De Lage Landen Financial ServicesDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 20202020002454 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/566,122 12/10/2014 Scott PHELPS 0082657-000003 6200 21839 7590 12/24/2020 BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC POST OFFICE BOX 1404 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404 EXAMINER SMITH, SLADE E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3696 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2020 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): ADIPDOC1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SCOTT PHELPS, ELSIE LIBERTINI, RAFAEL ROSATO, MICHAEL NAPIER, JOSHUA HARRISON, HEATHER WILSON, and TIM GALLAGHER ____________ Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,1221 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies De Lage Landen Financial Services as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a mobile application for negotiating, generating, documenting, and fulfilling vendor financing opportunities. (Spec. ¶ 2.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for managing a financing or lease of a product, the method executing on a computing device including a processor, a display unit, a transmitting unit, a user input device that is configured to accept inputs from a user, and a storage device storing executable instructions which when executed by the processor of the computing device perform the method, the method comprising: receiving, from an input by the user input device, a price of the product to be financed or leased; receiving, from an input by the user input device, an amount of the price of the product to be financed; selecting, by an input of the user input device, a rate card from a plurality of rate cards; determining, by the processor, a current finance rate based upon the rate card that is selected; selecting, by an input of the user input device, a purchase option for the product and/or service; selecting, by an input of the user input device, a total term of the financing or lease that will be made to purchase or lease the product and/or service; determining, by the processor, a payment amount for the product based on the inputted price of the product to be financed or leased, the amount of the price of the product to be financed, the current finance rate, the purchase option selected, and the total term of the financing or lease selected; displaying the payment amount, in a payment field, and an associated first graphical wheel dial for adjusting the Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 3 payment amount, wherein the payment amount and the associated first graphical wheel dial are displayed in a first display region of a graphical user interface shown on the display unit; displaying a value other than the payment amount and an associated second graphical wheel dial for adjusting the value other than the payment amount in a second display region of the graphical user interface; adjusting the first or second graphical wheel dial, by an input from the user device, and dynamically displaying changes to the payment amount and/or the value other than the payment amount as a result of the adjusting; and in response to an instruction received, by the input device, to drag the payment field, dragging the payment field in a direction associated with the received instruction across the first display region of the graphical user interface, wherein said dragging of said payment field causes the display of three selectable icons in the first display region. (Appeal Br. 28–29 (Claims Appendix).) REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krautter et al (US 2012/0254003 A1; pub. Oct. 4, 2012) (hereinafter “Krautter”), Lund et al (US 2014/0074689 A1; pub. Mar. 13, 2014) (hereinafter “Lund”), Jobs et al (US 2007/0155434 A1; pub. July 5, 2 The rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn in the Answer. (See Final Act. 2, Ans. 3.) Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 4 2007) (hereinafter “Jobs”), and Kanzaki (US 2003/0117380 A1; pub. June 26, 2003). (Final Act. 16.) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki, Bates et al (US 2004/0122755 A1; pub. June 24, 2004) (hereinafter “Bates”), and Chen (US 2008/0120219 A1; pub. May 22, 2008). (Final Act. 35.) The Examiner rejected claims 3–6, 10–13, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki, and Shahine et al (US 2010/0299276 A1; pub. Nov. 25, 2010) (hereinafter “Shahine”). (Final Act. 38.) The Examiner rejected claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki, Shahine, and Agoni et al (US 2002/0133374 A1; pub. Sept. 19, 2002) (hereinafter “Agoni”). (Final Act. 49.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs present the following issues:3 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding claims 1–6, 11, 12, and 14 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Appeal Br. 9–19; Reply Br. 2–10.) Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Krautter, Lund, Jobs, and Kanzaki teaches or suggests the limitation of 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 19, 2019); the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 5, 2020); the Final Office Action (mailed Feb. 19, 2019); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Dec. 12, 2019) for the respective details. Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 5 in response to an instruction received, by the input device, to drag the payment field, dragging the payment field in a direction associated with the received instruction across the first display region of the graphical user interface, wherein said dragging of said payment field causes the display of three selectable icons in the first display region, as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitations in independent claims 8 and 15. (Appeal Br. 21–27; Reply Br. 10–12.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Issue One The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claims are directed to telling a customer what his/her periodic payment for a contemplated purchase would be under the terms of sale available to and/or preferred by the customer, comprising (for example): dragging a payment field across a first region, wherein said dragging causes display of three icons in the region (Final Act. 3), and that “the above-identified abstract idea is also a concept relating to ‘[m]ental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)’” see also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (Describing the two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”).) The Examiner further finds that Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 6 “independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” (Final Act. 5.) Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Appellant argues with the “claims do not relate” to any of the “methods of organizing human activity” as described in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, because the claims utilize a unique dual wheel interface GUI that enables user interaction to dynamically display changes to a payment amount (e.g., monthly payment) and/or a value other than the payment amount (e.g., coast of additional equipment) on a basis of movement of the respective dials. (Appeal Br. 11; see also Appeal Br. 10, (citing 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance”).) Appellant further argues that the claims cannot fit under the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because the claims “recite the ‘dragging of a payment field across a first region [of a GUI], wherein said dragging causes display of three icons in the region,’” and this feature “clearly cannot be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.” (Appeal Br. 12.) Appellant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, that claim 1 recites that the adjusting of the first and/or second graphical wheel dials results in dynamic display changes to the payment amount and/or the value other than the payment amount, and that the claim recites the dragging of the payment field in a direction associated with a received instruction results in the display of three (previously elided) selectable icons. Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 7 (Appeal Br. 13.) Appellant contends these “important and key features” of the claims allow users to more efficiently and accurately adjust a monthly payment and/or other value (e.g., equipment costs) without having to go back and input a new series of variables. (Appeal Br. 13–14, citing Spec ¶ 47.) Appellant reiterates the above arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong Two with respect to Step 2B. Regarding the claimed “dragging the payment field,” Appellant contends that the recited display enables the display of elided (e.g., hidden) data (e.g., selectable icons) when the user drags the payment amount across the display. As such, new selectable data items can be displayed without a user having to go to a new page. (Appeal Br. 18.) An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims relate to a method — i.e., a process. However, the Supreme Court has long held that “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (quoting Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589–90 (2013)). The “abstract ideas” category embodies the longstanding rule that an idea, by itself, is not patentable. Alice, 573 U.S. at 216–17. In Alice, the Supreme Court sets forth an analytical “framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 217. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 8 the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Id. Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); mathematical concepts (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the Alice/Mayo analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘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, 79, 78 (2012)). In other words, the second step is to “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73) (alteration in original). A claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 9 221. A transformation into a patent-eligible application requires more than simply stating the abstract idea while adding the words “apply it.” Id. Further to the Alice/Mayo analytical framework, and acknowledged by Appellant in the Briefs, the USPTO published the Revised Guidance on the application of § 101. See also USPTO October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (Oct. 17, 2019) (hereinafter “Update”), noticed at 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019). Under the Revised Guidance, the Office first looks to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Revised Guidance. In evaluating the claims at issue, we consider claim 1 as representative, consistent with how Appellant and the Examiner analyze the Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 10 claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016). Omitting the portions of the claim invoking use of generic technology, the remaining limitations of claim 1 elaborate on a method for managing the financing or lease of a product, via the steps of: (a) receiving a price of a product to be financed or leased; (b) receiving an amount of the price of the product to be financed; (c) selecting a rate card from a plurality of rate cards; (d) determining a current finance rate based upon the rate card that is selected; (e) selecting a purchase option for the product and/or service; (f) selecting a total term of the financing or lease that will be made to purchase or lease the product and/or service; (g) determining a payment amount for the product based on the inputted price of the product to be financed or leased, the amount of the price of the product to be financed, the current finance rate, the purchase option selected, and the total term of the financing or lease selected; (h) displaying the payment amount, in a payment field; (i) displaying a value other than the payment amount; and (j) adjusting the payment amount or the value other than the payment amount, and dynamically displaying changes to the payment amount and/or the value other than the payment amount as a result of the adjusting. Apart from the use of generic technology, each of these limitations describes steps taken to enter a contract in which the (mobile) Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 11 application allows a financing representative to tune and optimize deals instantaneously by providing current, real time information about pricing, incentives, bulk discounts, etc. regarding the product (e.g., office equipment, farming equipment, vehicle, etc.) or service the vendor’s representative is selling. (Spec. ¶ 41 (emphasis added).) These limitations comprise fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions; thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” (Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.) 4 Further, although not fully described in the disclosure, one skilled in the art would understand such financing information is calculated using mathematical formulas, as indicated in the disclosure as “quote calculations 2406” (Fig. 24, see also Spec. ¶ 86), and by the disclosure’s statement that “the application can perform a multi-variable iterative process where one [or] more variables can be locked in.” (Spec. ¶ 49) These limitations 4 See also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of hedging, described in claim 1 and reduced to a mathematical formula in claim 4, is an unpatentable abstract idea . . . .”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (“These claims are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement.”); buySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims that “are squarely about creating a contractual relationship—a ‘transaction performance guaranty’” held as “directed to an abstract idea” (citation omitted)); Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting “generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract concept [of generating insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event] on a computer” not patent eligible); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (determining a “‘method for managing a life insurance policy comprising’ seven steps” is abstract). Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 12 additionally comprise mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations; thus, the claim additionally recites the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts.” (Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 recites an abstract idea, as do the remaining claims. Further pursuant to the Revised Guidance, we consider whether there are additional elements set forth in claim 1 that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.) Here, the abstract idea of claim 1 appears to be carried out using a graphical user interface shown a display unit that is part of a computing device. The relevant limitation of claim 1 recites in response to an instruction received, by the input device, to drag the payment field, dragging the payment field in a direction associated with the received instruction across the first display region of the graphical user interface, wherein said dragging of said payment field causes the display of three selectable icons in the first display region. We agree with Appellant that “the recited display enables the display of elided (e.g., hidden) data (e.g., selectable icons) when the user drags the payment amount across the display.” (Appeal Br. 18.) Further, this feature permits “selectable data items [to] be displayed without a user having to go to a new page.” (Appeal Br. 18; see also Figs. 8A–8B.) In the disclosure, the selectable data items correspond to copy button 802, delete button 804, and star button 806. (Spec. ¶ 59 (as amended on Nov. 11, 20175).) Such 5 In order to conform the Specification to minor changes made in the Drawings, Appellant amended paragraphs 16, 17, 28, 58–60, 64, 71, 88, 89, Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 13 automation “goes beyond merely ‘organizing [existing] information into a new form’ or carrying out a fundamental economic practice.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–220). In other words, “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” (Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s patent-eligibility rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 8 and 15 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims. Issue Two In finding that the combination of Krautter, Lund, Jobs, and Kanzaki teaches or suggests the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on Krautter’s disclosure of generated webpages which include a scroll bar. (Final Act. 25, Ans. 14; Krautter Figs. 3A, 3B, 4, 5; ¶¶ 10–13.) Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in asserting “that using a scroll bar to “scroll” through a web page is equivalent to “dragging” content a displayed field across a display region of a GUI.” (Reply Br. 10 (citing Ans. 13–17).) Appellant contends that [w]hat the Examiner describes in the Examiner’s answer is, at best, the “dragging” of the scroll bar in order to scroll through a document, not the dragging of a particular field displayed on a display. In particular, Krautter does not disclose or suggest “dragging” a payment field, across a first display region of the 99, and 101 of the Specification on Nov. 13, 2017. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Specification are made with respect to the Specification as originally filed. Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 14 graphical user interface, as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it. (Reply Br. 11 (emphasis in original).) We agree. The Examiner finds, that Krautter teaches “[figs.] 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 in which the ‘webpage generated’ . . . includes a scroll bar depicted along the top of each Figure” (Final Act. 25), and that when the user selects and moves the scroll bar depicted in Figs. 3A, 3B, 4, and 5 and e.g. either toward the top of the screen (to the LEFT as depicted in Figs. 3A, 3B, 4, and 5) or toward the bottom of the screen (to the RIGHT as depicted in Figs. 3A, 3B, 4, and 5) and e.g. each of the selectable icons 204, 206 (Fig. 3A); monetary fields (Fig. 3B); all of the “[s]ELECT[able]” leases and fields 224, 222 and [displayed] quantities (Fig. 4); fields within 232, 234 (Fig. 5) are displayed as a result. (Final Act. 25.) The Examiner further finds that [t]he ‘received instruction’ in [Krautter] is the user’s movement of the scroll bar, which ‘drag[s]’ everything (including the noted fields) in the same direction as the instruction. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. (Ans. 14.) Figure 4 of Krautter is illustrated below: Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 15 Figure 4 illustrates “an exemplary webpage generated by the disclosed system for displaying a plurality of lease payment options from various lease funding services.” (Krautter ¶ 12.) The exemplary webpage illustrated by Figure 4 includes a scroll bar (shown as a solid white rectangle on the right- most edge of the figure), in which the user may move the scroll bar up and down in the shaded areas. Each of Figures 3A, 3B, and 5 include a similar scroll bar. One skilled in the art would understand that moving the scroll bar up or down moves the contents of the webpage up or down, relative to the outside frame of the webpage. For example, with reference to Figure 4, a user would move the scroll bar down to display any information on the complete webpage that is located below the text that reads “NEXT STEP: SELECT YOUR LEASE BY CLICKING ON IT.” One skilled in the art would further understand that Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 16 one way a user may move the scroll bar up or down is by positioning the cursor over the scroll bar, and while simultaneously holding down the left mouse button, dragging the scroll bar up or down by physically moving the mouse. However, the Examiner’s findings do not explain how one skilled in the art would find these operations as equivalent to the claimed dragging the payment field in a direction associated with the received instruction across the first display region of the graphical user interface, wherein said dragging of said payment field causes the display of three selectable icons in the first display region, as the claim requires a field, not a scroll bar, to be dragged. While the Examiner references the “broadest reasonable interpretation,” the Examiner provides no findings, aside from the statement that “[t]he ‘received instruction’ in [Krautter] is the user’s movement of the scroll bar, which ‘drag[s]’ everything (including the noted fields) in the same direction as the instruction,” (Ans. 14) that would further explain the claim interpretation or indicate in some way that the interpretation is reasonable. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8 and 15, and all dependent claims. Appeal 2020-002454 Application 14/566,122 17 CONCLUSION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–21 101 Patent Eligibility 1–21 1, 8, 15 103 Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki 1, 8, 15 2, 9, 16 103 Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki, Bates, Chen 2, 9, 16 3–6, 10–13, 17–20 103 Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki, Shahine 3–6, 10– 13, 17–20 7, 14, 21 103 Krautter, Lund, Jobs, Kanzaki, Shahine, Agoni 7, 14, 21 Overall Outcome 1–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation