Ex Parte Berde et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2019

12917165 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2019)

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2 Claims 6, 14-18, 20, 21, and24 are cancelled and claim 29 is withdrawn.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