Ex Parte Berde et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 1, 201912917165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/917,165 11/01/2010 27571 7590 Ascenda Law Group, PC 333 W San Carlos St. Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 04/03/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William Berde 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. 6857-26600 1002 EXAMINER MISIASZEK, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2019 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): patents@ascendalaw.com tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM BERDE and DESTIN LEE DEXTER Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917,165 1 Technology Center 3600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. CUT ITT A, Administrative Pa tent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-13, 19, 22, 23, and 25-28, all the claims pending and under consideration in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify III Holdings 1, LLC as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 6, 14-18, 20, 21, and24 are cancelled and claim 29 is withdrawn. See Appeal Br. 28, 30, 32, 24. Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellants' invention relates to "formation of product offerings" by "defm[ing] feature data ... [and] then group[ing] the feature data in a package and assembl[ing] a market offering comprising the package." Spec. ,r 5. 3 Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 19, and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below with bracketed material added. 1. A method, comprising: [a] receiving, at an infrastructure package engine running on a computer system, package configuration information; [b] storing, by the infrastructure package engine, the package configuration information in a package configuration repository configured to house information for a plurality of package assembly components; [ c] responsive to a data access layer component of the computer system receiving the package configuration information from the package configuration repositmy, the computer system using a presentation layer component to cause a user computing device to display a plurality of preconfigured base feature packages that each include a different set of features specified by the package configuration information, wherein individual ones of each different set of features are selectable to apply to a pre-existing fmancial account corresponding to a 3 Our Decision refers to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed November 1, 2010 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Rejection mailed July 15, 2016 ("Final Act."); (3) the Appeal Brief filed January 17, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); ( 4) the Examiner's Answer mailed June 20, 2017 ("Ans."); and ( 5) the Reply Brief filed August 18, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 transaction instrument for a user usable to charge purchases to the pre-existing fmancial account, wherein the pre-existing fmancial account has at least one pre- existing feature included in a set of features corresponding to a particular one of the plurality of preconfigured base feature packages, wherein the plurality of preconfigured base feature packages correspond to respective transaction instrument types, and wherein the transaction instrument for the user corresponds to a frrst transaction instrument type; [ d] the computer system receiving, through an encrypted connection implemented via the presentation layer component, information indicating that the user, based on the display of the plurality of preconfigured base feature packages, has requested at least one selected feature from a set of features corresponding to a different one of the plurality of preconfigured base feature packages be added to the pre-existing fmancial account; [ e] based on the received information, the computer system modifying a set of features for the pre-existing fmancial account to include the at least one selected feature; [ fJ the computer system causing terms and conditions applicable to the pre-existing fmancial account to be modified based on the at least one selected feature; [g] based on the transaction instrument for the user being of the frrst transaction instrument type, the computer system determining a particular price for the at least one selected feature, wherein a price for adding the at least one selected feature to a fmancial account corresponding to a transaction instrument of a second transaction instrument type is different from the particular price; and [h] transmitting, via the encrypted connection implemented the presentation layer component, the particular price to the user. Appeal Br. 27-28. 3 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 REJECTION Claims 1-5, 7-13, 19, 22, 23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ajudicial exception without adding significantly more. See Final Act. 2-11. Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief are waived. See37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016). DISCUSSION Standard for Patent Eligibility 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.,AliceCorp. v. CLSBankint'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. at217-18 (citing Mayo CollaborativeServs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). Inaccordancewiththat 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 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 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 rubberproducts"(Diamondv. Diehr,450U.S. 175,191 (1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n. 7 (quoting Corningv. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267---68 (1853))); andmanufacturingflour (Benson, 409U.S. at69 (citing Cochranev. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Di ehr, 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,450U.S. at 176;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 andFlook); 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."). 5 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 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 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. USPTOJanuary 7, 2019RevisedSection 101 Memorandum The USP TO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter EligibilUy Gui dance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019 ("Memorandum"). Under the Memorandum guidance, we frrst 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 activity 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: 6 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 (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. Determinations, Findings, Contentions, and Analysis Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 17 (arguing "representative claim 1 "). We select independent claim 1 as exemplary of Appellants' arguments for the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016). The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception and "do[ es] not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception." Final Act. 2. Appellants present several arguments against the § 101 rejection. We do not fmd Appellants' arguments persuasive, as discussed below. Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We adopt the nomenclature for the analysis steps used in the Memorandum. STEP 1 Section 101 provides that"[ w ]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Initially, we determine that independent claim 1 recites " [a] method." Appeal Br. 2 7. As such, claim 1 is directed to a statutory class of invention within 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a process. 7 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 STEP 2AProng 1 Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Memorandum, we must determine whether claim 1, being directed to a statutory class of invention, nonetheless falls within a judicial exception. The Examiner determines claim 1 is "directed to causing terms and conditions applicable to a fmancial account to be modified based on selection of a feature, which is considered both a fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea." Final Act. 2. The Examiner further determines "that the claim is also directed to an idea of itself, which, since it comprises 'a mental process ( thinking) that 'can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. "' Id. at 5. Appellants argue that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because: (1) the Examiner "characterizes the claims at an impermissibly high level of abstraction that does not 'identify the abstract idea as it is recited'" and "fail[ s] to provide any meaningful consideration of numerous elements of the claims"; (2) "business methods are not per se unpatentable subject matter"; (3) the claim is "[ u]nlike the risk-hedging of Bilksi and the mitigating settlement risk of Alice" and so does "not recite some fundamental economic practice" (4) the claim "do[es] not simply 'amount[] to creating a contractual relationship' and, therefore, [is] not directed to an abstract idea"; ( 5) the claim is "not directed to an idea of itself" and ( 6) the claim "relat[es] to a 'package infrastructure system' in which '[fJeatures may be grouped into packages' and ' [ t ]he package infrastructure system [] may be configured to suggest a price of the package.'" Appeal Br. 15-20 (some alteration in original); Reply Br. 2. 8 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 We determine that the claim recites a fundamental economic practice because claim 1 broadly relates to displaying features to a user, determining a price for a user-selected feature, and modifying terms and conditions applicable to a pre-existing financial account based on the user-selected feature. See Appeal Br. 27. Specifically, claim 1 recites "a computer system" that implements steps including: [a] "receiving ... package configuration information"; [b] "storing ... the package configuration information"; [ c] "responsive to ... receiving the package configuration information ... display[ing] a plurality of preconfigured base feature packages that each include a different set of features specified by the package configuration information, wherein individual ones of each different set of features are selectable to apply to a pre-existing fmancial account corresponding to a transaction instrument"; [ d] "receiving ... information indicating that the user ... has requested at least one selected feature from a set of features ... be added to the pre-existing fmancial account"; [ e] "based on the received information, ... modifying a set of features for the pre- existing fmancial account to include the at least one selected feature"; [ fJ "causing terms and conditions applicable to the pre-existing fmancial account to be modified based on the at least one selected feature;"; [g] "based on the transaction instrument ... determining a particular price for the at least one selected feature"; and [h] "transmitting . . . the particular price to the user." See Appeal Br. 27-28. Apart from generic hardware, limitations [ c], [ e], [ fJ, [g], and [h], under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite: [ c] "display[ing] ... preconfigured base feature packages that each include a different set of features," [ d] "receiving ... information indicating that the user ... has 9 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 requested at least one selected feature from a set of features . . . be added to the pre-existing fmancial account"; [ e] "based on the received information, ... modifying a set of features for the pre-existing fmancial account to include the at least one selected feature"; [fJ "causing terms and conditions applicable to the pre-existing fmancial account to be modified based on the at least one selected feature;" [g] "based on the transaction instrument ... determining a particular price for the at least one selected feature"; and [h] "transmitting . . . the particular price to the user." Displaying features of a product or service offered for sale, receiving a selection of a desired feature from a user, modifying an existing account to include the selected feature, modifying the terms and conditions applicable to the account and determining a price for the feature and transmitting the price to the user are all activities that would normally take place when a consumer purchases a relatively-complex product having a variety ofuser- selectable features such as a vehicle or a fmancial product offered by a bank. Apart from extra-solution activity and generic hardware (as discussed in Step 2B below), the claimed invention is analogous to pre-Internet commercial transactions between humans in which a seller determines a price of a package of goods or services selected by a user and associated terms and conditions and provides this information to a prospective buyer. The purchase of goods and services is a fundamental economic activity long prevalent in our system of commerce and is similar to other types of "organizing human activity" that have been found to be abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. See, e.g.,Alice, 573 U.S. at220 (intermediated settlement); GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (offer-based price optimization); 10 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 FairWarningIP, LLCv. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( collecting and analyzing information and notifying a user based on the analysis); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("creating a contractual relationship----a 'transaction performance guaranty'"); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014) (holding claim describing "only the abstract idea of showing an advertisement before delivering free content" is patent ineligible). Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 recites a fundamental economic practice, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Memorandum, and thus an abstract idea. Because we agree the claim recites a fundamental economic practice, we need not reach Appellants' argument that the Examiner errs in determining the claim recites an idea of itself. See Appeal Br. 18. STEP 2AProng2 Next, we determine whether the claim is directed to the abstract concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., is integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 175. Applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner identifies the additional limitations other than the abstract idea and determines these elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activity ("'data-gathering steps"') and "the server computer limitations are simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment." Final Act. 5, 6. 11 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 Appellants argue the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in technology and "the present claims are more accurately described as relating to a 'package infrastructure system' in which ' [ fJeatures may be grouped into packages,' and ' [ t ]he package infrastructure system [] may be configured to suggest a price of the package based upon the pricing of similar packages with similar feature contents."' Appeal Br. 19-20 ( citing Spec. 21). We disagree. The solution offered by Appellants' claim 1 is not rooted in any novel computer technology, as evidenced by the claim's failure to recite anything other than generic hardware, i.e., "a computer system." See Final Act. 5. As further noted by the Examiner, Appellants' Specification confrrms the hardware is in fact generic. See Final Act. 6 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 55, 56 ("Useful machines for performing the operation of the present invention include general purpose digital computers or similar devices."). The Specification also discloses that Appellants' various software components including "an infrastructure package engine running on a computer system," "a package configuration repository," "a data access layer component of the computer system," "a presentation layer component," and "an encrypted connection" are also merely code executed by generic hardware. Spec. ,r 58 ("Any component of the technology ecosystem/and or package infrastructure system 100 may be represented via computer system 500 and/or elements of computer system 500); see also Fig. 5. Rather than a solution rooted in computer technology, Appellants' Specification describes that Appellants' invention seeks to address the "need for a product offering management system that substantially integrates 12 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 various market offerings" and that"[ s ]uch a system is needed to reduce implementation times and to reduce administrative overhead for each system." Spec. ,r 4. Appellants address this need by "group[ing] feature data into packages and/ or recommend a price associated with the grouping." Spec. ,r 9. This solution addresses a business problem, not a technical problem. Rather than addressing a problem unique to the technology in which the solution is implemented, Appellants' claim 1 merely automates, using generic computer technology, a pre-internet process in which a seller determines a price of a package of services selected by a user and associated terms and conditions and provides this information to a prospective buyer. Thus, the method is directed to purchase transactions, which is not an improvement to technology. See MPEP § 2106.05 (a). In addition, because a particular computer is not required, the claim also does not define or rely on a "particular machine." See MPEP § 2106. 05 (b ). Further, the method does not transform matter; at best it transforms information. See MPEP § 2106. 05 ( c ); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972) (holding that a computer based algorithm that merely transforms data from one form to another is not patent-eligible). Instead, the claim simply receives, stores, manipulates, displays, and transmits data. As such, the method has no other meaningful limitations (see MPEP § 2106. 05 ( e) ), and thus merely recites instructions to execute the abstract idea on a computer(see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). Moreover, although the method calls for receiving and transmitting data through an encrypted connection, this is merely insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05 (g). 13 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 Appellants next argue "the present claims do not pose a significant risk of unduly preempting the alleged abstract idea." Appeal Br. 23. Appellants' preemption arguments do not alter our § 101 analysis. Rather than preemption, the Federal Circuit instructs that the Alice two-step analysis is the test for whether claims are statutory. "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ari osa Di agnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Id. We, therefore, determine claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer technological implementation or otherwise integrated into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception. STEP2B Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at217-18 (quotingMayo, 566 U.S. at72-73). The Examiner finds "the claim is considered to merely be the application of an abstract idea by a generic computer system, and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself." Final Act. 7. Appellants argue claim 1 "amount[ s] to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and thus constitute patent-eligible subject matter" 14 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 because the Examiner: ( 1) "cannot deny patentability under the guise of Section 101 merely because a claim can be implemented in the context of commerce"; (2) "does not actually consider the specific requirements of the individual claim limitations"; and (3) "cannot identify any references that anticipate or render obvious the present claims." Appeal Br. 21-22. We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive because, other than the abstract idea and the generic hardware, claim 1 recites [a] "receiving ... package configuration information," [b] "storing ... the package configuration information" [ c] "responsive to ... the computer system receiving the package configuration information ... displaying" data, [ d] receiving, through an encrypted connection ... information indicating that the user, based on the display of the plurality of preconfigured base feature packages, has requested at least one selected feature," and [h] "transmitting, via the encrypted connection ... the particular price to the user." Appeal Br. 27-28. Considered both separately and as an ordered combination, the additional steps of Appellants' claim 1 add nothing inventive to the claim. The sequence of data reception-storage-modification, and transmission, when broadly claimed, is generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLCv. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ( sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, 15 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps in claim 1 is therefore ordinary and conventional. Appellants' argument that the Examiner "cannot deny patentability ... merely because a claim can be implemented in the context of commerce" is unpersuasive because this is not the stated rationale for the rejection. Rather, the Examiner determines the claim does not recite patentable subject matter because "the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception ... without significantly more." Final Act. 2 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants' argument that the Examiner "does not actually consider the specific requirements of the individual claim limitations" (Appeal Br. 21) is unpersuasive because Appellants fail to indicate which limitation the Examiner has not considered and thus does not provide evidence or persuasive reasoning supporting the argument. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Neither are we persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner "cannot identify any references that anticipate or render obvious the present claims." Appeal Br. 22. Although the second step in the Ali eel Mayo analysis includes a search for an inventive concept, the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for "an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract 16 Appeal 2017-010819 Application 12/917, 165 idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304 (rejecting the suggestion that Sections 102, 103, and 112 might perform the appropriate screening function and noting that in Mayo such an approach "would make the 'law of nature' exception ... a dead letter"). Further, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature ( or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Meri al L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because Appellants' representative claim 1 is directed to a patent- ineligible abstract concept and does not recite something "significantly more" under the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-patentable subject matter in light of Alice and its progeny. The rejection of the other claims in the group is sustained for the same reasons. DECISION We affrrm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-13, 19, 22, 23, and 25-29 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). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation