Ex Parte Capps et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

14450043 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/450,043 08/01/2014 Stephen Capps
153261 7590 02/04/2019
Hall Estill Attorneys at Law
1600 Stout Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
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.
3604.P020 2196
EXAMINER
BORISSOV, IGOR N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
cbursey@hallestill.com
okcipdocketing@hallestill.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEPHEN CAPPS, DANIEL J. SHADER,
andKURTT. TRAMS
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stephen Capps et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to methods and systems for facilitating
payment from a branded stored-value account. Spec. para. 1.
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for facilitating payment from a branded stored-
value account comprising the steps of:
receiving, with a communications interface of a service
provider system, a confirmation that a stored-value account,
branded for a first merchant, contains a value;
receiving, with the communications interface of the
service provider system, a request to enable a payment using
the value from the first-merchant-branded stored-value account
at a second merchant;
transmitting, with the communications interface of the
service provider system, a request to the first-merchant-branded
stored-value account for an amount from the first merchant-
branded stored-value account;
receiving, with the communications interface of the
service provider system, the requested amount from the first-
merchant-branded stored-value account;
placing, with the communications interface and a
processor of the service provider system, the amount in a virtual
account; and
initiating, with the communications interface of the
service provider system, a display showing the amount in the
virtual account as a branded stored-value account for the second
merchant indicating that the second merchant is responsible for
customer service for purchases made with the second-merchant
branded stored-value account.
2
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected:
(i) claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter;
(ii) claims 1--4, 7, 10-15, 18, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dessert (US 2011/0166992 Al, published July 7,
2011) in view of Yun (US 2002/0069122 Al, published June 6, 2002);
(iii) claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dessert in view of Yun and Lamarche (US 2011/0208550
Al, published Aug. 25, 2011); and
(iv) claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dessert in view of Yun and Zacarias (US 2013/0073459
Al, published Mar. 21, 2013).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-23-Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellants argue claims 1-23 together. See Appeal Br. 7-18; Reply
Br. 2-5. We select claim 1 as the illustrative claim, and claims 2-23 stand
or fall with claim 1.
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., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
3
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
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. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). 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."); 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 (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
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 176; see also id. at 192 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
4
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
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. ( 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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
5
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
human interactions 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:
(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, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter based on a judicial exception without adding significantly
more to the judicial exception. Final Act. 2. More specifically, the
Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea involving
organizing human activity relating to fundamental economic practices-
facilitating payment from a branded stored-value account. Id. at 2-3 ( citing
Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). The Examiner further notes that the
claimed steps of receiving a confirmation, receiving a request, transmitting a
request, receiving an amount, placing the amount in a virtual account, and
initiating a display, are also similar to the basic concept of manipulating
information using mathematical relationships, that was determined to be an
abstract idea. Id. at 3 (citing Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)).
6
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
The Examiner determines that claim 1 does not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additionally recited elements, which include using
computers and a network for receiving, transmitting, storing, and displaying
data, are generic computing elements that are known and conventional, and
perform the basic functions of a computer that would be needed to apply the
abstract idea. Id. at 4. According to the Examiner, the claimed steps
involving collection, manipulation, and display of information do not require
"non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces" that would transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible
applications. Id. at 5 ( citing Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A, 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner also explains that unlike the
claims in Enfish, the recited steps in Appellants' claim 1 do not improve the
functioning of the computers themselves, including the processors or the
network elements. Id. at 5, 8 ( citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, the Examiner determines that,
considering the additional elements individually and in combination, there is
no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a
patent-eligible application. Id. at 10-11.
Appellants contend that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 2-3. More particularly, Appellants argue that:
• claim 1 is directed to a technical solution to overcome a problem with
computerized systems for closed-loop stored value accounts and
knowing which party is responsible for an account after a purchase is
made (Appeal Br. 7; see also id. at 12-13);
7
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
• claim 1 does not merely recite a practice known from the pre-
computer world but relates to a solution necessarily rooted in
computer technology (id. at 8; see also id. at 9-1 O); and
• claim 1 is similar to the claims in DDR Holdings, 1 which were
determined not to be abstract, in that there is no possibility of the
problem that Appellants are solving in the physical world because a
physical card branded for a first merchant will never automatically
change to a physical card branded for a second merchant (id. at 9).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner failed in the respects alleged
by Appellants, and instead find that the Examiner treated claim 1 and the
limitations consistent to the Bilski decision, and that claim 1 is
distinguishable from those in Enfish and DDR Holdings. As the Examiner
advises:
• in Enfish, the claims provide specific improvements in computer
capabilities and a solution in the software arts; whereas, claim 1
recites computers as tools because providing an indication of a
merchant's responsibility for an account or customer services does not
improve computer operation such as causing the computer to operate
faster (Ans. 5-6; see also id. at 7-8 (explaining that the Specification
discloses business-related benefits for business-related challenges of
identifying a merchant responsible for issues resulting from purchases
(citing Spec. paras. 12-13)); and
• in DDR Holdings, the claims recite a specific way to automate the
creation of a composite Web page by an outsource provider that
1 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
8
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a
problem faced by Web sites on the Internet; whereas, claim 1 is drawn
to the application of principles outside the scientific realm-such as
principles related to commercial and business interaction (id. at 10).
The Examiner further points out that the Examiner's position is
bolstered by Appellants' remarks that claim 1 addresses the business
challenge of "rebranding a value in an account for a first merchant so that it
appears to the customer as an account branded for a second merchant and
indicating that the second merchant is responsible for customer service for
purchases made with the second-merchant branded stored-value account."
Id. at 10-11 (citing Amendment 5 (filed Jan. 3, 2017); see also Reply Br. 6-
8. We thus are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that providing a
computerized system for closed-loop stored value accounts and knowing
which party is responsible for an account after a purchase constitute a
technical solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Because claim 1 is drawn to a method for facilitating payment from a
branded stored-value account and does not provide specific improvements in
computer capabilities and a solution in the software arts, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, in the form of human
activity relating to commercial practices. This determination fulfills the first
step of the Alice framework in that we conclude claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Further, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. As explained above or further explained below, (a)
claim 1 does not provide specific improvements in computer capabilities or
functioning to other technology or technical fields, (b) the judicial exception
9
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
is not applied with, or by use of, a particular machine, ( c) claim 1 does not
effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing, ( d) claim 1 does not include additional features to ensure that the
claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a
meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the exception, ( e) claim 1 does not recite additional elements
that amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" ( or an
equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea
or other exception on a computer, and (f) claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 2
Appellants next contend that, when viewed as a whole, claim 1
provides a specific and discrete implementation for facilitating a payment.
Appeal Br. 17. Appellants argue that claim 1 is similar to the claims in
Bascom 3 because the limitations of claim 1 provide "something more" than
just "concepts involving human activity relating to commercial practices."
Id. at 18. As such, Appellants contend that "step 2B of the Alice test
confirms [claim 1 is] patent eligible." Id. at 15; see also Reply Br. 5.
2 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."
3 BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
10
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
Appellants' attempt to analogize claim 1 to the claims of Bascom is
unavailing. The Examiner advises that in Bascom, the Federal Circuit found
that the inventive concept as claimed is the installation of a filtering tool at
an ISP server, remote from the end-users, and a filter installed on a local
computer with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.
Ans. 8. As such, the particular arrangement in Bascom's claims involves the
filtering tools that provides a technical improvement. Id. at 8-9. In contrast,
the Examiner advises that claim 1 does not recite non-conventional or non-
generic arrangement of additional elements, and using a virtual account does
not make the arrangement of elements in claim 1 unique. Id. at 9. Thus, we
are not apprised of any error in the Examiner's position.
Appellants also contend that claim 1 is not attempting to tie up any
judicial exception so that others cannot practice it. Appeal Br. 15; see also
Reply Br. 4. However, as the Examiner points out, "although preemption
may be the concern driving the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent-
eligible subject matter, preemption is not the test for eligibility." Ans. 14
( citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 23 54 and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-23 which fall therewith, as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10---15, 18, and 21-23----0bviousness-Dessert/Yun
Claims 1--4, 7, 12, 14, 15, and 18
Appellants present the same arguments for independent claims 1 and
12. See Appeal Br. 18-21; Reply Br. 5---6. Appellants do not present
11
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
separate arguments directed to dependent claims 2--4, 7, 12, 14, 15, and 18.
Id. We thus regard claims 1--4, 7, 12, 14, 15, and 18 as being argued as a
group. We take claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2--4, 7,
12, 14, 15, and 18 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Dessert and Yun discloses
all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 12-15. Of particular significance in
this appeal, the Examiner finds that Dessert discloses a method for
facilitating payment from a branded stored-value account comprising: ( 1)
receiving, with a communications interface of a service provider system, a
confirmation that a stored-value account, branded for a first merchant,
contains a value; and (2) initiating, with the communications interface of the
service provider system, a display showing an amount in a virtual account as
a branded stored-value account for a second merchant. Id. at 12-13 (citing
Dessert Figs. 2, 8A, 9-15, 19C; paras. 4, 7, 38, 53, 56-59, 60-63). The
Examiner points out that Dessert discloses: (1) "the recipient client device
102B may be provided with the capability of exchanging stored value
accounts 142 associated with various different merchants 120"; and (2) "the
recipient client device 102B may take all or some of the value of a first
stored value account 142 associated with a first merchant 120 in order to
purchase and/ or fund a second stored value account associated with a second
merchant 120 which is different from the first merchant 120." Id. at 13
( quoting Dessert para. 53). The Examiner acknowledges that Dessert does
not disclose indicating that a second merchant is responsible for customer
service for purchases made with a second-merchant branded stored-value
account. Id. at 14. The Examiner finds, however, that Dessert discloses
providing billing statements. Id. ( citing Dessert para. 7 6). The Examiner
12
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
reasons that because a billing statement includes a merchant identifier, it
would have been obvious to modify the method for facilitating payment
from a branded stored-value account of Dessert to include an indication that
a second merchant is responsible for customer service for purchases made
with a second-merchant branded stored-value account, for the benefit of
keeping customers with the business. Id. at 14--15.
Appellants contend that Dessert "does not disclose branding or
rebranding the account to indicate the merchant who is responsible for
customer service for purchases made with the branded or rebranded stored-
value account (without transferring funds between the merchants)." Appeal
Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive. We first note that claim 1
does not exclude a transferring of funds between merchants. We further
note that the Specification does not provide a special definition for
"branding." See Spec.,passim. The term "branding" is defined as "[t]he
marketing practice of creating a name, symbol or design that identifies and
differentiates a product from other products."4 As such, anything that
identifies and differentiates a product from other products, including a name
of a merchant, constitutes "branding." Figures 14 and 15 of Dessert disclose
exchanging a gift card of Merchant #7 for a gift card of Merchant #2. See
Dessert, Figs. 14--15. Thus, as there is a change in the name or identification
of the merchant in relation to a particular account, i.e., the account of
4 See https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/branding (last accessed
Nov. 27, 2018)
13
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
Merchant #7 to Merchant #2, Dessert discloses branding or rebranding an
account. See Ans. 16-1 7.
As to the limitation "indicating that the second merchant is
responsible for customer service for purchases made with the second-
merchant branded stored-value account," the Examiner acknowledges that
Dessert does not disclose this limitation. Appellants do not explain why the
Examiner's modification of the method of Dessert to include this limitation,
for the benefit of keeping customers with the business, lacks rational
underpinning. See Ans. 18.
Thus, none of Appellants' contentions apprise us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 12, 14, 15, and 18 as
being unpatentable over Dessert and Yun.
Claims 10 and 21
Claims 10 and 21 recite "the request to make the payment using the
value from the first-merchant-branded stored-value account at the second
merchant is an automatic request based on geolocation information."
Appeal Br. ii, iv (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that paragraph 178 of Dessert discloses this
limitation. Final Act. 15-16.
Appellants contest this finding. Appeal Br. 20-21. We agree with
Appellants that although paragraph 178 of Dessert discloses associating
discount rates based on the relative location of a recipient client device, there
14
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
is no disclosure of "an automatic request based on geolocation information,"
as claimed. See id.
We thus do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 21 as being
unpatentable over Dessert and Yun.
Claims 11 and 22
Claim 11 recites "the display showing the amount in the virtual
account as a branded stored-value account for the second merchant also
shows contact information for the second merchant" and claim 22 includes a
similar limitation. Appeal Br. ii, iv (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that although Dessert discloses a display showing
an amount in a virtual account as a branded stored-value account for a
second merchant, Dessert does not disclose showing contact information for
the second merchant. Final Act. 16. The Examiner, however, reasons that it
would have been obvious to modify the method of Dessert to include
showing contact information for the second merchant, for the advantage of
providing customer service benefits. Id.
Appellants point out that claims 11 and 22 require showing contact
information for the second merchant and that because of their dependencies,
claims 11 and 22 also require branding or rebranding the account to indicate
the merchant is responsible for customer service for purchases made with the
branded or rebranded stored-value account (without transferring funds
between the merchants), as discussed supra for parent claims 1 and 12.
Appeal Br. 21-22; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
These arguments are unpersuasive. First, the Examiner acknowledges
that Dessert does not disclose showing contact information for the second
merchant and Appellants do not explain why the Examiner's modification of
15
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
the method of Dessert to include this limitation, for the advantage of
providing customer service benefits, lacks rational underpinning. See Ans.
19. Second, as explained supra, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
contention that Dessert fails to disclose branding or rebranding the account
as required for claims 1 and 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 22 as being
unpatentable over Dessert and Yun.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites "the request to enable a payment is initiated by the
second merchant." Appeal Br. iii (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Dessert discloses this limitation because
Dessert discloses purchasing items from a second merchant. Final Act. 16-
17.
Appellants contest this finding. Appeal Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 8
(noting that the payment would use the value from the first-merchant-
branded stored account).
We agree with the Examiner that the method of Dessert would
necessarily require an initiation by the second merchant when a later
purchasing is from the second merchant. See Ans. 19. Further, because
Figures 14 and 15 of Dessert disclose exchanging a gift card of Merchant #7
for a gift card of Merchant #2, the payment would thus use the value from
the first-merchant-branded stored account. See Dessert Figs. 14--15.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 13 as being
unpatentable over Dessert and Yun.
16
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites "displaying, on the display of the mobile device, the
amount in the first merchant-branded stored-value account with a first skin
for the first merchant" and "on the display of the mobile device, the amount
in the virtual account as the branded stored-value account for the second
merchant comprises displaying a second skin for the second merchant."
Appeal Br. iv (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that Dessert does not disclose these limitations.
Appeal Br. 22-23; see also Reply Br. 8-10.
However, as the Examiner explains, Figure 8A of Dessert discloses
displaying a first appearance for a first merchant and the merchant
identification and balance value are unique for each merchant. Ans. 20. In
other words, when Figure 8A shows the identification and balance value for
a second merchant, then Dessert discloses displaying a second skin for the
second merchant.
Thus, Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 23 as being unpatentable over Dessert and
Yun.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17----0bviousness-Dessert/Yun/Lamarche
Claims 8, 9, 19, 20----0bviousness-Dessert/Yun/Zacarias
For dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, and 20, Appellants do not
provide any substantive arguments and thus rely on the same arguments as
those presented for parent claims 1 and 12. Appeal Br. 18-23; Reply Br. 5-
10. As Appellants do not apprise us of any error in the rejection of claims 1
and 12, we, accordingly, sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 over
17
Appeal2018-002938
Application 14/450,043
Dessert, Yun, and Lamarche, and sustain the rejection of claims 8, 9, 19, and
20 over Dessert, Yun, and Zacarias, for the same reasons as for claims 1 and
12.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 11-15, 18, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Dessert and Yun is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dessert and Yun is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dessert, Yun, and Lamarche is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Dessert, Yun, and Zacarias 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).
AFFIRMED
18