Douglas Peckover

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 2019

13706039 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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. 13/706,039 12/05/2012 Douglas Peckover 5273-DTLB-039 9810 27571 7590 09/30/2019 Ascenda Law Group, PC 333 W San Carlos St. Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 EXAMINER NIGH, JAMES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/30/2019 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): patents@ascendalaw.com tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DOUGLAS PECKOVER ____________________ Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,0391 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before HUNG H. BUI, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19, which are all the claims pending in the application. App. Br. 19–22 (Claims App.). Claims 3, 7, 13–16, and 20–62 are cancelled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is DT Labs, LLC. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 1, 2017; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed September 14, 2017; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 14, 2017; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 1, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 5, 2012. Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a server-client system “for electronically storing globally unique serial numbers in a way that protects individual products and services so that they can be protected, monitored, controlled, paid for, or even destroyed, as determined by the primary manufacturer or owner.” Spec. ¶¶ 12, 17. According to Appellant, sensitive data (e.g., personal data, financial data, legal data, security data, etc.) extracted from client 102 can be protected as shown, for example, in Figure 1A, by way of sending extracted data to web secure server 104 for secure storage and replacing thereto with random pointers indicating where the extracted data has been stored. Appellant’s Figure 1A is reproduced below: Figure 1A shows Appellant’s method for protecting sensitive data between client 102 and secure server 104, via a network. Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 3 As shown in Figure 1A, server 104 receives extracted [sensitive] data from client 102 at step 110, stores the extracted data to secure storage at step 112, generates one or more pointers corresponding to extracted sensitive data at step 114, and sends the one or more pointers back to client 102, where client 102 replaces the original sensitive data with the random pointer(s). Spec. ¶ 18. “[T]his pointer is random data, generated by a plug- in, with the same type as the sensitive data that it is replacing . . . [and] is later used by the content manager [] to get sensitive data from or put sensitive data back into the secure server [104].” Spec. ¶¶ 25, 29, 32. Figures 3 and 5 show an example of how sensitive data is extracted from client 102 for transfer to secure server 104 and is replaced by one or more random pointers indicating where sensitive data has been stored at secure server 104, as reproduced below: Figure 3 shows an example of sensitive data at client 102, including: SSN 302, DOB 304, Name 306, and Address 308 that need protection, whereas Employee Number 310, City 312, State 314 and Zip Code 316 that do not need protection. Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 4 Figure 5 shows how sensitive data at client 102, including: SSN 302, DOB 304, Name 306, and Address 308 that has been replaced by one or more random pointers received from secure server 104. As shown in Figure 3, sensitive data at client 102 is protected and “is never at risk” because (1) “it has been previously transferred to secure server [104, as shown in Figure 5]” and (2) only random data with pointers to sensitive data is released, instead of the sensitive data itself. Spec. ¶¶ 119, 160. With proper authentication, the random pointers are then used to retrieve the original sensitive data from secure server 102. Spec. ¶ 147. According to Appellant, “the present invention can [also] be used to imprint a globally-unique random serial number or code on label or item in such a way that the contract manufacturer or third party does not have any control over the globally-unique random serial number or code.” Spec. ¶ 171. For example, “the primary manufacturer or owner generates the unique random serial number or code and sends it to the secure server [104] as ‘sensitive data,’ which is then accessed by a media device [client 102] Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 5 using the pointer to imprint the unique random serial number or code on the item.” Spec. ¶ 172. “The media device may include a printer, a plotter, a label maker, a copier, an inscribing device, a stamping machine, an etching machine or a combination thereof.” Spec. ¶ 175. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for authentication of one or more tangible item(s) or one or more tangible label(s) comprising: one or more media devices communicably coupled to one or more processors, the one or more processors also being communicably coupled to one or more memory devices, wherein at least one of the memory devices stores non-transitory computer readable instructions, which instructions, when executed by at least one of the processors, causes the processor(s) during or prior to a production run of the tangible item(s) or tangible label(s) to perform the steps of: obtaining a pointer to each of one or more unique random serial numbers or codes that are used to authenticate the tangible item(s) or tangible label(s) from the one or more media devices, obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) from a server device communicably coupled to the processor(s) via a communications interface using the pointer(s), transmitting the obtained unique random serial number(s) or code(s) to the one or more media devices, and instructing the one or more media devices communicably coupled to the one or more processors to imprint the received unique random serial number(s) or code(s) on the tangible item(s) or the tangible label(s); Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 6 wherein the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) are imprinted with a security mechanism comprising one of a special ink, a special thread, a special code, a holographic symbol, or a combination thereof; and the one or more media devices comprise printers, plotters, labelers, inscribing devices, stamping machines, etching machines, or a combination thereof. App. Br. 19–20 (Claims App.). EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS & REFERENCES (1) Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 7–10. (2) Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Leon et al. (US 7,194,957 B1; issued Mar. 27, 2007; “Leon”). Final Act. 11–13. (3) Claims 4, 11, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leon. Final Act. 14–15. DISCUSSION 35 U.S.C. § 101 In rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determines the claims are directed to “an abstract idea involving obtaining a pointer to each of one or more unique random serial numbers or codes, obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s), transmitting the obtained unique random serial number(s) or code(s) and instructing the imprinting of the unique random serial number(s) or code(s),” which the Examiner considers is “nothing more than an idea of itself [i.e., mental processes]” similar to claims discussed by the Supreme Court in Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 7 Benson and Flook. Final Act. 8–9 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64 (1972) and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)). According to the Examiner, “all operations [recited] have previously been done by human beings [] and the operations could simply be performed by a human being using paper files and communications that do not require the use of a computer or at most tangential use of a computer.” Ans. 5–6. The Examiner also determines additional elements in the claims, whether taken separately or in an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, because (1) “no technological improvement is recited within the claims”; (2) “[t]he improvement [] claimed by authentication of tangible items or labels lies outside of the technological arena”; and (3) “[t]he claims [] are not designed to solve a technological problem” but “merely provide a generic, technological environment (i.e., computers and the Internet).” Final Act. 9–10. Legal Framework To determine whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, we apply the Supreme Court’s two-step framework articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). First, we determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 217. If so, we then proceed to the second step 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.” Id. 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 Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 8 the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012)). The Federal Circuit has described the Alice step-one inquiry as looking at the “focus” of the claims, their “character as a whole,” and the Alice step-two inquiry as looking more precisely at what the claim elements add—whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible matter to which the claim is directed. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In an effort to achieve clarity and consistency in how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Office”) applies the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, the Office recently published revised guidance interpreting governing case law and establishing a prosecution framework for all patent- eligibility analysis under Alice and § 101 effective as of January 7, 2019. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50– 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). 2019 Revised Guidance Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look under Alice step 1 or 2019 Revised Guidance “Step 2A” to whether the claim recites: (1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., [i] mathematical concepts, [ii] mental processes, or [iii] certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 9 (2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).3 See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52, 55, Revised Step 2A, Prong One (Abstract Idea) and Prong Two (Integration into A Practical Application). Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate whether the claim provides an “inventive concept” under Alice step 2 or “Step 2B.” See 2019 Revised Guidance at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. For example, we look to whether the claim: 1) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or 2) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. In the briefing, Appellant refers to prior USPTO guidance regarding § 101, including, for example: July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45,429 (July 30, 2015) (“the 2015 Update”). However, the 2015 Update and other prior guidance, including: (1) 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (December 16, 2014); (2) May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, 81 Fed. Reg. 27,381 (May 6, 2016); and (3) Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions dated Nov. 2, 2016 have been superseded by the 2019 Revised Guidance. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As 3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 08.2017 (rev. Jan. 2018). Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 10 such, our analysis will not address the sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection against the cited prior guidance. Rather, our analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised Guidance as discussed below. Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea) Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance Appellant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because: (1) the Examiner’s characterization of the claims “is a gross generalization in an attempt to find an abstract concept,” i.e., “an oversimplification of the features of the claims”; (2) “[t]here is nothing ‘abstract’ about the creation of a unique random serial number or code for to be imprinted on a tangible item or label where the unique random serial number is obtained by a pointer to each unique random serial number or code”; and (3) “the use of pointers to obtain a unique random serial number or code through a server . . . [is] ‘rooted in computer technology’ . . . that improves the ability to combat counterfeiting and diversion of products.” App. Br. 8–10. In response, the Examiner takes the position that (1) “obtaining the pointer can be viewed as a data gathering operation as can the operation of obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) from a server by using the pointer”; (2) “the claim does not actually claim an operation of printing . . . [but] simply issuing an instruction to [imprint]”; and, as such, (3) “from the standpoint of a programmed computer the only requirements of the claimed invention are getting data, using that data to get additional data, transmitting the additional data and providing instructions as to how that additional data is to be used,” which is considered “nothing more than an idea of itself [i.e., mental processes] as recited in Benson [], Flook [] and Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 11 Alice.” Ans. 3–4. According to the Examiner, “all operations [recited] have previously been done by human beings [] and the operations could simply be performed by a human being using paper files and communications that do not require the use of a computer or at most tangential use of a computer.” Ans. 5–6. We do not agree with the Examiner’s positions. At the outset, we note the Federal Circuit has interpreted Alice step 1 as asking “whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. The Federal Circuit has also “emphasized that the key question is ‘whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database [in Enfish]).” Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36) (holding that claims reciting to “[a] computer memory system connectable to a processor and having one or more programmable operational characteristics” are patent-eligible under § 101 because Visual Memory’s claims “are directed to a technological improvement: an enhanced computer memory system” with “programmable operational characteristics . . . configurable based on the type of processor,” and “the specification discusses the advantages offered by the technological improvement”). Contrary to the Examiner’s characterization, Appellant’s claims do not simply recite “data gathering and providing instructions,” as recognized by Appellant. Reply Br. 2. Instead, Appellant’s claims seek to improve the authentication of an item (i.e., product or service) and combat counterfeit and diversion problems for all products and services by way of imprinting “a Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 12 [globally] unique random serial number or code on label or item in such a way that the contract manufacturer or third party does not have any control over the globally-unique random serial number or code.” Spec. ¶¶ 10, 11, 171–175. For example, Appellant’s claim 1 recites an apparatus for authentication of one or more tangible item(s) or one or more tangible label(s) including one or more media devices in communication with a [remote] server device, comprising: [1] obtaining a pointer to each of one or more unique random serial numbers or codes that are used to authenticate the tangible item(s) or tangible label(s) from the one or more media devices, [2] obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) from a server device communicably coupled to the processor(s) via a communications interface using the pointer(s), [3] transmitting the obtained unique random serial number(s) or code(s) to the one or more media devices, and [4] instructing the one or more media devices communicably coupled to the one or more processors to imprint the received unique random serial number(s) or code(s) on the tangible item(s) or the tangible label(s); wherein the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) are imprinted with a security mechanism . . . . App. Br. 19–20 (Claims App.) (bracketing and emphasis added). As recited, Appellant’s claim 1 requires a set of client media devices and remote server devices engaging in a series of specific client-server interactions, including: [1] “obtaining a pointer . . . from the one or more media devices,” [2] “obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) from a server device . . . via a communication interface using the pointer(s),” [3] “transmitting the obtained unique random serial number(s) or Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 13 code(s) to the one or more media devices,” and [4] “instructing the one or more media devices . . . to imprint the received unique random serial number(s) or code(s) on the tangible item(s) or the tangible label(s), wherein the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) are imprinted with a security mechanism.” As recognized by Appellant, the claimed use of pointers to obtain a unique random serial number or code through a server, and the subsequent issue of instructions to effect imprinting of these numbers or codes (items included in the claimed solutions) are necessarily “rooted in computer technology.” It is through the use of such pointers in combination with the unique random serial number that the ability to combat counterfeiting and diversion of products as described in the specification and recited in the claims is achieved. Reply Br. 2–3 (emphasis added); see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claimed e- commerce syndication system for “generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a ‘host’ website with content of a third- party merchant” is patent-eligible under § 101 because DDR’s claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet, i.e., a “solution [] necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”). We also disagree with the Examiner’s characterization that “all operations [recited] . . . could simply be performed by a human being using paper files and communications that do not require the use of a computer or at most tangential use of a computer.” Ans. 5–6. Under the “mental Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 14 processes” doctrine, a patent claim that can be performed solely in a person’s mind is considered an “abstract idea” and, as such, is patent- ineligible under § 101. For example, in Benson, the Supreme Court held a number-conversion method using a mathematical algorithm is patent- ineligible under § 101 because the conversion “can be done mentally” and “without a computer.” See Benson, 409 U.S. at 67. These “mental processes—or processes of human thinking—standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical application.” In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Similarly, in CyberSource, the Federal Circuit held CyberSource’s method claim for detecting fraud in credit card transactions conducted over the Internet between consumer and merchant is drawn to an unpatentable “mental process” because “[a]ll of [its] method steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” and do not require a computer. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). However, the Federal Circuit also held that method claims “for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals” are patent-eligible under § 101 because “the methods [] could not be performed without the use of a GPS receiver.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Contrary to the Examiner’s characterization, we do not discern how specific steps of Appellant’s advancement in data authentication technology recited in Appellant’s claim 1 can be performed solely in a person’s mind. For example, the use of pointers to obtain unique random serial numbers, via a [remote] server device, and then imprint these unique random serial numbers on an item or label cannot be performed in the human mind, or by a Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 15 human using a pen and paper. Moreover, like the claims in SiRF Technology, the steps recited in Appellant’s claim 1 require the use of a specific set of client media devices and remote server devices to process data (i.e., pointers and unique random serial numbers) in the claimed manner. Based on the current record, we are persuaded that the Examiner has failed to identify an ineligible abstract idea under the Office’s 2019 Revised Guidance, i.e., subject matter that recites (1) a mathematical concept, (2) a method of organizing human activity, or (3) a mental process. See Revised Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. at 52); see also id. at 53 (“Claims that do not recite matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas, except” in rare circumstances.). Even if Appellant’s claim 1 were considered to recite an abstract idea, we are persuaded that additional limitations (or combination of elements) recited in Appellant’s claim 1 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g., “one or more [client] media devices” and “server device” and several client-server interactions) as recited in claim 1 use the “pointer(s)” to obtain a unique random serial number or code through a server device to combat counterfeiting and diversion of products and to improve the functioning of a client-server system and related technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Because Alice step 1 is dispositive, we need not reach Alice step 2 (inventive concept). As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 16 rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, 17, and 18 In support of the anticipation rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Leon discloses the disputed limitations: (1) “obtaining a pointer to each of one or more unique random serial numbers or codes that are used to authenticate the tangible item(s) or tangible label(s) from the one or more media devices,” and (2) “obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) from a server device communicably coupled to the processor(s) via a communications interface using the pointer(s).” Final Act. 11–12 (citing Leon 12:62–13:6; 13:22–30; 13:36–48; 18:56–19:25; 23:61–24:3; 24:24–39; 30:45–55). Appellant acknowledges “Leon is directed to techniques for dispensing postage in a distributed environment” where “a user opens an account prior to being able to buy postage and, as part of this process, the user provides identifying and payment information” which is “then used to bill for postage purchased by the user and assign [sic] an identifier to the user that uniquely identifies the user.” App. Br. 13 (citing Leon 2:20–23; 12:62–13:6). Appellant also acknowledges Leon also teaches the use of “serial numbers associated with each postage label and/or a ‘lot’ of postage labels.” Id. at 14 (citing Leon 14:14–32). However, Appellant argues Leon does not disclose [1] obtaining a pointer to each of one or more unique random serial numbers or codes that are used to authenticate the [tangible] item(s) or [tangible] label(s) from the one or more media devices or [2] obtaining the unique random Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 17 serial number(s) or code(s) from a server device via the communications interface using the pointer(s) as recited in claim 1. Id. at 13. According to Appellant, “serial numbers described in Leon are merely used as a security feature to prevent fraud,” but that “serial numbers” are not the same as Appellant’s claimed “pointers” or “obtaining the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) from a server device . . . using the pointer(s) as recited in claim 1.” Id. at 15. The Examiner responds that: (1) the term “pointer(s)” is not defined in the claims or Appellant’s Specification, and, (2) in the absence of a controlling definition from the Specification, such a term can be broadly interpreted to encompass Leon’s “use of a URL” because (i) the term “URL” (“Uniform Resource Locator”) is also a pointer, as commonly understood by those skilled in the art, and Leon’s “URL is used to access the indicium generated by the server” and (ii) “Appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary that the term URL is not synonymous with the word pointer.” Ans. 7–9, 11 (citing website definitions of “URL” from various sources, including (1) https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2799; (2) https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/1pi/java/net/package-use.html; (3) http://www.biology.wustl.edu/class/www.html; and (4) Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, March 15, 2002). We do not agree with the Examiner. At the outset, we note Appellant’s claim 1 requires “a pointer to each of one or more unique random serial numbers or codes that are used to authenticate the tangible items from the one or more media devices.” In contrast, Leon’s URL, as commonly understood by those skilled in the art, is at best “a pointer to a referenced document or object and its associated access service on the Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 18 Internet or an intranet,” also known as “an address for a resource on the Internet.” Ans. 8–9 (citing to proffered definition of “URL” from the Glossy of Statistical Terms at https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2799). Based on the context of Appellant’s claim 1, the claimed “pointer(s)” cannot be broadly interpreted to encompass Leon’s “URL” because Leon’s “URL” is pointing to “a referenced document or object and its associated access service on the Internet or an intranet” or “a resource on the Internet,” whereas Appellant’s claimed “pointer(s)” is obtained “from the one or more media devices” and is used to “point” to “the unique random serial number(s) or code(s) that are used to authenticate the tangible item(s) or tangible label(s)” so that “the unique random serial number(s) or code(s)” can be obtained “from a server device . . . using the pointer(s)” as recited in claim 1. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 8–10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Leon. For the same reasons discussed, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leon. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(e) and 103(a). Appeal 2017-011518 Application 13/706,039 19 DECISION As such, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8– 12, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(e) and 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 35 U.S.C. § 101 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–10, and 19 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–10, and 19 4, 11, 12, 17, and 18 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4, 11, 12, 17, and 18 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–6, 8–12, and 17–19 REVERSED