Thermo Fisher Scientific (Bremen) GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

2019005679 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
14/480,449 09/08/2014 Hans PFAFF TP3939US2-NAT 8128
44064 7590 08/03/2020
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC.
Attn: IP Department
5823 Newton Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
EXAMINER
NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 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):
PatentDocketing@thermofisher.com
pair_thermofisher@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS PFAFF
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
Technology Center 1600
Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, TAWEN CHANG, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHANG, 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 and 4–17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“Ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry . . . enables the
identification of thousands of different molecular formulas in organic

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 Thermo
Fisher Scientific (Bremen) GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
2
matter.” Spec. ¶ 3. However, “[t]he output from mass spectrometer must be
interpreted before samples can be characterized.” Id. ¶ 4. In particular, the
Specification explains,
[m]olecular formula assignment from mass data is most critical
and time-consuming. . . . In many cases, several different
structural formulae can be identified for the same molecular
mass. The number of candidate formulae increases
exponentially with mass, making high mass molecular
determination particularly challenging.
Id. According to the Specification, “[i]nformation is present in the isotopic
pattern which the mass spectroscopist uses to narrow down the candidate
list, but this is done manually, requires skill and experience, and is very time
consuming.” Id. ¶ 24. Furthermore, according to the Specification,
[e]mbodiments of the present invention use a method which can
be automated and . . . reduce the candidate list typically to just
one candidate having a very high probability of being the
correct composition.
. . . Briefly, the method uses both the positions of the
peaks on the mass scale, and the intensities of the peaks, and
then looks at the peaks expected in the spectrum from the
possible isotopies of the elements of the candidate
compositions.
Id.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a computer implemented method of
characterizing a sample. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer implemented method of characterizing a
sample by identifying a most likely elemental
composition of a measured peak of interest in a spectrum
obtained from that sample, comprising the steps of:

(a) identifying, for the peak of interest in the spectrum
of the sample, a plurality of elemental
compositions having a peak whose position lies
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
3
within a predetermined tolerance of the position of
the measured peak of interest;
(b) forming a set of candidate compositions from the
identified plurality of elemental compositions;
(c) generating a theoretical isotopic spectrum for each
of the candidate compositions in the formed set
thereof;
(d) selecting peaks within each theoretical isotopic
spectrum thus generated, for further processing;
(e) for each candidate composition of the set, in turn:
(i) scaling the intensity of at least one of: all the
selected peaks of the theoretical isotopic
spectrum of the particular candidate
composition under consideration, and/or all
the peaks of the measured spectrum, to
reduce the difference between the intensities
of the peak of interest and the corresponding
peak of the candidate composition;
(ii) calculating a spectral distance, SD, between
peaks in the theoretical isotopic spectrum
and peaks in the measured spectrum based
upon both the difference dM in the relative
positions of a given peak in the theoretical
isotopic spectrum and a given peak in the
measured spectrum, and also the relative
differences dI in scaled intensity thereof,
wherein SD increases monotonically with
dM and dI;
(iii) either:
for the peaks in the theoretical isotopic
spectrum selected in step (d), identifying the
peak in the measured spectrum which is
considered most closely to correspond with
a particular one of the peaks in the
theoretical isotopic spectrum by determining
the measured peak that has the lowest SD; or
for the peaks in the measured spectrum,
identifying the peak in the theoretical
isotopic spectrum selected in step (d) which
is considered most closely to correspond
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
4
with a particular one of the peaks in the
measured spectrum by determining the
theoretical isotopic peak that has the lowest
SD;
(iv) calculating a pattern spectral distance (PSD)
for a particular candidate composition, based
upon a combination of both dM and dI
between the measured peaks and the
theoretical isotopic peaks, where the
measured or theoretical isotopic peaks are
those which have been identified in step (e)
(iii), and wherein PSD increases
monotonically with dM and dI;
(v) normalizing the PSD for n, the number of
selected peaks in the theoretical isotopic
spectrum;
(f) identifying which of the set of candidate elemental
compositions of the measured peak of interest is
the most likely elemental composition thereof, by
determining which candidate composition has the
lowest PSD; and
(g) outputting data representative of the identified
most likely elemental composition of the measured
peak of interest;
wherein steps (a)-(g) are performed by a computer
executing computer software;

wherein the measured spectrum is a mass spectrum
generated by analyzing the sample in a mass
spectrometer; and

wherein the PSD is weighted according to the abundance
of the peaks in either the theoretical isotopic mass
spectrum or the measured mass spectrum such that a
mass and/or intensity error of a less intense peak affects
the PSD less than the same mass or intensity error of a
more intense peak.
Appeal Br. 14–16 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
5
REJECTION
Claims 1 and 4–17 stand rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. §
101 as being directed to judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter,
without significantly more.
OPINION
A. Issue
The Examiner concludes that the claims recite judicial exceptions to
patent-eligible subject matter. In particular, the Examiner concludes the
claims recite mental steps and mathematical concepts. Ans. 3–4. The
Examiner also finds that these judicial exceptions are “not integrated into a
practical application,” because the claims at issue are not analogous to
claims that have been found to be patent eligible. Id. at 4. The Examiner
further finds that the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to
be significantly more than the judicial exception, including because “mass
spectrometry is routine and conventional in the prior art.” Id.
Appellant contends that any recited abstract ideas are integrated into a
practical application that results in “significant improvements in the art of
compound analysis over prior art methods.” Appeal Br. 6. For similar
reasons, Appellant contends that the claims “amount to . . . ‘significantly
more’ than just an ‘abstract idea.’” Id. at 12.
Appellant does not separately argue the claims. We, therefore, focus
our analysis on independent claim 1 as representative of the claimed subject
matter. The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the abstract ideas
recited in claim 1 have been integrated into a practical application so as to
render the claim patent eligible.
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
6
B. Analysis
We analyze this case under the framework set forth by the Supreme
Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66 (2012), and applied by our reviewing court in Ariosa Diagnostics,
Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Ariosa court
explained:
In Mayo . . . , the Supreme Court set forth a framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts. First, we determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept. . . . If the answer is yes, then we next consider the
elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered
combination” to determine whether additional elements
“transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. . . . The Supreme Court has described the second
step of this analysis as a 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. at 1375.
Whether Claim 1 Is Directed to Patent-Ineligible Concept
We begin with the first step of the Mayo test, namely whether a claim
is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. On January 7, 2019, the Director
of the USPTO issued the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance” (“Revised Guidance”), which provides further details regarding
how the Patent Office analyzes patent-eligibility questions under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019). Under the Revised Guidance, the
first step of the Mayo test (i.e., Step 2A of the Revised Guidance) is “a two-
pronged inquiry.” Id. at 54. In prong one, we evaluate whether the claim
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
7
recites a judicial exception, such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
abstract ideas. Id. The Revised Guidance explains that
the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of
subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s)
(that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Id. at 52 (footnotes omitted). The Guidance states that, except in rare
circumstances, “[c]laims that do not recite matter that falls within these
enumerated groups of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract
ideas” and thus would be patent-eligible. Id. at 53. If the claim recites a
judicial exception, the claim is further analyzed under prong two, which
requires “evaluat[ion of] whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.” Id.
The Revised Guidance explains that, “[i]f the recited exception is integrated
into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at
Prong Two of . . . Step 2A [of the Revised Guidance].” Id.

Prong One of Step 2A of Revised Guidance
With respect to the first prong of Step 2A of the Revised Guidance,
we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites patent-ineligible subject
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
8
matter. In particular, mental processes such as observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion are abstract ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Claim 1 recites,
for a sample spectrum, (1) “identifying . . . elemental compositions having a
peak whose position lies within a predetermined tolerance of the position of
the measured peak of interest” (step (a)); (2) “forming a set of candidate
compositions from the identified . . . elemental compositions” (step (b)); (3)
generating a theoretical isotopic spectrum for each of the candidate
compositions in the formed set thereof (step (c)); (4) “selecting peaks within
each theoretical isotopic spectrum thus generated, for further processing”
(step (d)); (5) for the peaks in the selected theoretical isotopic spectrum or
measured spectrum, identifying the peak in the measured or theoretical
isotopic spectrum, respectively, most closely corresponding to a particular
one of the peaks, by determining the measured or the theoretical isotopic
peak that has the lowest spectral distance (step (e)(iii)); and (6) “identifying
which of the set of candidate elemental compositions of the measured peak
of interest is the most likely elemental composition thereof, by determining
which candidate composition has the lowest [pattern spectral distance
(PSD)] (step (f)).” Appeal Br. 14–16 (Claims App.). These are each mental
processes – i.e., steps involving observation, evaluation, and/or judgment
that could be “performed in the human mind[] or by a human using a pen
and paper.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Likewise, mathematical concepts are abstract. 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
Claim 1 recites the following steps for a candidate composition for a sample
spectrum: (1) “scaling the intensity” of recited peaks “to reduce the
difference between the intensities of the peak of interest and the
corresponding peak of the candidate composition” (step (e)(i)); (2)
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
9
calculating a spectral distance, SD, between peaks in the theoretical isotopic
spectrum and . . . measured spectrum,” based on “the difference dM in the
relative positions of a given peak in the theoretical isotopic spectrum and . . .
measured spectrum[] and . . . relative differences dI in scaled intensity
thereof, wherein SD increases monotonically with dM and dI” (step (e)(ii));
(3) “calculating a pattern spectral distance (PSD) . . . based upon a
combination of both dM and dI . . . , where the . . . peaks are those which
have been identified [as having the lowest SD] and wherein PSD increases
monotonically with dM and dI” (step (e)(iv)); (4) “normalizing the PSD for
n, the number of selected peaks in the theoretical isotopic spectrum”
(step (e)(v)); and (5) “wherein the PSD is weighted according to the
abundance of the peaks in either the theoretical isotopic mass spectrum or
the mass spectrum.” Appeal Br. 14–16 (Claims App.). Each of these steps
recite mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
and/or mathematical calculations and, as such, recite mathematical concepts
and are abstract. 84 Fed. Reg. 52.

Prong Two of Step 2A of Revised Guidance
With respect to the second prong of Step 2A of the Revised Guidance,
we find that claim 1 does not recite sufficient additional elements that
integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the
exception(s). 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. More specifically, the additional elements
of claim 1 that are not either mental processes or mathematical concepts
include (1) “outputting data representative of the identified most likely
elemental composition of the measured peak of interest” (step (g)); (2)
“wherein [the] steps . . . are performed by a computer executing computer
software”; and (3) “wherein the measured spectrum is a mass spectrum
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
10
generated by analyzing the sample in a mass spectrometer.” Appeal Br. 15–
16 (Claims App.).
These additional elements, individually and in combination, do not
suffice to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Generating “the measured mass spectrum . . . by analyzing the sample in a
mass spectrometry” and “outputting data representative of the identified
most likely elemental composition of the measured peak of interest” merely
gather the data to be used in the claimed method and present a result based
on the recited abstract mental processes and mathematical calculations.
Thus, they are “insignificant extra-solution activity.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(explaining that additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution
activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the exception into a
practical application); see also In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982)
(a claimed step that “test[s] for a response . . . is nothing more than a data
gathering step,” which “cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim
statutory”); In re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (CCPA 1977) (holding that
antecedent steps that “merely determine values for the variables used in the
mathematical formulae used in making the calculations . . . do not suffice to
render the claimed methods, considered as a whole, statutory subject
matter”); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d at 1350, 1353–
1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims involving “merely presenting the
results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without
more . . . , is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis”).
Similarly, the limitation that all of the steps of claim 1 are “performed
by a computer executing computer software” merely recites “us[ing] a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” which does not integrate a
judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
11
Whether Claim 1 Amounts to “Significantly More”
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible law
of nature, we next consider whether claim 1 recites “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.’” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1375 (citation omitted). We agree
with the Examiner that it does not.
As discussed above, the additional elements in claim 1 that are not
either mental processes or mathematical concepts include (1) “outputting
data representative of the identified most likely elemental composition of the
measured peak of interest” (step (g)); (2) “wherein [the] steps . . . are
performed by a computer executing computer software”; and (3) “wherein
the measured spectrum is a mass spectrum generated by analyzing the
sample in a mass spectrometer.”
These steps, however, are recited at a high level of generality. No
specific process is recited, for example, for analyzing the sample in a mass
spectrometer. Indeed, the Specification states that “[a]ccurate mass
measurement by mass spectrometry is a common technique to determine
elemental composition, facilitated by ultra high resolution mass
spectrometers,” and further states that “[s]pecific details of the experimental
arrangement (i.e., the specific components employed in the mass
spectrometer arrangement) are not critical to an understanding of the present
invention and, in any event, various embodiments would be familiar to the
skilled reader.” Spec. ¶¶ 4, 18.
Likewise, the limitations relating to the outputting data and
performing the claimed steps using a computer executing computer software
merely recites a generic computer performing the generic computer
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
12
functions of analyzing data, performing mathematical calculations, and
outputting data. As our reviewing court has explained, however,
[c]laims that “amount to nothing significantly more than an
instruction to apply [an] abstract idea ... using some
unspecified, generic computer” and in which “each step does no
more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions” do not make an abstract idea patent-
eligible, [Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
225–226 (Fed. Cir. 2014)] (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted), because “claiming the improved speed or
efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on
a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive
concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d
1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
In summary, the combination of elements recited in claim 1 does not
amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, and
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the claimed method is not eligible for patenting.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant has not disputed that claim 1 recites abstract ideas such as
mathematical calculations. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends, however,
that “[t]he instant application provides a method to measure both the mass
accuracy and the relative intensities of isotopic peak families” and, under
Step 2A, prong 2 of the Revised Guidance, has “a clear and irrefutable
‘practical application’ . . . of[] significantly reducing a list of potential
theoretical molecular formulas or in some cases, even narrowing down the
choice to just a single discrete compound in mass spectral analysis.” Id. at 6,
10, 12–13. In particular, Appellant points to step (f) of claim 1, which
recites the step of “identifying which of the set of candidate elemental
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
13
compositions of the measured peak of interest is the most likely elemental
composition thereof, by determining which candidate composition has the
lowest PSD” as the practical application to which claim 1 is directed. Id.
at 10.
We do not find Appellant’s position establishes that the recited
judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application of the
exceptions by additional recited elements. The “practical application”
Appellant points to, i.e., “identifying which . . . candidate elemental
composition[] . . . is the most likely elemental composition [of the measured
peak of interest], by determining which candidate composition has the
lowest PSD,” is itself a mental process and thus an abstract idea. Thus, the
limitation is not an “additional element” – i.e., “claim features, limitations,
and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial
exception” – that integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, n. 24 (emphasis added);
cf. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (explaining that the fact a
judicial exception is used for a specific purpose does not necessarily render a
claim patentable).
Appellant contends the claimed invention “would be ideally suited to
be a tool in a clinical laboratory environment” and that its use “may have
critical downstream consequences in terms of decision making, for example,
in a hospital / clinical environment.” Appeal Br. 13. While this may be the
case, such uses of the invention are not recited in the claims. Moreover,
even if the claimed invention were generally linked to these particular fields
of use, such general linkage would not render the claims patent eligible. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (noting that courts have held that an
additional element that does no more than generally link the use of a judicial
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
14
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not
provide for integration into a practical application).
Appellant further contends that, in some cases, the methods may allow
a mass spectrometry operator to “determine the identity or amount of a
single compound in a given mass spectrometry sample” that “could not be
deduced by prior art methods,” or “significantly reduce a list of potential
candidates” to a degree that “could not have been achieved . . . by prior art
methods.” Appeal Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As an initial matter,
Claim 1 is not limited to samples of any particular complexity. Moreover,
the Specification states that, in its simplest form, “the [claimed] method uses
both the positions of the peaks on the mass scale, and the intensities of the
peaks, and then looks at the peaks expected in the spectrum from the
possible isotopes of the elements of the candidate compositions” in order to
determine the most likely elemental composition for a measured peak of
interest. Spec. ¶ 25. The Specification concedes, however, that “[a] prior art
elemental composition calculation routine . . . employed to obtain a list of
elemental composition candidates that could match the measured molecular
peak to within 5ppm in mass” is “widely used by workers in the field” and
that, even before the claimed invention, a mass spectroscopist would be able
to use “[i]nformation . . . present in the isotopic pattern . . . to narrow down
the candidate list” once the elemental composition candidates have been
determined, even if such a process would have been “done manually,
require[d] skill and experience, and [been] very time consuming.” Spec.
¶¶ 20, 24.
Thus, the evidence of record supports the conclusion that the claimed
methods amount to using a computer to carry out analysis of the sample
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
15
spectrum similar to that conventionally carried out by a human specialist
who mentally assesses the same data, and Appellant has not cited to
persuasive evidence supporting its assertion that the claimed method
achieves results that could not have been achieved by prior art methods. As
the PTO’s Revised Guidance explains, “[a]n additional element . . . [that]
merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” is not an
improvement to a technical field and is an indication that “a judicial
exception has not been integrated into a practical application.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant cites paragraph 16 of the Specification
to argue that the claimed method clearly “link[s] the use of the judicial
exception to the particular technological environment of mass spectrometry
beyond a mere drafting effort” and “results in an improvement in the
technical field of mass spectrometry, specifically in the area of identifying
the elemental composition of an identified peak.” Reply Br. 2. In particular,
Appellant points to the statement in paragraph 16 that “‘scaled or normalized
. . . quantities associated with the position (e.g. the mass or a quantity related
thereto) and the intensity of measured peaks are employed to substantially
improve the correct assignment of elemental compositions to measured
molecular peaks.’” Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Appellant does not
argue persuasively that scaling or normalization is not used, or capable of
being used, by the ordinarily skilled mass spectroscopist when using
“[i]nformation . . . present in the isotopic pattern . . . to narrow down the
[elemental composition] candidate list.” Spec. ¶ 24. Moreover, Appellant
argues in essence that the claimed invention provides a better comparison of
Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
16
peaks in a measured spectrum and a theoretical isotopic spectrum by using
the mathematical concept of scaling or normalization. However, “a claim
for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use,
is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.” Flook, 437 U.S. 595, n. 18.
Finally, Appellant notes that “HP Inc. v. Berkheimer (2018) guidance
requires evidence for the Examiner’s statement that the instant claims are
‘routine and conventional’.” Id. at 9. Appellant argues that, for this and the
other reasons discussed above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the
Revised Guidance, the claims also amounts to “significantly more” than
abstract ideas. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 6, 9, 12–13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s position for the reasons already
discussed above. In particular, the only claim elements that are not judicial
exceptions are the performance of the claimed steps, including the outputting
of data, by a computer and the generation of a mass spectrum by analyzing a
sample in a mass spectrometer. The Specification shows both the use of
mass spectrometer to generate mass spectrum by analyzing a sample, as well
as the use of computers and computer software to analyze mass spectrums
and to output data, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See,
e.g., Spec. ¶ 20 (stating that a “prior art elemental composition calculation
routine” is “widely used by workers in the field”), ¶¶ 4, 18 (stating that
“[a]ccurate mass measurement by mass spectrometry is a common technique
to determine elemental composition” and that skilled artisans would be
familiar with various mass spectrometer arrangements).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Claims 4–17 are not argued separately and fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2019-005679
Application 14/480,449
17
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–17 101 Eligibility 1, 4–17

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