De Lage Landen Financial Services

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 24, 2020

2020002454 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 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.
14/566,122 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