Ex Parte BEHUN et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 25, 201913692385 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/692,385 98804 7590 Reed Smith LLP P.O. Box488 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 12/03/2012 06/27/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory Irwin BEHUN 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. P23501USOO 5758 EXAMINER VETTER, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2019 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): ptoipinbox@reedsmith.com gdonovan@reedsmith.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY IRWIN BEHUN, ANTHONY PAUL FLYNN, and MICHAEL THOMAS TOCZYLOWSKI Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 Technology Center 3600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 1--4, 8, 15, 16, 26, and 27 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is National Railroad Passenger Corporation Company, Ltd. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Disclosed embodiments of Appellants' invention relate to a "user interface for onboard ticket validation or collection." Title. Exemplary Claim 5. A system of managing an electronic ticket, the system compnsmg: a computer having connectivity to a database, the database comprising a reservation number associated with one or more tickets for one train of a plurality of trains identified in the database, passenger information associated with each ticket for the one train of the plurality of trains identified in the database, a ticket status indicating whether a corresponding ticket for the one train of the plurality of trains is used or unused, and information about the trains of the plurality of trains; a bar code scanner; a mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner, the mobile device having a controller for executing a set of instructions, the mobile device being remote from and configured to be communicatively coupled with the computer; and a non-transitory controller-readable medium storing the set of instructions which, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to: cause the bar code scanner to scan a bar code indicative of the reservation number in the database while on board a train of the plurality of trains; identify the reservation number in the database based on the bar code; 2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed July 20, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 15, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Feb. 9, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed April 9, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 identify the one or more tickets associated with the identified reservation number; identify at least one ticket of the one or more tickets as being valid or invalid based on the information about the train on board which the bar code was scanned and the ticket status in the database, wherein the at least one ticket is valid if the ticket is for the train on board which the bar code was scanned and the ticket status is unused, and the at least one ticket is invalid if the ticket is for a different train of the plurality of trains and the ticket status is unused, and the different train is identified based on the information about the trains of the plurality of trains as being a separate train from the train on board which the bar code was scanned or a different departure time for the train on board which the bar code was scanned; change the ticket status of a valid ticket from unused to used and update a passenger manifest based on the identification of the valid ticket, wherein the passenger manifest comprises a list of passengers expected to be on board the train on board which the bar code was scanned based on the passenger information in the database associated with each ticket for the train on board which the bar code was scanned and passengers confirmed to be on board the train on board which the bar code was scanned; change the ticket status of an invalid ticket from unused to used and update the passenger manifest to include the passenger information in the database associated with the invalid ticket; change at least one of a point of origin, a destination, a ticket type or a fare paid, while the train on board which the bar code was scanned is in motion after the train on board which the bar code was scanned has departed the point of origin; and display an employee user interface by way of the mobile device, the employee user interface including reservation 3 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 information associated with the reservation number including passenger name and the ticket status. App. Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix). Rejection3 Claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. Final Act. 3. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more? ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. 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. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's responses to Appellants' arguments. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis. 3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 3. 4 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 Principles of Law-35 US.C. § 101 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 Jaws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.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. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). 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." (emphasis omitted)); 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 mental processes ( Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding of rubber products" (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 193); "tanning, 5 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 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 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 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 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. ( alterations in original) ( quoting Mayo, 6 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. Subject Matter Eligibility-2019 Revised Guidance The United States Patent and Trademark Office "USPTO" recently published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("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") §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 4 See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, and 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 meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 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 under§ 101. Id. 4 All references to the MPEP are to the 9th ed., Revision 08-2017 (rev. Jan. 2018). 7 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 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. See 2019 Revised Guidance at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. 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 § 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. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Because there is no single definition of an "abstract idea" under Alice step 1, the USPTO 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 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 8 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. According to the 2019 Revised Guidance, "[ c ]laims 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." See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. For example, 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 § 2106.05(a); 2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b ); 3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 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 § 2106.05(e). In contrast, 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 9 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±); 2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-see MPEP § 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"). 2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One 5 The Judicial Exception Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we begin our analysis by first considering 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. Turning to the claims, we observe the preamble of independent claim 5 recites: "A system of managing an electronic ticket, the system comprising." We conclude the preamble of claim 5 recites an abstract idea, i.e., a fundamental economic practice: an electronic ticketing system that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and commercial interactions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 6 5 Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 6 We broadly but reasonably construe the claimed "electronic ticket" as a license to ride the train as a passenger between designated points on a given train route. To the extent that such "electronic ticket" is sold, the sale is merely the purchase of a license, and does not represent any ownership interest in the train system. 10 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 Moreover, we conclude the "identify," "scan," and "change" system functions of claim 5 recite ticket-related transactional features, such as identifying the ticket information and validity, scanning for the reservation number, and changing the ticket status, destination, or fare. See Claim 5. We conclude these claimed functions fall into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and commercial interactions. The remaining additional limitations merely recite generic computer components (i.e., a computer, a bar code scanner, "a mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner," and "a non-transitory controller-readable medium storing the set of instructions"), except for the displaying function that we conclude recites post-solution activity: "display an employee user interface ... including reservation information associated with the reservation number including passenger name and ticket status." Claim 5 (emphasis added). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We note remaining independent claims 14 and 24 recite similar language of commensurate scope that we conclude also falls into the abstract idea category of a fundamental economic practice, including the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and commercial interactions. Id. Because we conclude all claims on appeal recite an abstract idea, as identified above, under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. 2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application Further applying the 2019 Revised Guidance, we consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. 11 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 Reg. at 54--55. We have identified supra the additional non-abstract elements recited in independent claim 5 as the generic "computer, bar code scanner, mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner, and a non-transitory controller-readable medium storing the set of instructions." Claim 5. Appellants contend the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See App. Br. 15. Under MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field"), Appellants contend: The elements recited in claim 5 contain many specific limitations that improve an existing technological process such as the recited operations to change the ticket status of a valid ticket from unused to used and update a passenger manifest based on the identification of the valid ticket; change the ticket status of an invalid ticket from unused to used and update the passenger manifest to include the passenger information in the database associated with the invalid ticket; and change at least one of a point of origin, a destination, a ticket type or a fare paid, while the train on board which the bar code was scanned is in motion after the train on board which the bar code was scanned has departed the point of origin. When considered as a whole, the claimed system comprises a non-conventional arrangement of features that perform an ordered combination of steps that improve the efficiency and accuracy of a train ticketing validation system and process by making it possible to update a passenger manifest, while a train is in motion, and to update a ticket status in a database remote from the a device on board a train, even for a ticket that is for a different train, from unused to used. App. Br. 15 (emphasis added). 12 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 However, we conclude Appellants' claims merely obtain and process ticket information using the additional elements of generic computer hardware, including "a bar code scanner," "a mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner," "a controller," and a "non-transitory controller-readable medium storing the set of instructions." Claim 5. For example, we find the generic computer hardware, medium, and bar code scanning mobile device, are depicted and/or described in Appellants' Specification, at Figures 1, 3, 8, 15a-d, and in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 24, 35, 50, 60, 63, 66, 67, 69, 76, and 97. Given the extensive description of the use of generic computer components in the Specification (id.), we agree with the Examiner's findings: [t]he additional elements ... are "known and conventional generic computing elements ("computer," "database," "server," "mobile device," "non-transitory controller readable medium," "controller " "scanner " "user interface " "touchscreen " various ' ' ' ' common network connections). Apart from being instructed to perform the abstract idea itself they only serve to perform well- understood functions (e.g., receiving user input; collecting, transmitting, updating, and storing data; scanning bar codes to retrieve data ( similar to the OCR scanning that was already known in Content Extraction)). Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes "The scanning of the bar code is mere data gathering, and using a routine component in its ordinary fashion ... Similarly, Appellant's claims merely apply the routine bar code scanning functionality in the abstract context of updating a ticket status and passenger manifest." Ans. 5. 13 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 Applying the guidance ofMPEP § 2106.05(a), we agree with the Examiner: The generic computer components are merely employed to improve the performance of the abstract idea (managing/updating the ticket and manifest), rather than the steps of the invention improving the efficiency of the computer. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool is not considered significantly more under part two of the Alice/Mayo framework. Ans. 6 (emphasis added). MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation Appellants advance no arguments applying the Bilski machine-or- transformation test to any claims on appeal. Nor on this record have Appellants established that the recited "computer" and "mobile device coupled to a bar code scanner" ( claim 5) are "particular" machines under MPEP § 2106.05(b). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). MPEP § 2106.05(e) "Other Meaningful Limitations." The Examiner concludes: "The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application." Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added). Appellants reproduce the Examiner's statement (id.) in the Appeal Brief (14). However, Appellants advance no substantive arguments in the Briefs specifically addressing the Examiner's conclusion that "there are no 14 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application." Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). To the extent that Appellants argue the elements recited in claim 5 contain many specific limitations that improve an existing technological ticketing process, we have addressed these arguments supra. Nor do the claims present any other issues set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, we conclude the claims on appeal merely use instructions and generic elements to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Id. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a}-(c) and (e}- (h)), we conclude claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2B, The Inventive Concept. The Inventive Concept - Step 2B 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 § 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. 15 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 Berkheimerv. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) We note Berkheimer was decided by the Federal Circuit on February 8, 2018. The Examiner's Answer was mailed on February 9, 2018 and Appellants filed a Reply Brief on April 9, 2018. On April 19, 2018, the USPTO issued the Memorandum titled: "Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)" (hereinafter "Berkheimer Memorandum"). 7 The Berkheimer Memorandum provided specific requirements for an Examiner to support with evidence any finding that claim elements ( or a combination of elements) are well-understood, routine, or conventional. In reviewing the prosecution history, we note Appellants had constructive notice of the Federal Circuit Berkheimer decision two months in advance of the date the Reply Brief was filed. Thus, Berkheimer (881 F.3d at 1369) was a controlling case authority at the time the Reply Brief was filed. However, the Reply Brief is silent regarding any mention of Berkheimer. We note that arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding the use of the recited generic "computer" and "mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner" ( claim 5), the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent- ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Our reviewing court provides additional guidance, including in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo- berkheimer-20180419 .PDF. 16 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 2016) ("the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent- eligible subject matter"), and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies ]'" by either requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps (alteration in original, internal citation omitted)). This guidance is applicable here. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that, without more, The additional elements recited in the independent and dependent claims beyond further refinements of the abstract idea identified above (and its attendant insignificant extra- solution data-gathering and outputting functions) are known and conventional generic computing elements ("computer," database " "server" "mobile device " "non-transitory controller ' ' ' readable medium " "controller " "scanner " "user interface " ' ' ' ' "touchscreen," various common network connections). Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added). Accordingly, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 add a specific limitation, beyond the judicial exception, that is more than what was "well-understood, routine, and conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of Appellants' claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is 17 Appeal2018-004895 Application 13/692,385 not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and29. 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 To the extent that Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation