REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1793 Ex Parte Anderson et al 12205330 - (D) McSHANE 103 Carstens & Cahoon, LLP MCCLAIN-COLEMAN, TYNESHA L
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2452 Ex Parte Knowles et al 10930739 - (D) McMILLIN 103 PERRY + CURRIER INC. (OR RIM) HOANG, HIEU T
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2633 Ex Parte Schulte et al 12069024 - (D) KRIVAK 102 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. JOSEPH, JAISON
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1788 Ex Parte Yakovleva et al 13151371 - (D) KRATZ 103 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC FERRE, ALEXANDRE F
1791 Ex Parte Jani et al 11710830 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Hoffmann & Baron LLP BEKKER, KELLY JO
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2121 Ex Parte You et al 11966722 - (D) SMITH 103 Chevron Corporation WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A
2176 Ex Parte Rees et al 11927036 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY MARRERO, ZAIDA
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2421 Ex Parte Kriegmair 12040384 - (D) WEINBERG 103 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD LOPEZ ALVEREZ, OLVIN
2421 Ex Parte Hawkins et al 12321791 - (D) EVANS 103 Allen D. Brufsky, PA NGUYEN BA, HOANG VU A
2444 Ex Parte CRIPE et al 12687642 - (D) CHUNG 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY PAPPAS, PETER
2449 Ex Parte Anschutz 11437016 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 AT&T Legal Department - SZ ABEDIN, NORMIN
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte MOODY 11958156 - (D) HORNER 101 JOHN EDWARD ROETHEL DEODHAR, OMKAR A
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s determination that “a set of rules qualifies as an abstract idea.” Br. 6 (citing Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). See also id. at 8 (arguing that “the Examiner has not identified clearly what the ‘abstract idea’ is” and that “[g]ame rules are submitted to be concrete, rather than abstract, because game rules set out how the game is to be played by all of the players.”).
...
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s admission that the method of claim 1 sets out physical steps and the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is claiming an abstract idea are contradictory. Br. 4. See also id. at 8 (arguing that because claim 1 contains physical steps, this should end the inquiry into whether claim 1 claims an abstract idea). We find no contradiction in the determination that a method claim which includes physical steps is wholly directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The presence of a physical step in the claim to derive data for the algorithm will not render the claim statutory.”). Further, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed physical method steps are not tied to a particular machine and do not transform the cards into a different state or thing.
