Ex Parte Vasinkevich

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

13785597 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/785,597 03/05/2013
89220 7590 12/04/2018
Antonio Papageorgiou
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP
125 Park Avenue
7th Floor
New York, NY 10017
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Vasinkevich
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.
6276-017 8467
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, MICHAEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
patents@msf-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL V ASINKEVICH
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUNG H. BUI, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-12, which are all the claims pending
in the application. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration. App.
Br. 18 (Claim App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Direct Markets
Services, L.L.C. App Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed March
23, 2016; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 26, 2016; Final
Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 21, 2015; and original
Specification ("Spec.") filed March 5, 2013.
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "computer implemented methods and
systems that provide a platform to assist companies in raising capital and for
investors to identify relevant opportunities for investment." Spec. ,r 7;
Abstract.
Claim I-the only independent claim on appeal- is representative of
the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device electronically networked
to a client device, an actionable order for primary securities from
the client device without specifying a primary issuer, the
actionable order comprising a query that can be accepted as a bid
for execution of a trade for the primary securities from primary
issuers that satisfy at least one variable associated with certain
characteristics of the primary issuers;
formatting, via the computing device, the actionable order
into formats compatible with one or more electronic market
platforms, the one or more electronic market platforms including
a plurality of networked electronic trading systems;
sending, via the computing device, the actionable order
into the one or more electronic market platforms;
maintaining, via the computing device, a database of
primary issuers able to sell the primary security on the one or
more electronic market platforms;
identifying, via the computing device, at least one primary
issuer that satisfies the query from the database of primary
issuers, the at least one primary issuer identified based on the at
least one variable; an
communicating, via the computing device, a system
message including the actionable order to the at least one primary
issuer for acceptance of the bid for execution.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3,
15.
(2) Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Millard et al. (US 2002/0007335 Al; published Jan. 17,
2002; "Millard"), Toffey (US 7,882,019 B2; issued Feb. 1, 2011), and
Conklin et al. (US 2009/0125428 Al; published May 14, 2009; "Conklin").
Final Act. 4--6.
(3) Claims 3-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Millard, Toffey, Conklin, and Lee et al., article entitled
"WKSis Have Shelf Registration Choices Beginning December 1, 2005,"
Securities Regulation & Law, BNA, Inc., published December 5, 2005
("Lee"). Final Act. 7-11.
ANALYSIS
35 USC§ 101: Claims 1-12
Patent eligibility is a question of law that is reviewable de nova.
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Patent-
eligible subject matter is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101 as follows:
[ w ]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
to the conditions and requirements of this title.
In interpreting § 101, the Supreme Court has emphasized that patent
protection should not preempt "the basic tools of scientific and technological
work." Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Mayo Collaborative
3
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012); Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). The rationale is that
patents directed to basic building blocks of technology would not "promote
the progress of science" under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 8, but, rather, would impede it. Accordingly, laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. US., 850 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2354).
In Alice, the Supreme Court has established an analytical two-step
framework previously set forth in Mayo "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," such as an
abstract idea. Id. If the claims are directed to eligible subject matter, the
inquiry ends. Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349; Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1339 (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).
4
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
"'[W]ell-understood, routine, [and] conventional activit[ies]' previously
known to the industry" are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into
patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ( quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 73).
In rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determines (1) these claims are directed to an abstract idea of "receiving an
actionable order for primary securities" which is a fundamental economic
practice identified by the Supreme Court in Alice and Bilski v. Kappas, 561
U.S. 593 (2010) and (2) the additional elements in the claims, whether taken
separately or in an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea, because (i) "the claims do no more than ... receiving
an actionable order for primary securities on a generic computer and
network system"; (ii) the "computer and market platform functions are
'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]' previously known to the
industry"; (iii) "the computer network, market platform, and client device
components of the method [ when viewed as an ordered combination] add
nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately,
and thus simply recite the concept of an actionable order for primary
securities"; and (iv) "[t]he claims do not purport to improve the functioning
of the computer, network, the market platform, and the client." Final Act.
14--17.
Alice/Mayo-Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Turning to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellant argues "the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea" because:
(1) "[t]he Examiner has not shown [by evidence] that
'receiving an actionable order' is a fundamental economic
practice";
5
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
(2) "[t]he claims also do not recite a basic concept that is similar to
an abstract idea previously identified by the courts"; and
(3) like DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245
(Fed. Cir. 2014), "the claimed invention provides a technical
solution that is 'rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks."'
App. Br. 12-13.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the
question of whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea under Alice step 1
is still a question of law. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d
1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( affirming the "conclusion that the claims in
these patents are directed to an abstract idea"); see also In re Wang, 737 F.
App'x 534, 535 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (unpublished). The Examiner is required to
characterize whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea under Alice step
1. However, because there is no single universal definition of an abstract
idea, the Examiner is asked "to examine earlier cases in which a similar or
parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); accordUSPTO
Memorandum, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (July 30, 2015),
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-
update.pdf (instructing Examiners that "a claimed concept is not identified
as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one concept that the courts
have identified as an abstract idea"). In this case, the Examiner did what
was required under the USPTO Memorandum, and characterized the claims
as required under Alice.
6
'
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
Appellant's Specification is directed to "computer implemented
methods and systems that provide a platform to assist companies in raising
capital and for investors to identify relevant opportunities for investment."
Spec. ,r 7; Abstract. Embodiments of Appellant's Specification, shown in
Figures 5 and 6B, describe a process of trading securities ( e.g., stocks or
bonds), as reproduced below:
PRESENT lNTERFAGE SCREEN ALLOWING USERS TO SUBMIT ORDER ll't FORM OF A QUERY v.,.
i
FlECEIVE ORl:1F.'8 IN FORM OF QUCH't /
"" IDENTIFY f'R!MARY ISSUER($) BASED ON QUERY V
!
------- 1620
---Fil TER $ET Or Pmt,,,tAR\' l$SUSRS
i
....... -~ ---- 1622
COMMUNICATE ORDER TD PRJMAAY ISSUER{S}
,·
'
------ ~624 N
Qf'FER ACCF-PTeO?
y
1• -· ~ ........
TRA!JE SECURfflf::S
Appellant's Figure 6B shows a process of receiving an order for
primary securities in the form of a query and communicating the order to
primary issuers for acceptance before trading the securities.
7
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
Receiving an actionable order for primary securities and
communicating the order to a primary issuer, via an electronic market
platform, for acceptance before trading the securities is a fundamental
business practice, like: (1) risk hedging in Bilski; (2) intermediated
settlement in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57; (3) verifying credit card
transactions in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); (4) guaranteeing transactions in buySAFE, Inc.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (5) distributing products
over the Internet in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir.
2014 ); ( 6) determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing
organization in Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306
(Fed. Cir. 2015); and (7) pricing a product for sale in OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Receiving an actionable
order for primary securities and communicating the order to a primary issuer
for acceptance before trading the securities, via an electronic market
platform is also a building block of a market economy. Thus, receiving an
actionable order for primary securities and communicating the order to a
primary issuer for acceptance before trading the securities, via an electronic
market platform, like risk hedging, intermediated settlement, and verifying
credit card transactions, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
Moreover, many of the steps recited in Appellant's claim 1 are only
abstract processes of collecting, storing, and analyzing information of a
specific content, e.g., actionable order for primary securities. Information,
as such, is intangible, and data analysis without more is also an abstract idea.
8
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437,451 n.12 (2007);
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972).
"[C]ollecting information, including when limited to particular content
(which does not change its character as information)," and "analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more," are "within the realm of abstract ideas." Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging,
Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Data in its ethereal,
non-physical form is simply information that does not fall under any of the
categories of eligible subject matter under section 101 ").
Lastly, with respect to Appellant's argument that the claims are
necessarily rooted in computer technology, we disagree. Appellant's claims
1-12 do not improve the performance of a computer or solve a problem
specific to computers or computer networks. Nowhere in Appellant's
Specification is there any description that receiving an actionable order for
primary securities and communicating the order to a primary issuer for
acceptance before trading the securities, via an electronic market platform,
would improve any computer technology or address any "problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks" similar to DDR, as
Appellant argues. App. Br. 13. As correctly recognized by the Examiner,
the claims only use a conventional, general purpose computer as a tool to
perform generic computer functions. Ans. 5. The focus of Appellant's
invention is not to improve the performance of computers, but to use
computers as a tool to implement business functions of receiving an
9
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
actionable order for primary securities and communicating the order to a
primary issuer for acceptance before trading the securities. Id.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1-12 are
directed to an abstract idea of "receiving an actionable order for primary
securities" which is a fundamental economic practice similar to those
identified by the Supreme Court in Alice and Bilski.
Alice/Mayo-Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
In the second step of the Alice inquiry, Appellant contends the claims
amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because: (1) "the claims
specify how interactions between market devices in a networked computing
environment are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that
overrides routine and conventional activities"; (2) "claim limitations recite a
specific application of process steps that improve the capabilities of
electronic trading systems for supporting a market stabilized financial
product"; and (3) the claims provide solutions "by structuring and formatting
the actionable order for acceptance as a bid for execution of a trade for
primary securities from primary issuers through electronic market
platforms" and, as such, "improve[] electronic trading capabilities of a
computer system for supporting an actionable order without specifying a
primary issuer." App. Br. 14--17.
We disagree. There is no evidence in the record to support
Appellant's contentions that an electronic trading system is improved in any
significant way beyond the abstract idea. Likewise, formatting an actionable
order compatible with an electronic market platform does not significantly
improve the platform or trading system beyond the abstract idea.
10
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
According to Alice, 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."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The most relevant Federal Circuit cases on point
include (1) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2014) and (2) Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841
F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Both involve business-centric inventions that
are similar to Appellant's invention.
In both DDR and Amdocs, the Federal Circuit opted to bypass Alice
step 1 in favor of step 2. In particular, the Federal Circuit found DDR 's
claims contain an "inventive concept" under Alice step 2 because DDR 's
claims (1) do not merely recite "the performance of some business practice
known from the pre-Internet world" previously disclosed in Bilski and Alice,
but instead (2) provide a technical solution to a technical problem unique to
the Internet, i.e., a "solution ... necessarily rooted in computer technology
in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks." DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Likewise, the Federal Circuit also
found Amdocs' claims contain a sufficient "inventive concept" because like
DDR, Amdocs' claims "entail[] an unconventional technological solution
( enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem
(massive record flows which previously required massive databases)" and
"improve the performance of the system itself." Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300,
1302.
In contrast to DDR and Amdocs, Appellant's invention does not
provide a technical solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet,
11
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
i.e., a "solution ... necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."
DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Nor does Appellant's invention entail, like Amdocs,
any "unconventional technological solution ( enhancing data in a distributed
fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously
required massive databases)" and "improve the performance of the system
itself." Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300, 1302. As such, we find no element or
combination of elements recited in Appellant's claim 1 that contains any
"inventive concept" or adds anything "significantly more" to transform the
abstract concept into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the additional elements recited in
Appellant's claim 1 ( e.g., a computing device, client device, electronic
trading systems, and database) do not transform the abstract idea into a
patent eligible invention. As our reviewing court has observed, "after Alice,
there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does
not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible." DDR, 773 F.3d at
1256 ( citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358).
Because Appellant's claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract
concept and does not recite something "significantly more" under the second
prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 USC§ 103(a): Claims 1-12
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds
the combination of Millard, Toffey, and Conklin teaches all the claim
12
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
limitations. Final Act. 4--6. In particular, the Examiner finds Millard
teaches a method comprising:
"receiving, by a computing device electronically networked to a
client device [ shown in Figure 1 ], an actionable order for primary
securities from the client device without specifying a primary
issuer, the actionable order comprising a query that can be
accepted as a bid for execution of a trade for the primary
securities from primary issuers that satisfy at least one variable
associated with certain characteristics of the primary issuers."
Final Act. 4 (citing Millard ,r,r 115, 200, 341-343).
Millard teaches a securities trading system, shown in Figure 1, for
enabling participants (people, institutions, and other entities) (typically
between principals, i.e., buyer and seller) to communicate and exchange
financial information, including buy, sell, and otherwise postings of offers to
transfer securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) via an electronic trading network.
Millard ,r,r 2-3, Fig. 1. Millard also teaches data transfer between devices is
"standards-based financial information delivery protocols such as FIX and
SWIFT, proprietary data formats such as TIB, and customizable formats
such as XML." Millard ,r 72.
Nevertheless, the Examiner relies on Toffey for teaching:
"formatting, via the computing device, the actionable order into
formats compatible with one or more electronic market
platforms, the one or more electronic market platforms including
a plurality of networked electronic trading systems."
Final Act. 5 (citing Toffey 8:7-19).
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings regarding Millard
and Toffey. App. Br. 4--9. In particular, Appellant acknowledges Millard's
Figures 17 A-17C show a search display for conducting a query for an
issuer. Id. at 5 (citing Millard ,r,r 199-200, Figs. 17 A-17C). However,
13
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
Appellant argues (1) Millard does not teach or suggest "receiving an
actionable order for primary securities from the client device without
specifying a primary issuer" as recited in claim 1, and (2) "Millard's query is
not 'a query that can be accepted as a bid for execution of a trade for the
primary securities from primary issuers'" as recited in claim 1. Id.
(emphasis added). According to Appellant, "Millard's query [only]
produces search results, illustrated in Fig. 18A and Fig. 18B, which show a
list [of] security offerings posted by an issuer in response to the query." Id.
at 5---6.
Appellant also acknowledges Toffey teaches an electronic trading
system "where a customer desiring to buy or sell financial instruments is
required to make direct inquiries to dealers for prices at which instruments
can be bought or sold," but argues neither Millard nor Toffey teaches or
suggests "formatting the actionable order into formats compatible with one
or more electronic market platforms" as recited in claim 1. Id. at 7.
Appellant further argues that, even if Toffey teaches data transfer in
compatible formats, "the Examiner [still] fails to explain how one of
ordinary skill in the art would ... format the presently claimed actionable
order into formats compatible with one or more electronic market platforms,
in an attempt to arrive at the presently claimed invention." Id. at 8.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Millard teaches
Appellant's claimed "receiving an actionable order for primary securities
from the client device without specifying a primary issuer" when a Member
posts "buy and sell offers for securities that can be responded to by all, or by
Member-selected, qualified Members." Millard ,r 75, Fig. 6. Offers to
14
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
acquire the security are listed under "Bid," and offers to sell are listed under
"Ask" as shown in Figures 6A---6B. If a Member clicks on their own Bid or
Ask offer, shown in Figures 6A---6B, the offer is displayed in an "Add
Listing" page and can be edited. Millard ,r,r 168-172. Contrary to
Appellant's argument, Millard's query, shown, for example, in Figures 5A-
5B, 8A-8B, 10, and 13A-13B, is considered as Appellant's claimed "query
that can be accepted as a bid for execution of a trade for the primary
securities from primary issuers" recited in claim 1. As recognized by the
Examiner, Toffey also teaches data transfer regarding transactions is
implemented using standardized or customized data formats, as disclosed by
Millard (i-f 72). Ans. 9-10 (citing Toffey 8:7-19).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1,
and its dependent claims 2--4 and 7-12, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and further recites "the actionable
order comprises a quantity of primary securities specified relative to a
quantity of corresponding previously outstanding, issued securities."
Appellant argues Millard does not teach or suggest "'bid' and 'ask'
offers with information including previously outstanding, issued securities."
App. Br. 10. We disagree. As correctly recognized by the Examiner,
Millard also teaches the size or number of shares, including editing of these
shares. Ans. 12 ( citing Millard ,r,r 172, 173, 192, 211 ).
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and further recites "receiving a limit
regarding a number of primary issuers to receive the actionable order,
wherein communicating the actionable order comprises communicating the
15
Appeal2017-004382
Application 13/785,597
actionable order to a number of primary issuers no more than specified by
the limit."
Appellant argues Millard does not teach or suggest this disputed
limitation. App. Br. 10. We also disagree, and adopt the Examiner's
explanations provided on pages 12-13 of the Examiner's Answer, i.e., the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "limit" encompasses a sub-set
of members. Ans. 12-13 (citing Millard ,r,r 199-200); see also Millard
i1202.
For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 5 and 6.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
§ 103.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 and§ 103.
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
16