Appellant Nomula loses at CAFC

The outcome:



Jagadeshwar Reddy Nomula filed U.S. Patent Application Nos. 13/908,992 and 13/089,772,
which claim systems and methods for recommending gifts using Internet-based
information of the gift recipient. The examiner rejected all
pending claims as unpatentable for obviousness, and the
Board upheld the examiner’s obviousness rejections. We
affirm.



The Ariosa case is cited:


“We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determination de novo and
underlying factual findings for substantial evidence.” In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Among the factual determinations in an obviousness analysis are “findings as to the scope and content of
the prior art.” Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
805 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015)



This is a case wherein a prior 101 rejection had been reversed:


The examiner also rejected the same claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101, but the Board reversed those rejections.
No § 101 issue is before us.