Ex Parte Boss et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 18, 201911755985 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/755,985 05/31/2007 Gregory J. Boss 45092 7590 04/22/2019 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC 540 Broadway 4th Floor ALBANY, NY 12207 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. END920060223US 1 1071 EXAMINER GREGG, MARY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3697 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/22/2019 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): PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY J. BOSS, CHRISTOPHER J. DAWSON, RICK A. HAMILTON II, and TIMOTHYM. WATERS Appeal2017---008389 Application 11/755,985 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Gregory J. Boss, Christopher J. Dawson, Rick A. Hamilton II, and Timothy M. Waters (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13-16 and 18-23, the only claims 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed December 21, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed May 19, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 22, 2017), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 22, 2016). Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a way of allocating a resource among a plurality of groups based on the role of each group within an organizational model. Specification para. 7. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method, performed using at least one computing device, for allocating a resource among a plurality of component groups within an organization characterized by an organizational model, each of the component groups being capable of using the resource, the method comprising: [ 1] granting each of the plurality of component groups a privilege to bid on a resource using the at least one computing device, the privilege being based on a role of the component group as defined by the organizational model, wherein the role of the component group within the organizational model includes at least one criterion selected from: a budget allocated to the component group relative to a budget for other component groups in the organizational model, a commitment of the component group to another component group within the organizational model, or 2 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 a commitment of the component group to an entity outside the organizational model, wherein the privilege for a first component group of the plurality of component groups is greater than the privilege for a second component group of the plurality of component groups based upon the respective role of each component group within the organizational model, wherein the privilege for the first component group permits the first component group to see the bids made by the second component group before bidding on the resource, and wherein the privilege for the second component group prevents the second component group from seeing the bids made by the first component group; [2] accepting at least one bid for the resource from at least one of the plurality of component groups; and [3] awarding a temporary right to use the resource to the component group making the highest bid for the resource to perform a business purpose for the component group, using the at least one computing device. Claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13-16 and 18-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of what a computer is to provide without implementation details. 3 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 ANALYSIS Claim 1, as a method claim, recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court: set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ... determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, ... consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept"'-i.e., 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 Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions ( a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial 2 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). 4 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 Method claim 1 recites assigning data representing the capacity to create bid data to each of a plurality of data groups, accepting data representing bids, and assigning data representing the award of a right to use a resource. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired to be achieved by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts3, (2) certain methods of organizing 3 See, e.g., Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 5 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 human activity4, and (3) mental processes5. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts claim 1 recites allocating organizational resources. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in allocating organizational resources by assigning and comparing relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource. The advice to allocate organizational resources by assigning and comparing relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource involves allocating resources, which is a commercial act, and bidding for the use of the resource, which is a business planning (budget) practice ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1 recites "granting each of the plurality of component groups a privilege to bid on a resource," which is an activity that would take place whenever one is delegating responsibility for organizational planning. Similarly, claim 1 recites "a budget allocated to the component group" and "awarding a temporary right to use the resource," which are also characteristics of the generic organizational budgeting process. The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a method for allocating a resource among a plurality of component groups within an organization. 4 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 5 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 6 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 The steps in claim 1 result in creating data representing the awarding of a temporary right to use a resource absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 2 recite insignificant receiving of bid and bid privilege data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitation 1 wherein clauses do not affect the operation of limitation 1, but instead are data for consideration in limitation 3, although limitation 3 does not recite using this data to do so. Thus, these wherein clauses are left hanging as having no effect upon the claim. Limitation 3 is the only step associated with performing what the claim produces and recites awarding a temporary right, which is simply creating data that represents such a right. A right in itself is an intangible concept, and nothing in the claim relies on such a right. To advocate awarding a right is conceptual advice for results to be obtained and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 7 recites that the invention relates to allocating a resource among a plurality of groups based on the role of each group within an organizational model. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 is directed to allocating a resource among a plurality of component groups within an organization, i.e. allocating organizational resources. This is consistent with the Examiner's determination. This in tum is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain methods of organizing human activity because allocating organizational resources is a practice for delegating functions that use resources in commercial transactions. The concept of allocating organizational resources as advised to be done by assigning and comparing 7 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource is a conceptual mechanism for deriving an allocation. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of such a derivation. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (2014) (analyzing and integrating data sets). Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TL! Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, modification, and transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation"). As such, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity 8 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 in allocating organizational resources by advising one to assign and compare relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether the claims not only recite, but are more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether they are instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application. 6 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. "[ A Jpplication[ s ]" of such concepts "'to a new and useful end,"' we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the "'buildin[g] block[ s]"' of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 5 7 3 U.S. at 21 7 ( citations omitted). The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo/Alice step two. 7 the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. 6 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). 7 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance). Solely for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office guidance). See USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance." 9 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it"' is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."' Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implement[ t ]" an abstract idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 ( citations omitted). "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely in terms of results desired, devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 2 are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 3 recites generic computer processing expressed in terms to be performed by any and all possible means. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellants' method claims simply recite the concept of allocating organizational resources as performed by a generic computer. To be sure, the claims recite doing so by advising one to assign 10 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 and compare relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource. But this is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for such allocating organizational resources and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The 14+ pages of Specification spell out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of allocating organizational resources under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner of a computer functions. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the conceptual idea of allocating organizational resources by advising one to assign and compare relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for 8 The Specification describes any general purpose computing article of manufacture capable of executing computer program code installed by a user (e.g., a personal computer, server, handheld device, etc.). Spec. para. 41. 11 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses 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. We conclude that claim 1 is directed to advising one to assign and compare relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource to achieve the result of allocating organizational resources as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a computer. The wherein clauses are not steps, but recitations of what data is meant to represent, viz. a description of how the human mind would interpret the data, which is 12 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 aspirational. The wherein clauses have no effect upon the assignment and acceptance steps, and there are no recited linkage steps between the data interpretations in the wherein clauses and the award step. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellants' method claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis- modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. 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 as an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 13 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claim is substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they: are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art.' Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular 14 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of allocating organizational resources by assigning and comparing relative privileges in the process of bidding for the use of the resource involves allocating resources, without significantly more. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action 6-18 and Answer 1-12 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the rejection is deficient in view of the USPTO guidelines. Reply Br. 2-5. Any Examiner's failure to follow the Director's guidance is appealable only to the extent that the Examiner has failed to follow the statutes or case law. That is, to the extent the Director's guidance goes beyond the case law and is more restrictive on the Examiner than the case law, failure of the Examiner to follow those added restrictions is a matter for petition to the Director. We review Appellants' particular arguments against the case law and find no requirement in the law that restricts "abstract ideas" to only those particular narrowly circumscribed concepts that the courts have identified already as an abstract idea explicitly. [W]e cannot address Applicants' argument that the PTO's 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility ("Interim Eligibility Guidance") exceeds the scope of§ 101 and the Supreme Court's Alice decision. Applicants' challenge to the Guidelines is not properly before us in this appeal. See 3 5 U.S.C. § 141(a) (stating that an applicant "dissatisfied with the final decision" of the Board may appeal that decision to the Federal Circuit) ( emphasis added). As the Interim Eligibility Guidance itself states, it "is not intended to create any right or 15 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the Office. Rejections will continue to be based upon the substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable." Interim Eligibility Guidance, Vol. 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74619 (Dec. 16, 2014) (emphasis added). And even if the Applicants had properly challenged the Guidance, we have previously determined that such Guidance is "not binding on this Court." In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819 (Fed Cir 2016). On the other hand, we show supra that the claims are representative of the examples among the abstract ideas the courts have found. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Examiner does not consider that Appellant's claims are directed to novel, non-obvious approaches for allocating (information technology) resources using an asymmetrical viewing mechanism to provide particular benefits to groups within an organizational model." Reply Br. 5. "A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating§ 102 novelty." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the Examiner has failed to properly identify an allegedly abstract idea in Appellants' claims." Reply Br. 5---6. "Further, the Examiner has ignored various features of Appellants' claims which go beyond any judicial exception, and which when combined, recite significantly more than any judicial exception." Id. at 5. As we determine supra, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity in allocating resources, and the steps recited are generic data processing steps our reviewing court held to be conventional. 16 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the various claim limitations recited "alone or in combination, clearly amount to significantly more than any abstract idea described in the original Memorandum." Reply Br. 6. This is an entirely conclusory argument as no reason or analysis is provided as to why they amount to "significantly more." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims are analogous to those in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 6-8. The claims differ from those found patent eligible in Enfzsh, where the claims were "specifically directed to a self- referential table for a computer database." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. The claims thus were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate" rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of allocating resources, our reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer "do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter." Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in FairWarning, which recited "a few possible rules to analyze audit log data" and were found to be directed to an abstract idea because they asked "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades." 839 F.3d at 1094--95. Appellants also contend the Specification describes various benefits arising from the particular algorithm employed. But this algorithm can be done 17 Appeal2017-008389 Application 11/755,985 with paper and pencil, at least as recited in the claims, and so does not present a technological solution. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims are not preemptive. Reply Br. 7-8. "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo/Alice framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13-16 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13-16 and 18-23 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 18 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation