronic device, a general purpose computer and/or a computer system." Id. 3 Regarding the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, the Examiner concludes the claims' limitations do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because: The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field ( e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the client device, general purpose computer, and/or computer system which implements the process are not made more 3 "Patent eligibility underÂ§ 101 presents an issue of law." Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 6 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. Final Act. 6-7. 4 For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner concludes that all claims 1-23 on appeal are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Mayo/Alice Analysis-Step 1 Regarding Alice Step 1, Appellants argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Appellants further contend: even if [the claims] were directed to an abstract idea, Applicant's claims do not relate to nor do they entirely preempt or tie up, for example, mere trading of financial instruments, the mere clearing of such trades or mere consolidation of orders. See Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2015-1763 (Fed. Cor. June 27, 2016). App. Br. 6. Regarding Appellants' contention asserting the absence of preemption (id.), our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: "While 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); Ultramercial, 4 The patent-eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 7 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding the absence of complete preemption. Regarding Appellants' reliance on Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), we emphasize the Bascom court guides that implementing "[a]n abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea." Id. at 1348. Appellants additionally contend: As previously stated, the claims are directed to a specific, novel and patentable system which can be used by an electronic trading system to offer improved transactional capacity thereby improving market participation. Furthermore, the claimed invention, i.e. the claims as a whole, represents an improvement to transaction processing systems by selectively grouping multiple orders into a single equivalent transaction and thereby reducing the number of transaction processed by the system. The claimed invention improves upon the technical field of transaction processing and risk management by reducing transactional load on the system. App. Br. 7. In determining whether claims are patent-eligible under Section 101, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit also guides that "[E]xaminers are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a concept that is similar to concepts previously found abstract by the courts." Id. at 1294 n.2. 8 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 We find nothing in the claims on appeal that focuses on a specific means or method that improves the recited "processor" or "computer." (Independent claims 1, 11, and 21-23). In particular, we find the claims on appeal are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer or processor. Appellants also cite in support to Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), arguing, generally, that software claims are not inherently abstract. App. Br. 11. We note the court in Enfish held that the subject claims "are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice. Rather, they are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table." Enfish 822 F.3d at 1336 (emphasis added). We emphasize the self-referential logical table considered by the court in Enfish was found to be a specific type of data structure that was designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Id. at 1339. Thus, because the self-referential database table improved the way the computer stored and retrieved data, the Enfzsh court stopped the analysis after Alice step one, and concluded the Enfzsh claims were not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1336. Here, Appellants have not shown that any features of the claims before us on appeal improve the way the recited computer or processor stores and retrieves data in memory. None of Appellants' claims 1-23 include a database, much less a self-referential database table of the type considered by the court in Enfzsh that was found to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. 9 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that Appellants' claimed invention improves the recited generic computer components' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way the claimed computer components function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' analogy of the claimed invention on appeal to the subject claims considered by the court in McRO, Inc. v Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). App. Br. 8-9. We do not consider the claims in McRO to be similar, or otherwise analogous, to Appellants' claimed invention. At the outset, we note that Appellants' claims are directed to a fundamental economic activity ( e.g., "sending, by the processor, a cleared confirmation message for the single new order" - claim 1 ), which is completely unlike the automated, animated lip-synchronization claims in McRO. We note McRO concerned a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303. The McRO court concluded that the subject claim did not recite an abstract idea because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between phonemes. Id. at 1308, 1309. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be performed by human animators. Id. at 1309. Thus, the court concluded that McRO 's exemplary claim was patent eligible because it "uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved 10 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (emphasis added). Unlike the subject claims considered by the court in McRO, Appellants' claimed invention does not apply positively recited rules, per se. Rather, the claimed invention under appeal is directed to the result of accepting, sending, and receiving data and messages regarding orders. We emphasize that McRO (837 F.3d at 1312) guides that "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' ( quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). Applying the aforementioned guidance from our reviewing courts to the claims before us on appeal, we conclude, in our Mayol Alice analysis, that each of Appellants' claims 1-23, considered as a whole, is directed to (under step one), a patent-ineligible abstract idea, i.e., a fundamental economic practice. Mayo/Alice Analysis-Step 2 Because we conclude the claims are directed to an abstract idea for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner (Final Act. 3-6; Ans. 16-17), we tum to the second part of the Alice/Mayo analysis. We analyze the claims to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Regarding Alice Step 2, Appellants argue: "those additional elements when viewed in combination" most certainly "amount to significantly more 11 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 than the exception by meaningfully limiting the judicial exception." App. Br. 9. Appellants argue: the claimed accepting of a plurality of orders, indicative of executed trades, for clearing, and termination of those orders in favor of a single order computed to have substantially similar economic characteristics, as claimed, is a specific implementation which has NOT been used before and therefore is not well understood, routine or conventional in the art. App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis added). Appellants also argue "[a]s with the invention of DDR, Appellants' claims do not generically recite 'use of a communications network' to perform a business practice, but instead recite[] a specific way to process transactions in an anonymized and centralized processing environment. App. Br. 11. In response to Appellants' arguments, we do not find Appellants' claims are similar to the claimed solution the court held to be patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In particular, we note the DDR court emphasized that the '399 patent claims did not "recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice." DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. As distinguished from the claims considered by the court in DDR, we conclude Appellants' claims 1-23, which perform accepting, sending, receiving data and messages regarding trade orders, are directed to at least a fundamental economic practice (i.e., grouping and sending messages regarding trade orders). In DDR, the Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court's Alice two- step framework, and upheld the validity of DDR 's patent on its web-page display technology. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1255. However, we conclude 12 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Appellants' claims 1-23, which are directed to "a method for managing a plurality of orders for a financial instrument" ( e.g., claim 1) are not similar or otherwise analogous to the specific technical problem addressed by the subject claims in DDR, which were directed to retaining a website visitor when the visitor clicked on a third-party merchant's advertisement on the host website. Instead of taking the visitor to the third-party merchant's website (and thus losing the visitor to the third-party merchant), DDR 's claimed system generated a hybrid web page that: (1) displayed product information from the third-party merchant, but also (2) retained the host website's "look and feel." Id. at 1248--49. As distinguished from the claims considered by the court in DDR, Appellants' claims 1-23 are not directed to generating a hybrid web page that retains the host website's "look and feel" while displaying product information from a third-party merchant. See DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Although Appellants' invention is directed to the result of accepting, sending, and receiving data and messages regarding trade orders ( claims 1-23), we find no language in the claims on appeal that focuses on a specific means or method that improves the recited generic computer system. We find the claims on appeal are silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system or processor. Therefore, we find Appellants' claimed invention does not provide a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks," as considered by the court in DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Further, regarding the use of the recited generic "computer" and "processor," the Supreme Court held "the mere recitation of a generic 13 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent- eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; see also Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1348 ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea"). On this record, we are of the view that Appellants' claims do not operate the recited generic computer components in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. Because we find Appellants have not established that claims 1-23 are directed to an improvement in the recited generic computer or processor, we conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter under Alice, step two. In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Mayol Alice analysis, that each of Appellants' claims 1-23, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (under step one), and under step two, does not recite something significantly more to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection A under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 of claims 1-23, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. 5 5 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 14 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 Rejection B of claims 1-23 under 35 US.C. Â§ 103 Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, did the Examiner err by finding the cited combination of Claus, Allen, Chait, and Hawkins teaches or suggests the contested limitations: A computer-implemented method for managing a plurality of orders for a financial instrument, each of the plurality of orders indicative of an executed trade between two counterparties wherein each of the plurality of orders has at least one counterparty in common with the others of the plurality of orders terminating, by the processor responsive in real time to receipt of the notification, the plurality of cleared orders, computing one or more economic factors of a single order characterized by a second result approximately identical to the first result and creating the single new order characterized by the computed one or more economic factors[,] within the meaning of representative claim 1? 6 Appellants contend all the cited references fail to disclose accepting and grouping a plurality of orders into a single order as claimed. App. Br. 13. Appellants first argue Claus teaches the opposite of what Appellants are claiming: "Claus teaches splitting one order into multiple orders" whereas "Appellants' claims relate to replacing multiple incoming orders indicative 6 We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal citation ornitted). 15 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 of executed transactions, as opposed to unexecuted orders, e.g., requests for a transaction, with a single equivalent order indicative of execution." App. Br. 14. Appellants also argue that Hawkins, which Appellants contend the Examiner cites for this limitation together with Chait (App. Br. 14, citing Non-Final Office Action filed 2/22/2016 and Final Act. 8-9), relates to the consolidation of orders submitted for execution that had NOT YET been executed. App. Br. 15. Appellants specifically argue "it would further NOT be obvious to apply the pre-execution consolidation of Hawkins to implement post execution consolidation as claimed by Appellants." App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants are arguing the references separately. 7 The Examiner cites both Chait and Hawkins for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation: terminating, by the processor responsive in real time to receipt of the notification, the plurality of cleared orders, computing one or more economic factors of a single order characterized by a second result approximately identical to the first result and creating the single new order characterized by the computed one or more economic factors[,] as recited in independent claim 1. See Final Act. 8-9. We find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's factual findings. We find Chait' s order that is allocated into sub-accounts after the order is executed teaches or suggests processing orders indicative 7 One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 16 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 of executed transactions, as opposed to unexecuted orders. See Chait, Abstract, ,r 5. This is nothing more than a predictable result. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) ("[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). Moreover, our reviewing court guides: "[T]he question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made." Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)) ( emphasis added); see also MPEP Â§ 2123. Applying this reasoning here, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection B under Â§ 103 of representative independent claim 1. Associated dependent claims 2-23 (not argued separately) fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Reply Brief To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief, or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer, will not be considered except for good cause. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.41(b)(2). 17 Appeal2017-010701 Application 14/033,276 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIR1\1ED 18