Appellant loses on obviousness in Ex parte Abraham
Keller is cited
Also, we find Appellant presents arguments with respect to the
individual references (Br. 5-7) and fails to appreciate the collective teachings
of the cited combination of references (Aggarwal ’819 and Krajec) as a
whole. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Ex parte Nehls is cited
informational content of the data thus represents non-functional descriptive
material, which “does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable
computer-implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d
1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003),
aff’d, (Rule 36) (June 12, 2006) (“wellness-related” data in databases and
communicated on distributed network did not functionally change either the
data storage system or the communication system used in the claimed
method). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Nehls,
88 USPQ2d at 1887-90 (discussing non-functional descriptive material).