Ex Parte Faith et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 5, 2019

13840237 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/840,237 03/15/2013 909 7590 04/09/2019 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Newman Faith 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 034250-0437090 8198 EXAMINER JOHNSON, ROBERT C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3682 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/09/2019 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): docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN NEWMAN FAITH, JAGJIT SINGH BATH, EITHAN ZILKHA, CAMERON KENT SAVAGE, DAVID JOHN REESE, and JAMES DAMON TRIM Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,23 7 1 Technology Center 3600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 13, and 15-27. Appellants have canceled claims 3, 10-12, and 14. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify RetailMeNot, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to the redemption of merchant offers, such as online coupons. Spec. ,r 2. A user may access or acquire online coupons from a native offers application for use with specific merchants or products. Spec. ,r,r 3, 5. In order to redeem the online coupon, a coupon code associated with an online coupon may be entered into a suitable input field within a merchant webpage. Spec. ,r,r 5---6, 10. According to the Specification, in order to facilitate the online coupon redemption, the coupon code may be displayed concurrently with the merchant webpage. Spec. ,r,r 5---6. In a disclosed embodiment, a user interface element comprising the coupon code may be moved from a first location to a second location on the display ( e.g., a touchscreen) of a user device. Spec. ,r 7. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining an online coupon in a special-purpose native offers application executing on a mobile user device, the online coupon having a coupon code in a user interface element located at first location defining a first set of coordinates of a touchscreen of the mobile user device; receiving a selection to redeem the online coupon in an online transaction with a merchant; displaying in the user interface, by a processor of the mobile user device, a webpage of the merchant by sending a request, via the Internet, to a web server by which the webpage of the merchant is accessible, receiving the webpage, and rendering the webpage; and 2 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 animating, with a processor of the mobile user device, a visual movement of a visual representation of the coupon code from the first location to a second location, the second location defining a second set of coordinates of the touchscreen of the mobile user devices, wherein the coupon code is displayed at the second location concurrently with displaying the webpage of the merchant. The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, 13, and 15-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2---6. 2. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 22-25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Treyz et al. (US 2008/0228600 Al; Sept. 18, 2008) ("Treyz") and Lee (US 6,434,484 B 1; Aug. 13, 2002). Final Act. 7-15. 3. Claims 13, 15-18, 26, and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Keith et al. (US 2007/0174116 Al; July 26, 2007) ("Keith") and Nurmi (US 2009/0276701 Al; Nov. 5, 2009). Final Act. 15-22. 4. Claims 19-21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Keith, Nurmi, and Lee. Final Act. 22-24. 3 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 ANALYSIS 2 Re} ection under 3 5 US. C. Â§ 101 a. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 22-25 Appellants dispute the Examiner's conclusion that the pending claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. App. Br. 5-14; Reply Br. 2- 6. In particular, Appellants argue the pending claims are not directed to a mental process or a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims solve a technical problem that arises when transitioning between native application user interfaces and webpages. App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2---6. Moreover, Appellants assert the claims provide an inventive concept because the claims recite an ordered combination of elements that is non-conventional and non-routine. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5---6. The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014). In addition, the Office recently published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. US PTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Office Guidance"). If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed October 24, 2016 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed March 27, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed January 25, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed October 23, 2015 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Per Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception ( e.g., an abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the claim is patent eligible underÂ§ 101. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application), the next step is to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, we conclude Appellants' claims recite an abstract idea within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity-i.e., a fundamental economic practice. In particular, Appellants' claims are generally directed to the use of online coupons on a merchant webpage. This is consistent with how Appellants describe the claimed invention. See Spec. ,r,r 2, 5 ( describing the invention as relating to "techniques for redemption of merchant offers such as online coupons"). The use of coupons dates back to 1887 when Coca-ColaÂ® offered consumers a coupon for a free glass of Coca-ColaÂ®. See Brad Tuttle, The History of Coupons, TIME Apr. 6, 2010 (available at http://business.time.com/2010/04/06/the- history-of-coupons/) (last visited Mar. 20, 2019) ( citing Coupon Sherpa, see 5 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 http://www. couponsherpa. com/ ask-coupon-sherpa/ a-brief-history-of- coupons/). Further, it has been estimated that consumers in the United States used $3.5 billion worth of coupons, and that 50 million online coupons were redeemed. See Visual.ly, How Big is the Coupon Industry?, https://visual.ly/community/infographic/business/how-big-coupon-industry. Thus, the use of coupons (including online coupons) has been long-standing and prevalent in our system of commerce. Accordingly, consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, we conclude that the use of online coupons on a merchant webpage is a certain method of organizing human activity ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice), and therefore an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12 (2010) ( concluding that hedging is a "fundamental economic practice" and therefore an abstract idea); Alice, 573 at 220 (describing the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as "a method of organizing human activity"); Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20 ( concluding that use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce" and thus, an abstract idea). Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim limitations that recite the use of online coupons on a merchant webpage, emphasized in italics: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining an online coupon in a special-purpose native offers application executing on a mobile user device, the online coupon having a coupon code in a user interface element located at first location defining a first set of coordinates of a touchscreen of the mobile user device; receiving a selection to redeem the online coupon in an online transaction with a merchant; 6 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 displaying in the user interface, by a processor of the mobile user device, a webpage of the merchant by sending a request, via the Internet, to a web server by which the webpage of the merchant is accessible, receiving the webpage, and rendering the webpage; and animating, with a processor of the mobile user device, a visual movement of a visual representation of the coupon code from the first location to a second location, the second location defining a second set of coordinates of the touchscreen of the mobile user devices, wherein the coupon code is displayed at the second location concurrently with displaying the webpage of the merchant. More particularly, the concept of using online coupons on a merchant webpage comprises: (i) obtaining an online coupon (i.e., the claimed step of obtaining an online coupon containing a coupon code); and (ii) navigating to a merchant webpage wherein the merchant webpage comprises a field to apply the online coupon (i.e., the claimed steps of receiving a selection to redeem the online coupon in a transaction with the merchant and displaying the merchant webpage ). Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there are "any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)" and evaluate those elements to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55 (emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") Â§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). 7 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 Here, we find the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a "particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(b) ); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, "animating ... a visual movement of a visual representation of the coupon code from [a] first location to a second location" such that the coupon code is displayed concurrently with the merchant webpage does not improve the capabilities of a computer (i.e., mobile user device), but instead uses the computer as a tool. See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing between claims wherein the focus of the claims is on an improvement in computer capabilities and those that invoke a computer as a tool); Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( concluding the abstract idea "merely require[ d] generic computer implementation" and failed to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application). As discussed, the claims are not focused on an improvement to computer capabilities, but are performed on a computing device ( e.g., mobile device). Also, contrary to Appellants' arguments (see, e.g., App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4--5), the pending claims are distinct from those at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims in McRO--unlike the claims here-recited a "specific ... improvement in computer animation" using "unconventional rules" that related "sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets" to 8 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 automatically animate lip synchronization and facial expressions for three- dimensional characters that only human animators could previously produce. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1302---03, 1307---08, 1313-15. In McRO, "the incorporation of the claimed rules" improved an existing technological process. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. In contrast, Appellants' claims here do not improve an existing technological process. See Alice, 537 U.S. at 223 ( explaining that "the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process"). Rather, the pending claims merely move a graphical item (i.e., a representation of a coupon code) from one location to another. To the extent Appellants assert (see App. Br. 8-9) the claims are not directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, but rather "address challenges that arise in handoffs between native applications and web pages in a specific industry, online coupon publishing," we disagree. As discussed above, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity (i.e., a fundamental economic practice). Moreover, independent claims 1 and 8 merely recite that the coupon code from a native application is "displayed ... concurrently" with the merchant webpage. These limitations do not sufficiently recite how handoff issues between native applications and webpages are resolved. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining "a claim that merely describes an effect or result dissociated from any method by which [it] is accomplished is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter") (internal quotation omitted); see also Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 9 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73, 77-79 (2012)). As stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to determine whether the claims amount to "significantly more" under step two of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis, we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, Appellants' claims do not recite specific limitations ( or a combination of limitations) that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. As recited in claim 1, for example, the method is performed on a mobile user device comprising a touchscreen and further capable of connecting to a merchant webpage via the Internet. Appellants further describes the mobile user device in generic terms and comprising "general- purpose" components and "known circuitry." Spec. ,r,r 105-112, Fig. 8. Further, in describing an overall offers environment, Appellants recite generic components such as mobile user devices, desktop computers, and 10 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 servers, networked together via the Internet. Spec. ,r,r 25-29, Fig. 1. Such generic recitations do not amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components such as an "interface," "network," and "database," fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."); see also Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1242 ("The patents can readily be understood as adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices."). Further, unlike the arrangement of elements (i.e., installation of a filtering tool at a specific location) in BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and contrary to Appellants' arguments (see App. Br. 12), Appellants' claims do not recite a non-conventional and non-routine arrangement of known elements. Additionally, to the extent Appellants contend the claims do not seek to tie-up an abstract idea (App. Br. 10), we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. "[W]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." FairWarning IP LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotingAriosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362---63 ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less 11 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 abstract."). Further, "[ w ]here a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. b. Claims 13, 15-21, 26, and 27 Similar to independent claim 1, independent claim 13 generally relates to using an online coupon on a merchant webpage. As discussed infra, we review representative claim 13 consistent with Office Guidance. Similarly, we conclude Appellants' claims (i.e., claims 13, 15-21, 26, and 27) recite an abstract idea within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity-i.e., a fundamental economic practice. In particular, Appellants' claims are generally directed to applying an online coupon on a merchant webpage. This is consistent with how Appellants describe the claimed invention. See Spec. ,r,r 2, 5 ( describing the invention as relating to "techniques for redemption of merchant offers such as online coupons"). As discussed above, the use of coupons (including online coupons) has been long-standing and prevalent in our system of commerce. Accordingly, consistent with our Office Guidance and caselaw, we conclude that applying an online coupon on a merchant webpage is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a fundamental economic practice), and therefore an abstract idea. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611-12 (2010) (concluding that hedging is a "fundamental 12 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 economic practice" and therefore an abstract idea); Alice, 573 at 220 ( describing the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as "a method of organizing human activity"); Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-- 20 ( concluding that use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce" and thus, an abstract idea). Claim 13 is reproduced below and includes the following claim limitations that recite the use of online coupons on a merchant webpage, emphasized in italics: 13. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having executable computer code stored thereon, the executable computer code comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: obtaining a coupon code associated with a merchant in a special purpose native offers application executing on a mobile user device, the coupon code being displayed in a user interface element located at a first location defining a first set of coordinates of a touchscreen of the mobile user device, the coupon code being obtained, at least in part, by receiving with the special purpose native offers application a user selection of a corresponding coupon from among a plurality of coupons associated with respective merchants among a plurality of merchants, the plurality of coupons being obtained by transmitting a request for coupons to a remote coupon publisher server; obtaining with the special purpose native offers application a webpage of the merchant and displaying the webpage of the merchant concurrently with displaying the coupon code, the webpage being obtained from a server at which at least part of the merchant's website is accessible, the webpage comprising a plurality of web page elements including an input field operative to receive the coupon code prior to submission of the coupon code to the merchant for redemption of the corresponding coupon, the input field being located at a second 13 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 location defining a second set of coordinates of the touch screen, the webpage being displayed by a web browser instantiated by the special purpose native offers application; receiving a touch on the touchscreen at the first location; receiving a gesture on the touchscreen, the gesture comprising a movement from the first location to the second location; executing, by a processor of the mobile user device, a visual movement of the user interface element having the coupon code from the first location to the second location along a path coincident with the gesture; receiving a release of the touch at the second location; selecting the input field from among the plurality of web page elements of the webpage of the merchant based on both a position of the second location on the touchscreen and a position of the input field on the touchscreen; and setting the input field of the webpage to a value corresponding to the coupon code. More particularly, the concept of applying an online coupon on a merchant webpage comprises: (i) obtaining an online coupon code (i.e., the claimed step of obtaining a coupon code associated with a merchant); (ii) navigating to a merchant webpage (i.e., the claimed step of obtaining and displaying the merchant webpage ); and (iii) applying the coupon code in an input field on the merchant webpage that accepts coupon codes (i.e., the claimed steps of selecting the input field for coupon code entry on the merchant webpage and setting the input field to a value corresponding to the coupon code). As discussed above regarding claim 1, because claim 13 recites a judicial exception, we next determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. 14 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 Again, we find the additional limitation( s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a "particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(b) ); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the additional limitations of "receiving a touch ... at the first location;" "receiving a gesture ... comprising a movement from the first location to the second location;" "executing ... a visual movement of the [ coupon code graphical element] from the first location to the second location;" and "receiving a release of the touch at the second location" does not improve the capabilities of a computer (i.e., mobile user device), but instead uses the computer (i.e., the touchscreen of a mobile user device) as a tool. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. As discussed, the claims (e.g., claim 13) are not focused on an improvement to computer capabilities, but are performed on a computing device (e.g., mobile device). To the extent Appellants argue claims 13 and 15 recite a solution for coordinating user interfaces between native applications and webpages (see App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6-7), we disagree. As the Examiner explains, The selecting of the input field from among the plurality of web page elements of the webpage of the merchant is done by the user. The touch input from the user guides the selection. The computer technology is not improved in a manner that would amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the user is deciding where to place the relevant coupon data. 15 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 Ans. 11. Thus, Appellants' reliance on McRO (see App. Br. 14) is inapposite because the selection of the input field is performed by the user. Further, claims 13 and 15 set forth that the user uses a gesture on the touchscreen to position the coupon code to a second location corresponding to the input field of the merchant webpage for coupon codes and that the input field is set to the coupon code. Claim 15 further recites determining a location of the second location (i.e., where the user has moved the coupon code) relative to a location of the input field of the merchant webpage. These limitations do not sufficiently recite, however, how the coupon code is entered into the input field of the merchant webpage. See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1244; see also Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348. Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72- 73, 77-79). As stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to determine whether the claims amount to "significantly more" under step two of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis, we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the 16 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Similar to the analysis with respect to claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 22-25 (see supra), Appellants' claims do not recite specific limitations ( or a combination of limitations) that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Additionally, we note Appellants advance similar arguments regarding patent eligibility to those presented with respect to independent claim 1. See App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 2---6. For similar reasons to those discussed supra, we do not find these arguments persuasive. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13, 15- 21, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Rejections under 35 US.C. Â§ 103 a. Claims 1, 2, 4--9, and 22-25 Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Lee renders obvious displaying a coupon code concurrently with the displaying of the merchant webpage. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 7-8. In particular, Appellants contend Lee generally relates to a GPS receiver and does not contemplate transitioning to a third party user interface ( e.g., a merchant webpage) as part of the typical GPS receiver operation described by Lee. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 8. As identified by the Examiner, Lee describes an animation within the GPS receiver application of a graphical character placing a flag to indicate a location of interest (i.e., a user's home or desired destination). See Lee, 17 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 col. 5, 11. 7-27, Figs. 5, 6. The Examiner explains "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art ... to have additional information displayed, such as a merchant's webpage, in order to allow the user to make a purchase." Ans. 13. The Examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness. The key to supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 should be made explicit. Additionally, the Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the Examiner has not made explicit with evidence of sufficient technical reasoning or explanation as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have motivated to modify the GPS receiver of Lee to include a merchant webpage. The Examiner's proffered reasoning of allowing a user to make a purchase is inconsistent with a user's typical usage of a GPS receiver (i.e., to obtain directions while driving (i.e., not shopping)). For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 8, which recites 18 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4--7, 9, and 22-25, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. b. Claims 13, 15-21, 26, and27 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in relying on Nurmi to teach selecting the coupon code input field from among a plurality of input fields on a merchant webpage and setting the coupon code input field with a value corresponding to the coupon code, as recited in independent claim 13. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants argue Nurmi generically describes dragging and dropping an item such as a text document to a folder, but is silent as to how the content of what is being dragged (i.e., a coupon code) is dropped into a specific element of a webpage (i.e., the input field for coupon codes on a merchant webpage). App. Br. 15 (citing Nurmi ,r 37); Reply Br. 9. The Examiner finds Nurmi teaches a drag and drop functionality that may be used to transmit and receive web content and for Internet applications. See Ans. 14 (citing Nurmi ,r,r 31, 35). However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or reasoning how the cited portions of Nurmi teach, or reasonably suggest, the content of the item being dragged and dropped is applied to the target location. Rather, the cited portions of Nurmi merely describe the target environment for practicing Nurmi's disclosed invention. Because we find it dispositive that Nurmi, as relied on by the Examiner, does not teach, inter alia, setting an input field with the value corresponding to the contents of a graphical item being dragged and 19 Appeal2017-006880 Application 13/840,237 dropped, as required by independent claim 13, we need not address other issues raised by Appellants' arguments. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claim 13. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-21, 26, and 27, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--9, 13, and 15-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--9, 13, and 15-27 underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--9, 13, and 15-27 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(a)(l) (2015). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 20 * * Notice of References Cited Document Number Countiy Cotie-Number-Kind Code A US- B US- c US- C\ US-!J E US- F US- c; US- H US- US- j US- K US- L US- M US- Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Cotie N 0 p Q R s T Date MM-YYYY Date MM-YYYY Application/Control Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. 2017-Â·006880 No. 13/840,~:37 Examiner Art Unit 3682 Page 1 of Â·1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Name CPC Classification US Classification FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS Country Name CPC Classification NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Tille Date, Publ;sher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u How Big is the Coupon industry? (last retrieved on 3/20/2019 al https://visual.ly/community/infographic/ business/howÂ·-big-coupon .. industry) The History of Coupons. Brad Tuttle. (April 8, 201 O) (last retrieved on 3/20/2019 at V h Up:/ /business. time .com/20 l 0/04/ 06/the-history-of coupons/ prin ti) w X ',<\ copy of tt11s reference 1s not being furr11shed w1m mis Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY tormat are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper r~o. 20170303 How Big is the Coupon Industry? I Visual.ly I- Ii--â€¢ 1 â€¢ 1 â€¢ 1 -i Â· Â·Â· â€¢ fht,:,r@kt ,:t,t@,rrrt,rJ-~ft - https://visual.ly/community/infographic/business/how-big-coupon-industry[3/20/2019 12:44:45 PM] ~,,,,,,,-w -&..,,,,,,,~ -&.,,,,,,,~ - How Big is the Coupon Industry? I Visual.ly https://visual.ly/community/infographic/business/how-big-coupon-industry[3/20/2019 12:44:45 PM]