Ex Parte FAITELSON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

13562711 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/562,711 07/31/2012
26530 7590 02/04/2019
LADAS & PARRY LLP
224 SOUTH MICHIGAN A VENUE
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60604
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yakov FAITELSON
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.
CU-9864BSE 1024
EXAMINER
VOSTAL, ONDREJ C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
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):
ChicagoUSPTO@ladas.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AKOV F AITELSON, OHAD KORKUS,
OPHIR KRETZER-KATZIR, and DAVID BASS 1
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-30, all of the claims pending in the application. Non-Final
Act. 2; App. Br. 10. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Varonis Systems, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief, filed January 3,
2018 ("App. Br."); the Non-Final Office Action, mailed August 3, 2017
("Non-Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed February 23, 2018
("Ans."); and the Specification, filed July 31, 2012 ("Spec."). Rather than
repeat the Examiner's findings and determinations and Appellants'
contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants state that "[t]he present invention relates generally to email
distribution list membership governance systems and methods." Spec. ,r 5.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, and 27 are independent. App. Br. 17-23 (Claims
App 'x). Claims 2-6 depend directly from claim 1, claims 8-10 depend
directly from claim 7, claims 12-16 depend directly from claim 11, claims
18-20 depend directly from claim 17, claims 22-26 depend directly from
claim 21, and claims 28-30 depend directly from claim 27. Id. at 17-24.
Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative.
1. A computer-implemented method for controlling email
distribution list membership in an enterprise email system hosted
on an email server, said method comprising the steps of:
monitoring and collecting continuously updated
information regarding access to email distribution lists hosted on
said email server by members of said email distribution lists, said
access to an email distribution list comprising at least email
correspondence of a first member of said distribution list with at
least a second member of said distribution list;
ascertaining that a particular member of at least one of said
email distribution lists has not corresponded with any other
member of said at least one of said email distribution lists via
email for a predetermined period of time; and
responsive to said ascertaining, at least one of
recommending revoking membership of said particular member
to said at least one of said email distribution lists and
automatically revoking membership of said particular member
to said at least one of said email distribution lists, thereby
revoking said permissions of said particular member to
correspond with at least one other member of said email
distribution list via email communication with said at least one
of said email distribution lists.
Id. at 17 (differentiating limitations of claim I emphasized).
2
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
7. A computer-implemented method for controlling email
distribution list membership in an enterprise email system hosted
on an email server, said method comprising the steps of:
monitoring and collecting continuously updated
information regarding access to email distribution lists hosted on
said email server by users of said email system, said access to an
email distribution list comprising at least email correspondence
of a user of said email system with at least one member of said
distribution list;
ascertaining that a particular user of said email system has
regularly corresponded with at least one other member of at least
one of said email distribution lists via email during a
predetermined period of time; and
responsive to said ascertaining, at least one of
recommending granting membership to said particular user to
said at least one of said email distribution lists and automatically
granting membership to said particular user to said at least one
of said email distribution lists, said email distribution list
membership comprising permissions to correspond with at least
one other member of said email distribution list via email
communication with said at least one of said email distribution
lists.
Id. at 18-19 ( differentiating limitations of claim 7 emphasized).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
pending claims:
Name
Marcjan et al.
("Marcj an")
Pat./Publ. No.
US 8,234,374 B2
3
Issue/Publ. Date
July 31, 2012;
Nov. 10, 2005
Filing Date
Apr. 26, 2004
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
Horvitz et al.
("Horvitz")
Ahmed et al.
("Ahmed")
US 7,644,144 Bl
US 6,704,772 Bl
Jan. 5,2010 Dec. 21, 2001
Mar. 9, 1999 Sept. 20, 1999
Claims 1-30 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent ineligible subject matter. App. Br. 10. Claim 1-30 also
stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as rendered obvious
over the combined teachings of Marcjan, Horvitz, and Ahmed. Id.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017).
ANALYSIS
A. Issues
1. Does the Examiner err in finding that "the claims do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception"? Non-Final Act. 4.
2. Does the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of
Marcjan, Horvitz, and Ahmed teach or suggest "ascertaining that a
particular member of at least one of said email distribution lists has
not corresponded with any other member of said at least one of
said email distribution lists via email for a predetermined period of
time," as recited in claim 1? See id. at 1 7 ( emphasis added); see
also id. at 18 (Claim App., claim 7: "ascertaining that a particular
user of said email system has regularly corresponded with at least
4
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
one other member of at least one of said email distribution lists via
email during a predetermined period of time" ( emphasis added)).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
Appeal Brief arguments that the Examiner has erred.
B. Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
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 Bankint'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. at 217-218 ( 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." 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 219-220; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--595 (1978));
and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
5
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
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, 267-268 (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
U.S. 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; 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 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
6
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
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. 212.
1. Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The Office recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 51 (Jan. 7, 2019). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the
claim recites:
(1) Step 2A - Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human interactions, such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) Step 2A-Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP3
§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 4
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 All Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) citations herein are to
MPEP Rev. 08.2017, January 2018.
4 We acknowledge that some of the considerations at Step 2A, Prong Two,
properly may be evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of the Office
guidance). For purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the
Office, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of the Office
guidance). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55 n. 25, 27-32.
7
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are 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 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 56 ("Step 2B: If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate
Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept").
2. Examiner's §101 Rejection-Alice/Mayo Steps 1 and 2
a. Guidance Step 2A - Prong One
Applying step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21 and 27 are directed to the abstract
idea of "monitoring and collecting continuously updated
information", "ascertaining", "response to ascertaining", and
"thereby revoking". [5J This describes the collection, identifying
( According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, "ascertain" is
defined as "to find out or learn with certainty." An automation
of a typical manual server step of identifying users to remove
form a communication/buddy/distribution list.), generating and
communicating (According to Merriam-Webster dictionary,
"thereby" is defined as "by that means" and "connected with or
with reference to that." "Thereby" is an intended result of
5 Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite "revoking" membership in an email distribution
list, and claims 7, 17, and 27 recite "granting" such membership. App.
Br. 17-23 (Claims App'x). Although the Examiner refers only to
"revoking," in view of the Examiner's listing of each independent claim, we
understand the identification of the abstract idea to refer to both "revoking"
and "granting" membership.
8
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
removing a member from a distribution list and is not a specific
improvement or advancement of the claimed invention, see
MPEP 2111. 04.) that are similar to the generic functions found
by the courts to be abstract ideas ( e.g., "we have found that
'merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information, without more ( such as identifying a
particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of
such collection and analysis."' [Fairwarning IP, LLC vs. Latric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]). Thus the
claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Non-Final Act. 6-7 (emphasis added).
Further, the Examiner finds that these claims describe,
the collection, identifying, generating and communicating that
are similar to the generic functions found by the courts to be
abstract ideas ( e.g., "[T]hough lengthy and numerous, the claims
do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display
of available information in a particular field, stating those
functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical
means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance
over conventional computer and network technology" [ Electric
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2016)]). Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 7.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's identification of the abstract
idea or that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See App. Br. 12-13.
Thus, we are persuaded the claims are directed to"[ c ]ertain methods of
organizing human activity ... managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions)." 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (emphasis added).
b. Guidance Step 2A - Prong Two
Applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes:
9
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
the "computer implemented," "email server" and "a computer"
recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. The examiner states that there is no indication that
the combination of the elements/steps improve the functioning of
a computer or improve any other technology. Their collective
functions merely provide conventional computer
implementation.
Ans. 5.
("With respect to the claim as a whole"); see Non-Final Act. 8 ("Taking the
claim elements separately"). As the Examiner argues, revoking or granting
membership in a distribution list based on a level of participation is not a
technological solution to a technological problem, just as removing a past
recipient from a Christmas card mailing list, if that person no longer sends
cards, or adding a new address, when a card is received from an unexpected
sender, is not a technological solution to a technological problem. See Ans.
4--5; see also BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[i]t has been clear since
Alice that a claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is
directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
'significantly more' than that ineligible concept.").
Here, the additional elements recited in the claims and identified by
the Examiner do "no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception
to a particular technological environment or field of use." 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Specifically,
we determine claims 1 and 7 do not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
10
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See MPEP §§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h). Thus, we are persuaded that the
claims are directed to an abstract idea, rather than the integration of an
abstract idea into a practical application.
c. Guidance Step 2B
Further applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner
further concludes:
Claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21 and 2 7, which merely require
generic "an email server", "a non-transitory, tangible computer-
readable medium", "monitoring and collecting continuously
updated information", "ascertaining" and "revoking
membership" fail to transform the abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention.
Taking the claim elements separately, these generic
computing elements are purely conventional. The claimed
computer elements of a computing device and a server are well-
understood, routine, conventional elements previously known to
the industry. In short, the claims do no more than require generic
computing elements to perform generic computer functions ( e.g.,
monitoring an collecting of update information regarding access
to email distribution/buddy/communication lists, recommending
revoking member to the distribution list, and thereby
revoking/control permissions of member to an email distribution
lists).
Non-Final Act. 8 (emphasis added).
11
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
Appellants do not contend that any of these elements is not "well-
understood, routine, conventional." See App. Br. 12-13. Rather, the case
law shows this "more" of "computers" and "memories" to be the epitome of
a well-understood, routine, conventional element/combination previously
known in the industry. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 ("[P]etitioner's ... media
claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.");
Fairwarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 ("Claims 15-17 ... add nothing more than
similar nominal recitations of basic computer hardware, such as 'a non-
transitory computer-readable medium with computer-executable
instructions' and a microprocessor."). Moreover, referring to Ahmed, for
example, each of these elements was well known in the field of "delivering
and organizing electronic messages" at the time of claimed invention.
Ahmed, 1:7-13, 7:9-19, Fig. 1; id. at 7: 19-22 ("Such networking
environments are commonplace in offices enterprise-wide computer
networks, intranets and the Internet."). Thus, we are persuaded that
considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional
elements recited in claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, and 27 do not amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The Examiner finds that the dependent claims also are directed to an
abstract idea and do not positively recite significantly more than the abstract
idea. Non-Final Act. 8-9. Consequently, those claims also are determined
to be patent ineligible. Id. Appellants do not argue any of the dependent
claims separately. App. Br. 12-13, 16. Thus, for the reasons set forth
above, the dependent claims fall with their base claims.
12
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
The Examiner did not err in finding the recited methods and systems
patent ineligible, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-30
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
C. Obviousness Over Marcjan, Horvitz, and Ahmed
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that Horvitz does
not expressly teach the limitation at issue, but finds that Horvitz in
combination with Marcjan teach this limitation. 6 See Non-Final Act. 11-12;
Ans. 5-7. The Examiner notes that Horvitz discloses, "'if communications
with a group member', 'drop off, 'the group member can be identified as a
group member that is to be deleted from the frequently communicated with
group'." Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Horvitz, 2:43-53). As the Examiner
notes,
Horvitz [does] not explicitly indicate ascertain whether there was
a communication between other members of the distribution list
for a predetermined amount of time features, but in an analogous
system that solves a similar problem Marcjan teach[ es]: . . .
("after monitoring activity of share space users over a designated
period of time, it can be determined that a user has not accessed
the share space or content during the prescribed time period"
[Marcjan,] col 5 lines 49-55).
Non-Final Act. 12.
6 See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,496 (CCPA 1961) ("where a rejection is
predicated on two references each containing pertinent disclosure which has
been pointed out to the applicant, we deem it to be of no significance, but
merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view
of B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference primary and the
other secondary.").
13
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
The Examiner finds, however, that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason to combine the teachings of Horvitz and Marcjan to
achieve the "ascertaining" step, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 13-14.
Appellants note that claim 1 recites, "ascertaining that a particular
member of an email distribution list has not corresponded with any other
member of the email distribution list via email for a predetermined period of
time." App. Br. 15. Further Appellants contend, "Marcjan merely discloses
determining that a user has not accessed the share space or content during
the predescribed time period. Marcjan does not teach ascertaining that a
user has not communicated with another user during a predetermined
amount of time." Id. Consequently, Appellants contend that
Id.
none of the prior art cited, either alone or in combination, show
or suggest the system of the present invention as recited in
claim 1 including, inter alia, "ascertaining that a particular
member of at least one of said email distribution lists has not
corresponded with any other member of said at least one of said
email distribution lists via email for a predetermined period of
time".
We disagree.
As the Examiner notes, referring to Figure 11, Horvitz discloses
if communications with a group member with whom
communications had occurred very frequently (e.g., ten times per
day) for the past year drop off to the point where they are no
longer considered a frequent communicator (e.g., at least once
per day), then the group member can be identified as a group
member that is to be deleted from the frequently communicated
with group. Furthermore, if a person updates their calendar to
indicate that they will not be attending a meeting with the user,
then the person can be dynamically removed from the group of
people with whom the user will meet. If the determination at
14
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
1060 is YES, then at 1065 the identified group member will be
deleted from one or more groups.
Horvitz, 28:47-59 (emphases added); see Ans. 5---6; see also id. at 12:49-51
(Group inclusion criteria may include "the time since the communicating
party last communicated through the system 100, the time left until [the]
deadline with which the communicating party must comply".); 30:40-42
(Group management functions can include "adding a member, removing a
member".). Thus, Horvitz teaches monitoring communication among group
members and adding and removing group members based on such monitored
communications.
Referring to Figure 9, Marcjan discloses, "[t]he process 900 can
involve monitoring at least one of the following: distribution lists, email
activity, content activity (within a database or share), personnel activity, and
database activity at 910." Marcjan, 9:60---63 (emphasis added); see Ans. 6.
Referring to Figures 8 and 9, Marcjan explains that its process may involve
monitoring "user interactions" and
data from such monitoring can be collected and analyzed to
determine if time period thresholds have been satisfied, for
example. Such thresholds can be applicable when determining
whether a period of inactivity by a user ( e.g., user has not
accessed content or received content or has been removed from
contact or distribution list or personnel structure) or by content
(e.g., content has no indication of activity during a set time
period). When a particular time threshold or period has been
satisfied and the pertinent activity or lack thereof has or has not
occurred, then the process 800 can suggest to the owner or
creator of the share space or content to adjust the access rights
accordingly at 830.
Marcjan, 9:45-56 (emphases added); see Ans. 6.
15
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
As noted above, Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Horvitz and Marcjan to achieve the recited methods and
systems. See App. Br. 13-16. Thus, we are persuaded that the combined
teachings of Horvitz and Marcjan teach continuous monitoring of user
communications and the adjustment of group membership based on that
activity monitored during predetermined time periods, as recited in claims 1
and 7.
Appellants also contend that the applied references fail to teach or
suggest public distribution lists "that are published as distribution group
objects in Active Directory Domain Services." App. Br. 16. Thus,
Appellants contend that "Horvitz does not disclose managing public
distribution lists published by an enterprise email system such as the
distribution lists of Microsoft Active Directory Domain Services." Id.
(emphasis omitted). Nevertheless, as the Examiner correctly notes, the
pending claims recite "email distribution lists," not "public" lists. Ans. 7.
We do not incorporate features of the distribution lists of Microsoft
Corporation's Active Directory Domain Services into the pending claims.
Id.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not shown error in
the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1, 7, 11, 17, 21, and 27. The dependent claims are not
argued separately, and the rejections of those claims are sustained for the
same reasons given for independent claims. See App. Br. 16.
16
Appeal2018-005339
Application 13/562,711
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as rendered obvious by the combined teachings ofMarcjan,
Horvitz, and Ahmed.
(3) Claims 1-30 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30.
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