International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2020

13930267 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020)

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.
13/930,267 06/28/2013 Pramod Anantharam IN920130080US1(790.196) 9806
89885 7590 06/04/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
BOUSTANY, JIHAD KAMAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRAMOD ANANTHARAM, RAJ GUPTA,
and BIPLAV SRIVASTAVA
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–20. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation, the assignee of record. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to extracting events and assessing their impact
on a transportation network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of assessing impact of an event on a transport
network, said method comprising:
utilizing at least one processor to execute computer code
configured for:
receiving, using the at least one processor, an event
notification provided in an identified format and containing
information associated with more than one event, wherein at least
one of the events of the more than one event affects at least one
target vehicle in the transport network, wherein the at least one
vehicle follows a predetermined route comprising a plurality of
stops in the transport network;
extracting, using the at least one processor, metadata for
each of the events from the event notification, the metadata
including at least one of:
event location information, event time information, and
event type information, wherein the extracting comprises:
comparing the event notification to a plurality of event
models, wherein each of the plurality of event models is
associated with an extraction pattern;
identifying the event model relevant to each of the events
contained within the event notification based upon a pattern of
the event notification; and
extracting the metadata for each of the events from the
event notification using the extraction pattern associated with the
event model;
converting, using the at least one processor, the event
notification provided in the identified format to a notification
having a predetermined format different from the identified
format by using the extracted metadata corresponding to an
event, from the more than one event, affecting the at least one
target vehicle;
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
3
determining, using the converted metadata, an estimated
impact of the event on the at least one target vehicle in the
transport network and storing the estimated impact of the event;
said determining comprising:
estimating, using the at least one processor, a delay with
respect to at least one stop in the plurality of stops for the at least
one target vehicle in the transport network; and
determining, using the at least one processor, a probability
of a delay occurring at the at least one stop, depending on one or
more events at the stop and a prior probability of a delay
occurring at the at least one stop; and
providing the stored estimated impact when information
associated with the at least one stop is requested by an
application accessed by a user.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zhao US 2004/0068364 A1 Apr. 8, 2004
Okude US 2006/0287818 Al Dec. 21, 2006
Horvitz US 2008/0004793 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
Scofield US 2011/0224898 Al Sept. 15, 2011
Brady US 9,846,902 B2 Dec. 19, 2017

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final
Act. 6.
Claims 1, 4, 6–12, 14, 15, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Okude, Brady, and Scofield. Final Act. 11.
Claims 2, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Okude, Brady Scofield, and Zhao. Final Act. 26.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Okude, Brady, Scofield, and Horvitz. Final Act. 32.
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
4
OPINION
Section 101
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. As permitted by 37
C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide this issue based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016).
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “the elements of
each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive concept,” “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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
The Patent Office has issued guidance about this framework. See 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
5
2019) (“2019 Eligibility Guidance”). Under the guidance, to decide whether
a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1)
recites an abstract idea grouping listed in the guidance and (2) fails to
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. If the claim is “directed to” an
abstract idea, as noted above, we then determine whether the claim recites an
inventive concept. The 2019 Eligibility Guidance explains that when making
this determination, we should consider whether the additional claim
elements add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply
append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry.” 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
With these principals in mind, we turn to the Examiner’s § 101
rejection.
Abstract Idea
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 1, the claimed method includes the
following limitations, emphasized in italics:
receiving, using the at least one processor, an event
notification provided in an identified format and containing
information associated with more than one event, wherein at
least one of the events of the more than one event affects at least
one target vehicle in the transport network, wherein the at least
one vehicle follows a predetermined route comprising a plurality
of stops in the transport network;
extracting, using the at least one processor, metadata for
each of the events from the event notification, the metadata
including at least one of:
event location information, event time information, and
event type information, wherein the extracting comprises:
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
6
comparing the event notification to a plurality of event
models, wherein each of the plurality of event models is
associated with an extraction pattern;
identifying the event model relevant to each of the events
contained within the event notification based upon a pattern of
the event notification; and
extracting the metadata for each of the events from the
event notification using the extraction pattern associated with
the event model;
converting, using the at least one processor, the event
notification provided in the identified format to a notification
having a predetermined format different from the identified
format by using the extracted metadata corresponding to an
event, from the more than one event, affecting the at least one
target vehicle;
determining, using the converted metadata, an estimated
impact of the event on the at least one target vehicle in the
transport network and storing the estimated impact of the event;
said determining comprising:
estimating, using the at least one processor, a delay with
respect to at least one stop in the plurality of stops for the at least
one target vehicle in the transport network; and
determining, using the at least one processor, a probability
of a delay occurring at the at least one stop, depending on one
or more events at the stop and a prior probability of a delay
occurring at the at least one stop; and
providing the stored estimated impact when information
associated with the at least one stop is requested by an
application accessed by a user.
Claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea grouping listed in the 2019
Eligibility Guidance: “[m]ental processes.” See 2019 Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing “[m]ental processes—concepts performed in
the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”
as one of the “enumerated groupings of abstract ideas” (footnote omitted)).
The guidance explains that “[m]ental processes” include acts that people can
perform in their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
7
a generic computer component performs the acts. See 2019 Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.”)
(emphasis omitted); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic
computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that
foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and
paper.”), quoted in 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14;
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for
“anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be
“performed by humans without a computer”); quoted in 2019 Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
The method recited in claim 1 executes steps that people can perform
in their minds or using pen and paper. A person can perform each of the
italicized steps of claim 1 by using his or her mind, or pen and paper, in the
claimed manner. For example, a person can “receiv[e] . . . an event
notification” using his or her mind or pen and paper. A person can
“compar[e] the event notification to a plurality of event models, wherein
each of the plurality of event models is associated with an extraction
pattern” using his or her mind or pen and paper. A person can “identif[y] the
event model relevant to each of the events contained within the event
notification based upon a pattern of the event notification” using his or her
mind or pen and paper. A person can determine “an estimated impact of the
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
8
event on the at least one target vehicle in the transport network and storing
the estimated impact of the event” using his or her mind or pen and paper.
This invention is not analogous to that which the court held eligible in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016), despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 24; Reply
Br. 23). There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules
that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a
sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using
particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual three-
dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea.
Id. at 1316.
But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
invention here merely uses generic computing components to assess the
impact of an event on a transport network. This generic computer
implementation is not only directed to a mental process, but also does not
improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
McRO).
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2, the remaining elements recited in claim
1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition to
the steps discussed above, claim 1 recites at least one “processor” and an
“application accessed by a user.” The recited processor and application are
generic components. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 7, ¶¶ 42, 53 (“processor of a
general purpose computer”). See 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
9
idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been
integrated into a practical application).
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for
a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article
to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” The Examiner
determined claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept because the
additional elements in the claim do not amount to “significantly more” than
an abstract idea. See Final Act. 9, 10.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination. As noted above, the
claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to implement
the recited abstract idea. The additional elements recited in the claim include
the “processor” and “application accessed by a user.” The claim recites these
elements at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates
that these elements are generic. See, e.g., Fig. 7, ¶ 53. Using generic
computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the
necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
10
idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken
individually or together in combination, do not amount to “significantly
more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
Appellant contends various elements recited in the claim provide the
necessary inventive concept. Appeal Br. 25–33. But these elements form
part of the recited abstract ideas and thus are not “additional elements” that
“‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78); see also 2019
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses the
term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps
that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”
(Emphasis added)).
Rather, the recited “processor” and “application accessed by a user”
are the additional recited elements whose generic computing functionality is
well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting
that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity), database,
and communication medium are generic computer elements); Mortg.
Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (noting that components such an “interface,”
“network,” and “database” are generic computer components that do not
satisfy the inventive concept requirement). Accord Final Act. 9,10
(concluding that the claims’ additional generic computer components do not
add significantly more than the abstract idea.). Appellant’s arguments do not
persuade us claim 1 is “directed to” a patent-eligible concept.
To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention is rooted
in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution (see
Appeal Br. 25–30; Reply Br. 27), we disagree. Even assuming, without
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
11
deciding, that the claimed invention can monitor traffic events and provide
updates regarding traffic impacts faster than doing so manually, any speed
increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components—
not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“[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.”)); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
Indemnity Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished)
(“Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files
and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases
stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer
‘do[ ] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject
matter.’”). Like the claims in FairWarning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an
improvement in computer processors as tools, but on certain independently
abstract ideas that use generic computing components as tools. See
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 103 Rejections
We note that regardless of the general contentions and imputed
intended meanings articulated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, “[i]t is the
claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.
of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
12
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important
not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the
claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). “[A]lthough the specification often describes very
specific embodiments of the invention, [the Federal Circuit has] repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations
omitted).
Appellant argues Okude fails to teach or suggest, “receiving, using the
at least one processor, an event notification provided in an identified format
and containing information associated with more than one event, wherein at
least one of the events of the more than one event affects at least one target
vehicle in the transport network, wherein the at least one vehicle follows a
predetermined route comprising a plurality of stops in the transport
network,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 38. In particular, Appellant
argues that Okude is for a navigation system for a “regular vehicle” rather
than a “target vehicle in a transport network [that] follows a predetermined
route comprising a plurality of stops in the transport network.” Id. at 39.
Yet, as the Examiner explains, and we agree, Okude teaches a vehicle
that follows a predetermined route comprising a plurality of stops in a
transport network. Ans. 17; Okude ¶ 66. In particular, Okude describes how
“the unit 606 calculates predicted arrival time at predetermined points (such
a present point, a via-point, the destination, and a point designated by the
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
13
driver in advance) on the searched guidance route, and acquires
meteorological forecast information at the predicted arrival time (step S16).”
Okude ¶ 66. The Examiner explains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that destinations are ‘stops in the transport network’, as
one reaches a destination as a particular point along a route that one would
stop at.” Ans. 17–18. “Therefore, having multiple predetermined points
(destinations) along a guidance route (predetermined route) effectively
teaches the aforementioned limitations.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellant does not point us to
a definition of “target vehicle.” The broadest reasonable construction of
“target vehicle in [a] transport network . . . [that] follows a predetermined
route” as recited in claim 1 does not preclude a vehicle following a
predetermine route. Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that
the Specification or claims limit “target vehicle in [a] transport network . . .
[that] follows a predetermined route” in a way that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Okude’s teachings of a
vehicle following a predetermined route.
Appellant also argues the references fail to teach or suggest the
“estimating,” determining,” and “providing” limitations of claim 1:
estimating, using the at least one processor, a delay with
respect to at least one stop in the plurality of stops for the at least
one target vehicle in the transport network; and
determining, using the at least one processor, a probability
of a delay occurring at the at least one stop, depending on one or
more events at the stop and a prior probability of a delay
occurring at the at least one stop; and
providing the stored estimated impact when information
associated with the at least one stop is requested by an
application accessed by a user.
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
14
Appeal Br. 39–40. In particular, Appellant argues that Okude merely teaches
an in-vehicle navigation system. Id. Appellant argues:
This is clearly distinguishable from the claimed limitations,
where a target vehicle is impacted by a traffic event and then a
user who is waiting for that vehicle to stop at one of the
plurality of stops can access an application to obtain the
estimated impact. In the system of Okude, a person outside the
vehicle would have no way of accessing any information
provided by the system, particularly any information that could
identify an estimated delay in the vehicle arriving at the
transport network stop.
Id. at 40.
As the Examiner points out, however, these arguments are not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does not recite “a user who is
waiting for that vehicle to stop” or “a person outside the vehicle.” Ans. 18
(emphasis omitted).
Appellant additionally argues that the combination of references is in
error because the Examiner did not articulate a reason why a person skilled
in the art would combine the prior art references. Appeal Br. 35–37. In the
Answer, the Examiner explains that:
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in
the art to take the teachings of Brady related to applying a
specific predefined template to a received body of information
in order to extract target information and apply them to the
teachings of Okude to introduce steps in which information
may be extracted from a larger collection of information. The
extraction method of Brady is applied “because the text
contained in email message bodies is of a free form nature”
(Brady Paragraph [0049]). Furthermore, Brady recites that
“because it is known from step 407 which online merchant sent
the email message of interest and whether the email message is
an order confirmation or a shipping confirmation, a template
specific to the online merchant and type of confirmation is
used” (Brady Paragraph [0050]). It is clear that the information
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
15
received in Brady may not be easily recognizable to a universal
processing apparatus. Therefore, applying predefined templates
to match target information to aid in the extraction process is
implemented into the claimed invention. Okude similarly
receives information from external sources, such as acquiring
information from a traffic information database (Okude
Paragraph [0009]), a meteorological forecast center, and a
traffic information center (Okude Paragraph [0034]).
Information acquired from a third party may not necessarily be
in a desired format or may be in varying formats based upon the
source. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to utilize predefined templates in order to extract information
from disparate sources, as taught in Brady.
Ans. 15 (boldface omitted).
Further, the Examiner explains that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to take the teachings of
Scofield related to determining actual delay times on a road and
apply them to the teachings of Okude and Brady to further
expand the data acquiring and guidance determining steps of
the invention. If historical traffic information shows specific
delays on specific roads during certain times of the year, the
information may or may not be meteorologically related, and
may be based on, for example, national or cultural events, such
as parades or assemblies. Such events may cause traffic
congestion or delays, and incorporating information about such
events may further refine the guidance determining system.
Scofield further teaches considering a “percentage or other
amount of delay faced by vehicles passing the traffic flow
impediment” and that such information may be used as a
decision point for further analysis (Scofield Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to take the teachings
of Scofield related to considering percentage of a delay
occurring at a particular impediment point as a variable for
further analyzing traffic information and applying them to the
teachings of Okude and Brady for the purpose of marking
whether particular information sets concerning traffic delays
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
16
require further analysis. One would be motivated as such as if a
delay is only a minor delay, or if a delay has a low percentage
of occurrence, than it may not be worth system resources or
user attention to further analyze such information sets.

Ans. 16.
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an
articulated reason with some rational underpinning to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for the reasons discussed in the Answer. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In the absence of sufficient
evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary, we find no reversible
error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under § 103. Because
Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has
reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, the remaining pending claims fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSIONS
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–20 under § 101.
We affirm the rejections under § 103, as shown in the Decision
Summary below.
Appeal 2019-002537
Application 13/930,267
17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–20 101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4, 6–
20

1, 4, 6–12,
14, 15, 17–
19
103 Okude, Brady, Scofield 1, 4, 6–12,
14, 15, 17–
19

2, 16, 20 103 Okude, Brady Scofield,
Zhao
2, 16, 20
13 103 Okude, Brady,
Scofield, Horvitz
13
Overall
Outcome
101 1, 2, 4, 6–
20

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).
AFFIRMED