Fooji LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2022

2021002382 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/159,364 05/19/2016 Gregg Alan Morton AMK-6312-2 4364 23117 7590 01/21/2022 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER CAI, LANCE Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/21/2022 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREGG ALAN MORTON and ERIK MICHAEL ZAMUDIO ____________ Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fooji, Incorporated (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to an order and delivery system for products and services that allows customers to order using the emoji character set (Spec. para. 3). Claim 1, reproduced below with the italics added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of processing an order for a product or service over a global network, the method comprising: (a) a system server establishing a platform for a user to place a request order for the product or service; (b) the system server providing a vehicle for the user to deposit an emoji character that constitutes completion of the request order for delivery of the product or service; (c) the system server mapping the emoji character to the product or service; and (d) the system server generating a fill order for the product or service and communicating the fill order to a provider, the system server directing the provider to fulfill the fill order without further input from the user, wherein step (d) is practiced by the system server randomly selecting the product or service from the provider for fulfillment in response to the user depositing the emoji character in step (b) and the mapping in step (c). Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference Date Drew US 2012/0209643 A1 Aug. 16, 2012 Havas US 2013/0317921 A1 Nov. 28, 2013 Taylor US 2015/0088650 A1 Mar. 26, 2015 Zamer US 2016/0300184 A1 Oct. 13, 2016 Lo, Too Hangry to Think? The Hangry App Will Suggest a Random Order for You on the Spot, The Daily Meal (Jan. 2015) (https:/ /web.archive.org/web/20150122220224/http:/ /www.thedailymeal.com/news/eat/toohangry- think-hangry-app-will-suggest-random-order-you-spot/11515) The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to show possession of the claimed invention. 2. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. 3. Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas and Lo. 5. Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas, Lo, and Taylor. 6. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas, Lo, Taylor, and Zamer. 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas, Lo, Taylor, and Drew. Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 4 8. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas and Taylor. 9. Claims 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Taylor, Havas, and Lo. 10. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Taylor, Havas, Lo, and Zamer. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) The Examiner has determined that the Specification fails to provide support for fulfilling and generating an order to complete delivery of the product or service “without further input from the user” as recited in claims 1, 11, and 14 (Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 45). The Examiner has also determined that with respect to claim 11 that the Specification fails to provide support for requesting delivery of a product or service “solely” by depositing an emoji character (Non-Final Act. 7; Ans. 4). In contrast, the Appellant argues with respect to claim 1 that support is provided for the above recitations in the Specification in paragraphs 20, 25, Figure 1 (steps S2-S6), and Figures 2A-2H (Appeal Br. 11, 12). The 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 5 Appellant argues with respect to claim 11 that support is further provided for the above recitations in paragraphs 6, 18, 20, 21, and 42 of the Specification (Appeal Br. 12, 13; Reply Br. 11-13). We agree with the Appellant. Here, support for fulfilling and generating an order to complete delivery of the product or service “without further input from the user” as recited in claim 1 is provided in the Specification at paragraph 20, and Figure 1 at steps S2-S6. The Specification also provides support for requesting delivery of a product or service by depositing an emoji character as recited in claim 11 at paragraphs 20, 25, and 42 as well as at Figure 1 (steps S2-S6). Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 14 and their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to show possession of the claimed invention is not sustained. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 14-16, and 19 The Examiner has determined claim 1 is indefinite because the limitation “wherein step (d) is practiced by the system server randomly selecting the product or service from the provider for fulfillment in response to the user depositing the emoji character in step (b) and the mapping in step (c)” is unclear as to how a product or service is selected at random in response to a mapping (Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 5-7). In contrast, the Appellant submits that the emoji character identifies a “product type or service type” and that the server then randomly selects the product or service and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed (Appeal Br. 13, 14). Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 6 We agree with the Appellant. Here, the Specification provides support for the cited claim limitation at paragraph 22, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed with regard to the above cited limitation. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 10 is not sustained. The Examiner has determined that claim 14 is indefinite for a similar reason to claim 1 in determining that the recitation for “the system server generating an order to deliver the product or service based on the information retrieved from the system server by randomly selecting the product or service in response to the user depositing the emoji character” is unclear (Non-Final Act. 9, 10; Ans. 5-6). Similar to claim 1 addressed above, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is being claimed in this cited recitation. Accordingly, this rejection of claim 14 and its dependent claims 15, 16, and 19 is not sustained. Claims 9 and 18 The Examiner has determined that the limitation in claim 9 for “enabling the user to input user preferences for the product or service, wherein step (d) is practiced according to the user preferences” is unclear as the claim depends from claim 1 which requires “(d) the system server generating a fill order . . . without further input from the user” (Non-Final Act. 9; Ans. 6, 7). In contrast, the Appellant argues that the cited claim limitation is not indefinite (Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 2). We agree with the Appellant. Here, the above cited claim limitation is not indefinite and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 7 being claimed. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that what is being claimed is that the user could “input user preferences” and after a series of steps that the order could be filled “without further input from the user” and the metes and bounds of the claim are not unclear or indefinite. For this reason, this rejection of claim 9 is not sustained. The Examiner similarly had determined that claim 18 is indefinite in light of the limitation for “enabling the user to input user preferences for the product or service, wherein the step of generating the order is practiced according to the user preferences” (Non-Final Act. 10; Ans. 67). The Appellant has argued that this limitation is not indefinite (Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 2). We agree with the Appellant. Here in manner to the similar language addressed in regard to claim 9 above, it is clear what is being claimed and the claim is not indefinite. Accordingly, this rejection of claim 18 is not sustained. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the claim is not directed to an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 15). The Appellant argues further that the claim is integrated into a practical application (Appeal Br. 15, 16; Reply Br. 2). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Non-Final Act. 10-15; Ans. 78). We agree with the Examiner. 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 Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 8 phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’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 217-18 (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. Kappos, 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 (Gottschalk v. 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 water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 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 Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 9 mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also 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 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. (internal citation omitted) (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.”). In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the 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 human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” (see Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019 (June 2020))). 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: Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 10 (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 Guidance. If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn 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 (citation 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. (alterations in original) (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 Specification states that the invention generally relates to an order and delivery system for products and services that allows customers to order using the emoji character set (Spec. para. 6). Here, the Examiner has determined that the claim sets forth a mental process and abstract idea (Non- Final Act. 13). We substantially agree with the Examiner. We determine that the claim sets forth the subject matter in italics above which describes the concept of: (1) “establishing a platform for a user to place a request order for the product or service”; (2) “providing a vehicle for the user to deposit an emoji character that constitutes completion of the request order for delivery of the product or service”; (3) “mapping the emoji character to the product or service”; and (4) “generating a fill order for the Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 11 product or service and communicating the fill order to a provider, the system server directing the provider to fulfill the fill order without further input from the user”; which is a method for determining to deliver an order after receiving a confirmation of an order which is a method of organizing human activities or a mental process, i.e., a judicial exception. A method, like the claimed method, “a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. For Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea). We next determine whether the claim recites additional elements in the claim to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. The Revised Guidance references the MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)-(h). Here, the claims do not improve computer functionality, improve another field of technology, utilize a particular machine, or effect a particular physical transformation. Rather, we determine that nothing in the claims imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. For example, in the claim, the additional elements beyond the abstract idea are the recited “system server,” “emoji”. These additional elements are described in the Specification as generic computer components (Spec. paras. 19, 21, 30). The claimed limitations of the server “establishing,” Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 12 “providing,” “mapping,” “generating a fill order,” and “communicating the fill order,” as recited “do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself,” do not improve the technology of the technical field, and do not require a “particular machine.” Rather, they are performed using generic computer components. Further, the claim as a whole fails to effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The recited steps in the claim fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the judicial exception. In this case, the claim merely uses the claimed computer elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Considering the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” the functions performed by the computer system at each step of the process are purely conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. Thus, the claimed elements have not been shown to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as set forth in the Revised Guidance which references the MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h). Turning to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, we determine that the claim does not contain an inventive concept sufficient to “transform” the abstract nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Considering the claim both individually and as an ordered combination fails to add subject matter beyond the judicial exception that is not well- understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Rather the claim uses well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the art and they are recited at a high level of generality. The Specification at paragraphs 30-40 for example describes using conventional computer Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 13 components such as a processing system, computer media devices, monitors, and displays in a conventional manner. The claim specifically includes recitations for a server to implement the method but the computer components are all used in a manner that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Here, the claimed generic computer components which are used to implement the claimed method are well understood, routine, or conventional in the field. In this case, the claim has not been shown to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea. For these above reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The same arguments have been presented for the remaining rejected claims which are drawn to similar subject matter and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 1-5 and 7-10 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas and Lo is improper because the references have been improperly combined and the combination would not have been obvious (Appeal Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 3). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited rejection is proper (Non-Final Act. 16-19; Ans. 8, 9). We agree with the Appellant. Here, Havas at Figures 2 and 3 discloses a method for submitting a food order remotely in response to receiving a selection from the customer with a customization item. In the Lo reference, the customer tells the app their cuisine preference, and then a restaurant, and menu items are randomly chosen for the customer. Here, Lo Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 14 provides a random menu, but the reference does not specifically disclose that Lo also selects a particular product from the menu. Further, in Lo, the customer has the option to “press again” if they don’t like the menu that is provided so the selection is not entirely randomly selected for fulfillment (Lo, 1). Here, the cited combination of Havas and Lo lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to sustain a conclusion of obviousness and the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. The rejections of dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 which depend from claim 1 fails to cure the deficiencies of the base rejection and the rejections of these claims are not sustained. Claims 11-13 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas and Taylor is improper (Appeal Br. 19, 20). The Appellant argues that the claim recites that the system server maps the emoji character to a product or service type and that the system server selects the product or service without additional input from the user and that the cited reference of Havas fails to disclose this (Appeal Br. 19). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited rejection is proper and that the argued claim limitations are disclosed by Havas (Non- Final Act. 26-28; Ans. 10). We agree with the Appellant. Claim 11 requires “enabling a user device . . . to request delivery of a product type or service type solely by depositing an emoji character”; then “mapping the emoji character to the product type or service type,” and then “selecting a product or service of the product type or service type without additional input from the user.” In Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 15 contrast, in Havas the food item is selected by the customer and an icon is generated from that selection (Fig. 2, S110). Thus, in the citations to Havas the user does not request delivery of a product type or service solely by depositing an emoji as a user selection must first be made. The rejection does not rely on Taylor to disclose the argued claim limitations. Regardless, the rejection also lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to sustain a conclusion of obviousness and the rejection of independent claim 11 and its dependent claims thus is not sustained. Claims 14-16, 18, and 19 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Taylor, Havas, and Lo is improper (Appeal Br. 20, 21; Reply Br. 4). The Appellant argues that the claim requires mapping an emoji to a service, with the system randomly selecting a product or service in response to the user depositing an emoji character, and that the combination is improper (Appeal Br. 20, 21). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Non-Final Act. 30-35; Ans. 10, 11). We agree with the Appellant. Here, the claim requires that the “user . . . deposit an emoji character via the social media account that constitutes completion of the order for the product or service”; that in response the “system server mapping the emoji character to a product or service,” and “randomly selecting the product or service in response to the user depositing the emoji character without further input from the user.” Taylor discloses a system and method for making online purchases in a social network environment (Taylor Abstr.). Havas at Figures 2 and 3 discloses a method Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 16 for submitting a food order remotely in response to receiving a selection from the customer with a customization item. In Lo, the customer tells the app their cuisine preference, and a restaurant and menu items are randomly chosen for the customer. Here, Lo provides a random menu, but the reference does not specifically disclose that Lo also selects the product from the menu. Further, in Lo, the customer has the option to “press again” if they don’t like the menu provided so the selection is not entirely randomly selected for fulfillment. Here, the cited combination of Taylor, Havas, and Lo lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to sustain a conclusion of obviousness and the rejection of claim 14 and its dependent claims 18 and 19 is not sustained. With regards to dependent claims 15 and 16, the cited reference of Zamer fails to cure the deficiency of the rejection of the base claim and the rejection of these claims is not sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to show possession of the claimed invention. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-10, 14-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite. We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 17 We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas and Lo. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas, Lo, and Taylor. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas, Lo, Taylor, and Zamer. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas, Lo, Taylor, and Drew. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Havas and Taylor. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Taylor, Havas, and Lo. We conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Taylor, Havas, Lo, and Zamer. Appeal 2021-002382 Application 15/159,364 18 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-16, 18, 19 112 (a) Written Description 1-5, 7-16, 18, 19 1-5, 7-10, 14-16, 18, 19 112 (b) Indefiniteness 1-5, 7-10, 14-16, 18, 19 1-5, 7-16, 18, 19 101 Eligibility 1-5, 7-16, 18, 19 1 103 Havas, Lo 1 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 103 Havas, Lo, Taylor 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 4, 5 103 Havas, Lo, Taylor, Zamer 4, 5 8 103 Havas, Lo, Taylor, Drew 8 11-13 103 Havas, Taylor 11-13 14, 18, 19 103 Taylor, Havas, Lo 14, 18, 19 15, 16 103 Taylor, Havas, Lo, Zamer 15, 16 Overall Outcome 1-5, 7-16, 18, 19 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED