Ex Parte Ng Tari et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

15004725 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/004,725 01/22/2016 Luis Babaji Ng Tari
115522 7590 09/19/2018
GE Global Research - SW COE
2623 Camino Road
Suite 500
San Ramon, CA 94583-9130
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.
260515-2 (G31.123C) 1023
EXAMINER
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
lori.e.rooney@ge.com
Loretta.Sandoval@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIS BABAJI NG TARI and ABRA MOITRA
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725 1
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm and designate this as a new ground of rejection under 37
C.F.R § 41.50(b).
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is General Electric
Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' described and claimed invention relates generally to
language processing systems and techniques for extracting ontological
information from a body of text. See Spec. ,r 1. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A system for extracting ontological information from a
body of text, said system comprising:
a processor and executable instructions accessible on a
non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed,
cause the system to perform operations comprising:
identify a phrase of a first type;
identify a subset of parsed sentences from a set of parsed
sentences based at least partially on the occurrence of the first
phrase of the first type within at least one parsed sentence of the
set of parsed sentences;
identify a subset of phrases of a second type from the
subset of parsed sentences based at least partially on grammatical
relationship of each phrase of the second type of the subset of
parsed sentences to the first phrase of the first type;
classify a first phrase of the second type in the subset of
phrases of the second type as an entity, thereby defining a first
entity;
classify a second phrase of the second type in the subset of
phrases of the second type as a property, thereby defining a first
property; and
identify a conceptual relationship between the first entity
and the first property based at least partially on grammatical
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed December 15, 2016
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 10, 2017 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed November 28, 2017 ("Ans.); and the original
Specification filed January 22, 2016 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
relationship of the first entity and the first property within a first
sentence; and
store the conceptual relationship as part of an ontological
database for later use by the system.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App.).
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-20 under§ 101
Applicable Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citation omitted).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. For
example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
3
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355-
57. The "directed to" inquiry asks not whether "the claims involve a patent-
ineligible concept," but instead whether, "considered in light of the
[S]pecification,[] 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.'" Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ( citations omitted). In that regard, we determine whether
the claims "focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea
and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claim is
not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it is considered patent eligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually
and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there are additional
elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
In other words, the second step is to "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."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The
prohibition against patenting an abstract idea "'cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
4
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
environment' or adding 'insignificant post solution activity."' Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation omitted).
Appellants' Arguments2
Appellants contend independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract
idea (i.e., "calculating and assigning values to sentences"), and the
Examiner's articulation is not representative of claim 1. See App. Br. 12-
14. Appellants also contend claim 1 is directed to an improvement to
computer technology and solves a technical problem in a technical way, and,
thus, under McRO, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. See App.
Br. 14--17. Appellants further contend that, even if the Board finds claim 1
is directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 is not patent-ineligible under Bascom
Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016) because claim 1 is directed to substantially more than an
abstract idea. See App. Br. 17-20. Appellants further contend the
Examiner's rejection has not established a prima facie case of ineligibility
because: (1) the Examiner's articulation of the alleged abstract idea is not
representative of claim 1; (2) the Examiner has not shown claim 1 is similar
to claims previously found abstract by a court; and (3) the Examiner has not
performed a sufficient Alice step two analysis. See App. Br. 20-22.
3 Regarding the majority of Appellants' arguments, Appellants treat
independent claim 1 as a representative claim. See App. Br. 12-22. In
addressing these arguments, we likewise consider claim 1 to be
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and, therefore, we
decide the rejection of claims 1-20 on the basis of representative claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Where Appellants also proffer separate
arguments regarding either independent claims 9 and 14, or any of the
dependent claims, we additionally address the respective claims accordingly.
See App. Br. 14, and 22-24.
5
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
Appellants also contend the Examiner has failed to address the details of the
dependent claims (which further define details of rules to extract meaning
from text, further define particular data structures used, or both), and thus,
the Examiner has failed to show the dependent claims are patent-ineligible.
See App. Br. 22-24.
Step One of Alice
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to a mathematical
calculation, which the Examiner indicates does not fall into one of the
enumerated four categories of patent-eligible subject matter recited in
35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter). See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds the
claims are directed to calculating and assigning values to sentences, which
the Examiner determines is an abstract idea. See Final Act. 2; see also
Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds as follows:
As to the Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, claims
1-20 are directed to identifying and classifying stored phrases,
which is a mathematical calculation/relationship (see
application, the identifying and classifying steps rely upon
probability calculations, as shown in para 0039-0043, wherein
the section of phrases are labeled with codes, and a
mathematical comparison is performed to determine the identity
(noun/verb, etc.) and classification; further see figure 3 showing
node trees that are used as the mathematical comparison
constructs; and fig 4, "normalization module"). Such
mathematical relationships have been deemed to be an
abstract idea (see Fed. Reg. Guidelines, Vol. 79, No. 241,
December 16th, 2014, [p. 74622], second column, bottom).
Examples of patent eligible claims, under the Step 2A test, can
be found in: Enfish v Microsoft Corp, (wherein the claims
pointed to a specific self -referential table effecting a particular
way of altering the physical storage memory - see Enfish, [pp.
12-14], with further guidance to software type steps effecting
6
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
the same result, does not 'doom the claims' -- see Enfzsh, [p. 16];
however, Enfish, reinforces the notion of claims that recite
mathematical formulas on a general purpose computer, are not
patent eligible -- see Enfish, [p. 17]) and McRO v Bandai et al,
wherein a "set of rules" previously performed by human
animators (non-calculation in nature) were now automated via a
computer (McRO, [pp. 24--25], and in contradistinction, Flook,
Bilski, and Alice performing computer automated processes in
the same way as previous methods). The current claimed steps
of identifying and [classifying], are mathematical calculations
(abstract idea) without similar steps found in Enfish or
McRO, and hence claims 1-20 are considered to be an
abstract idea, under the Step 2A of the Subject Matter
Eligibility Test.
Ans. 4 ( emphasis added).
Considering the focus of claim 1 as a whole, in view of Appellants'
Specification, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea. Consistent with the Examiner's reasoning, we find claim 1 is
directed to a system for extracting ontological information from a body of
text, the system comprising a processor and executable instructions
accessible on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the system
performing operations comprising: (1) identifying a phrase of a first type;
(2) identifying a subset of parsed sentences from a set of parsed sentences
based on the occurrence of the identified phrase of the first type within the
set of parsed sentences; (3) identifying a subset of phrases of a second type
from the subset of parsed sentences based on a grammatical relationship of
each phrase of the second type of the subset of parsed sentences to the
identified phrase of the first type; ( 4) classifying a first phrase of the second
type in the subset of phrases of the second type as an entity (i.e., a first
entity); (5) classifying a second phrase of the second type in the subset of
phrases of the second type as a property (i.e., a first property); (6)
7
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
identifying a conceptual relationship between the first entity and the first
property based on a grammatical relationship of the first entity and the first
property within a first sentence; and (7) storing the conceptual relationship
as part of an ontological database. App. Br. 25 (Claims App.). Independent
claims 9 and 14 are respectively directed to a non-transitory computer-
readable medium and method that recite similar functionality. See App.
Br. 27, 29 (Claims App.). The various recited functions of claim 1 amount
to identifying portions of a body of text, classifying the identified portions,
and storing the various classifications. We note that the recited functions
could be performed by a human with pen and paper. In that regard, our
reviewing court has held that "analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are]
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Electric
Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
( claims focus on the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis); see also SmartGene
Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims were directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter because they do no more than call on a "computing device,"
with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules).
"[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter." Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Regarding Appellants' argument that claim 1 is not directed to an
abstract idea, this argument is not persuasive. As previously described, the
8
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
various functions recited in claim 1 amount to identifying portions of a body
of text, classifying the identified portions, and storing the various
classifications. The recited functions could be performed by a human with
pen and paper, and, thus, constitute a mental process that courts have
previously held to be directed to an abstract idea. See Electric, 830 F.3d at
1353-54. Further, even Appellants' characterization of claim 1 as a method
of extracting ontological information from a body of text (see App. Br. 14),
can also be characterized as a process that can be performed by a human
with pen and paper. Thus, we do not find error with the Examiner's
characterization of claim 1 as an abstract idea.
Further, we are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
independent claims 9 and 14 are not directed to abstract ideas because the
claims respectively recite additional limitations. Claim 9 is similar to claim
1 and additionally recites outputting a conceptual relationship to a display
device for viewing by a user as a relation between a first entity and a first
property. However, displaying information, without more, does nothing
significant to differentiate a process from an ordinary mental process, which
has been previously held to be directed to an abstract idea. See Electric,
830 F.3d at 1355. Claim 14 is similar to claim 1 and additionally recites
outputting a conceptual relationship as an identified relation between a first
entity and a first property to an ontological database and displaying the
conceptual relationship to a display device for viewing by a user. However,
as previously described, storing and displaying information, without more,
does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an ordinary mental
process.
9
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
Regarding Appellants' argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims
at issue in McRO because claim 1 is directed to an improvement to computer
technology and solves a technical problem in a technical way, this argument
is also not persuasive. In McRO, the court held the claims were patent-
eligible because the claims recited specific computer-implemented rules that
allowed a computer to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and
facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be
produced by human animators. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. Although
Appellants argue claim 1 is directed to improving language processing
systems and extracting ontological information from text (see App. Br. 16),
claim 1 fails to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed
system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality.
Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the claim fails to recite the
improvement to the claimed system that Appellants argue the claim is
directed to.
Notwithstanding the fact we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments, we find error in the Examiner's reasoning in two respects: (1)
the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to a mathematical
algorithm; and (2) the Examiner's determination that the claims do not fall
into one of the enumerated four categories of patent-eligible subject matter
recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter). See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. Regarding (1 ), as
previously discussed, since the recited functions (i.e., identifying portions of
a body of text, classifying the identified portions, and storing the various
classifications) could be performed by a human with pen and paper, we
conclude the claims are directed to an idea of itself, such as a mental
10
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
process, rather than a mathematical calculation. Regarding (2), the question
of whether a claim is for a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter is a separate question than the question of whether a claim is directed
to an abstract idea. See e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
("MPEP") § 2106 - Patent Subject Matter Eligibility ("First, the claimed
invention must be to one of the four statutory categories .... Second, the
claimed invention also ... must not be directed to a judicial exception unless
the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to
significantly more than the exception."). Although the Examiner has shown
that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner has not shown
that the claims do not fall into one of the enumerated four categories of
patent-eligible subject matter.
Because we agree with the Examiner's ultimate determination that the
claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, we conclude that the
errors in the Examiner's reasoning do not warrant reversal of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, because our
analysis above differs from the Examiner's analysis, we designate our
affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Step Two of Alice
Regarding step two of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the
additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the
abstract idea per se amount to no more than a processor, memory, and non-
transitory computer readable storage media, which are mere recitations of
generic computer structure that perform generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
11
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
the pertinent industry. See Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 2-3. The Examiner
further finds as follows:
As to the Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the
additional element(s) or combination of elements in the
claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se:
the storing step of "store the conceptual relationship as part of
an ontological database for later use by the system"; and
"displaying the conceptual relationship to a display device for
viewing by a user" amount(s) to no more than a conventional
step of storing using a conventional storage element
(database), which is in a format of A) conventional
components; B) apply it; C) mere data gathering
steps/insignificant extrasolutional activity; D) intended use;
and, have been determined to be not significantly more (see
Fed. Reg. Vol. 79, No. 241, Dec. 16, 2014, p. 74624, 3rd
column); and hence, these extra elements do not qualify as
significantly more (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 79, No. 241, Dec. 16,
2014, p. 74624, 2nd column, for the significantly more test).
Further, looking at Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, the
claim scope was determined to organize observed data and
distribute the data to conventional displays, which was
considered to be not-significantly more. Viewed as a whole,
these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful
limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible
application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts
to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As examples
of claims, as a whole, that DO pass the "significantly more" test
(among others), examiner guides applicant's attention to
Bascom Global Internet Services v AT&T Mobility LLC, 119
USPQ2d, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Diehr (see Example 25).
Furthermore, the dependent claims contain further
mathematical equations/steps, as well as steps that are
considered conventional under step 2b (the storing step and
displaying steps), and do not resolve the patent eligibility of
the independent claims.
Ans. 4--5 ( emphasis added).
12
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed processor, memory,
database, and non-transitory computer-readable medium do not add
"significantly more" to the abstract idea because they are "no more than
generic computer components executing generic computer functions." See
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent in-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it' is not
enough for patent eligibility.") (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). We further
agree with the Examiner that the claimed storing of a conceptual relationship
and outputting of the conceptual relationship to a display device are merely
insignificant extra-solution activity which fails to represent significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. See Bilski, 561 U.S.at 610-11.
Appellants' argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims in Bascom,
is also not persuasive. The court in Bascom noted that an inventive concept
can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces. See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. However, the claims
here are distinguishable from those in Bascom. In Bascom, the system
claims were directed to a "content filtering system for filtering content
retrieved from an Internet computer network," which the court held were
directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1348--49. The court further held the
claims included an inventive concept in the ordered combination of system
components, including a local client computer and a remote ISP server
connected to the client computer and Internet computer network providing
for "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the
end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user."
Id. at 1350. Appellants have failed to establish that claim 1 includes a
13
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
similar or analogous arrangement or "ordered combination" of components,
and, instead, make only the conclusory statement that the recited set of rules
used to extract meaning from text are "non-traditional" and "improve the
functioning of the computer." App. Br. 20.
Prima Facie Case
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility.
Regarding Appellants' argument that the Examiner's articulation of the
alleged abstract idea is not representative of claim 1, and that the Examiner
has not performed a sufficient Alice step two analysis because the Examiner
has not addressed Bascom, these arguments have been previously addressed,
and thus, are not persuasive. Further, regarding Appellants' argument that
the Examiner has not shown claim 1 is similar to claims previously found
abstract by a court, this argument is also not persuasive, as the Examiner
cited previous court cases holding claims to be nothing significantly more
than abstract ideas, including Alice, Bilski, and Parker v. Flook,
437 U.S. 584 (1978). Even assuming arguendo that these citations to
previous court cases are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
ineligibility, our analysis has further shown that claim 1 is similar to claims
previously held by courts to be patent-ineligible as nothing significantly
more than abstract ideas in Electric, SmartGene, and Bancorp.
Dependent Claim 2
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claim 2 is
separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the claimed
parse tree database does not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea
because it is no more than a generic computer component executing generic
14
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
computer functions. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358. Further, the claimed
storing of a set of parsed sentences in the parse tree database is merely
insignificant extra-solution activity which fails to represent significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. See Bilski, 561 U.S.at 610-11.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 15
We further are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 3,
10, and 15 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellant's argument
that claims 3, 10, and 15 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules
recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to
recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an
operational improvement via the claimed functionality.
Dependent Claims 4 and 16
We additionally are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
claims 4 and 16 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants'
argument that claims 4 and 16 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules
recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to
recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an
operational improvement via the claimed functionality.
Dependent Claims 5 and 6
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 5 and
6 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants' argument that
claims 4 and 16 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules recited in the
claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to recite the
technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an
operational improvement via the claimed functionality.
15
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
Dependent Claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 17-20
We further are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 7,
8, 11-13, and 17-20 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants'
argument that claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 17-20 recite a set of rules that are
similar to the rules recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO,
the claims fail to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed
system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Given that our
analysis above differs from the Examiner's analysis, however, we designate
this a new ground of rejection.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence
relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the
matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. ...
16
Appeal2018-002860
Application 15/004, 725
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the
proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon
the same record ....
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
17