KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 5, 2021

2021000402 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2021)

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.
15/118,159 08/11/2016 MERLIJN SEVENSTER 2013P02273WOUS 9005
24737 7590 08/05/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
1600 Summer Street
5th Floor
Stamford, CT 06905
EXAMINER
AKOGYERAM II, NICHOLAS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MERLIJN SEVENSTER,
THUSITHA DANANJAYA DE SILVA MABOTUWANA, and
ERIC COHEN-SOLAL
____________

Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,1591
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–15, and 17. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to a system and method for
inserting structured content in itemized reports.” (Spec. 1, ll. 1–2.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal. It recites:
1. A method for inserting structured content into template-
based documents, the method comprising:
retrieving one or more information objects queried from a
database, the information objects being descriptors
characterizing individual clinical findings including one or more
findings of a potential presence of a lesion of a patient;
detecting one or more paragraph identifiers in a document,
the paragraph identifiers comprising information to identify a
paragraph in a document;
mapping the one or more information objects to the
detected one or more paragraph identifiers;
automatically inserting the mapped information objects
into one or more paragraphs identified by the detected one or
more paragraph identifiers without any user interaction;
displaying a list of all paragraph identifiers for information
objects which are not mapped to the one or more paragraph
identifiers to the user;
receiving a user input indicating a selection of a paragraph
identifier from the list of all paragraph identifiers for information
objects which are not mapped to the one or more paragraph
identifiers; and
displaying the document with the one or more information
objects inserted into the detected one or more paragraph
identifiers.

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

2 The rejection of claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) was
withdrawn. (Advisory Action dated April 22, 2020.)
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

3
Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of Reicher (US 2010/0138239 A1, pub. June 3, 2010),
Kumar (US 2002/0007330 A1, pub. Jan. 17, 2002), and McGlynn
(US 2009/0222365 A1, pub. Sept. 3, 2009).
Claims 3, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of Reicher, Kumar, McGlynn, and Koll
(US 2012/0323572 A1, pub. Dec. 20, 2012).
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
in view of Reicher, Kumar, McGlynn, and Yu (US 2009/0024418 A1, pub.
Jan. 22, 2009).

ANALYSIS
The § 101 rejection
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101, however,
“contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

4
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if “the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. If the
claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an
abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine
if “the elements of the claim . . . contain[] an ‘ “inventive concept” ’
sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. at 221 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a “directed
to” two-prong test to: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether
the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner
that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim
is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial
exception.” See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”).
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites “a method of
determining which information to transfer into a document and sorting the
information based on the type of section (e.g., based on the title of the
section in the document).” (Final Action 10.) The Examiner determines that
this is “a concept which is capable of being performed in the human mind or
. . . with the aid of a pen and paper.” (Id.)
Appellant argues that
a person using their mind, or a pen and paper, constitutes “user
interaction”, as recited in claim 1. Thus, the features of
automatically inserting the mapped information objects into one
or more paragraphs identified by the detected one or more
paragraph identifiers without any user interaction[] cannot be
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

5
construed as being performed in the human mind (or with the
assistance of pen and paper).
(Appeal Br. 7.)
Under step one of the Alice framework, we “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) (quoting Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The “directed to” inquiry . . . cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products
and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon
. . . . Rather, the “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on
whether “their character as a whole is directed to excluded
subject matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In
other words, the first step of the Alice framework “asks whether the focus of
the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant
technology] or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36; see also
2019 Guidance at 54–55.
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the invention
“relates generally to a system and method for inserting structured content in
itemized reports.” (Spec. 1, ll. 1–2.) Claim 1 provides further evidence.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method for inserting structured content into template-
based documents, the method comprising: retrieving one or more
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

6
information objects,” “detecting one or more paragraph identifiers in a
document,” “mapping the one or more information objects to the detected
one or more paragraph identifiers,” “automatically inserting the mapped
information objects into one or more paragraphs identified,” “displaying a
list of all paragraph identifiers for information objects which are not
mapped,” “receiving a user input indicating a selection of a paragraph
identifier,” “and displaying the document with the one or more information
objects inserted.”
In other words, claim 1 recites retrieving information, detecting/
recognizing information, mapping information, inserting/modifying
information, displaying/outputting information, receiving information, and
displaying/outputting information. Retrieving information, recognizing
information, mapping information, modifying information, and displaying
information have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea. See,
e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (using a computer-implemented system “to
obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions” did
not result in claim being non-abstract), Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(treating as an abstract idea “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data
within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data”),
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes
‘collecting information, including when limited to particular content’” as
well as analyzing and presenting information), Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (determining parsing, comparing, and
storing data to be directed to an abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

7
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites concepts
capable of being performed in the human mind or . . . mentally
with the aid of pen and paper (including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a method of
determining which information to transfer into a document and
sorting the information based on the type of section (e.g., based
on the title of the section of the document)).
(Final Action 10.)
The 2019 Guidance identifies “concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as mental
processes, and a category of abstract ideas. (2019 Guidance at 52 (footnote
omitted).) Here, the recited actions include retrieving information
(observation, information gathering), detecting/recognizing information
(observation, evaluation), mapping information (evaluation/judgment),
inserting/modifying information (evaluation/judgment), and displaying
information (presenting information). (See 2019 Guidance at 52.) We find
nothing in the claim that forecloses it “from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.” See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Versata
Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still
found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via
pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”).
Nonetheless, Appellant argues that “[t]he limitation of ‘automatically
inserting the mapped information objects into one or more paragraphs
identified by the detected one or more paragraph identifiers without any user
interaction’ is not a concept performed in the human mind. Rather, it is an
operation performed on a paragraph of a document.” (Appeal Br. 6.)
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

8
As an initial matter, we note that the mental processes category of
abstract ideas, as set forth in the 2019 Guidance, includes steps an individual
can perform “mentally or with pencil and paper.” (2019 Guidance at 52 n.15
(quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139
(Fed. Cir. 2016).) Thus, Appellant’s argument that the operation of claim 1
is not performed entirely in the human mind does not persuade us that the
claim cannot fall within the mental processes category.
Moreover, courts have determined that claims to detecting and
manipulating data in documents recite an abstract idea. For example, in
Content Extraction and Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1345, a claim recited
“processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents”
by receiving output representing the documents, recognizing portions of the
documents corresponding to a first field, and storing information from
portions of the documents corresponding to the first field into memory
locations for the first field. The court determined the claim to be “drawn to
the abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in memory.” Id.
at 1347.
In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850
F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017), a claim recited identifying record types in
XML documents, mapping data components of each data object to a primary
record type, organizing the record types to form a management record type,
defining a document for display of the management record type, and
detecting modification of data in the document to then modify a data
component in the XML document. The court determined the claim to be
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

9
“directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating
data.” Id. at 1340.
In In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607,
610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), a claim recited recording and storing digital images,
sending data including the images and classification information, receiving
the data and extracting the classification information, and storing the images
taking into consideration the classification information. The Federal Circuit
determined that the claim was “drawn to the concept of classifying an image
and storing the image based on its classification” and that this was “an
abstract concept.” Id. at 611.
It is clear from the foregoing that detecting and manipulating data in a
document recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, that a step is performed “automatically . . . without any
user interaction” does not change this determination. In Symantec, claim 1
of the ’142 patent recited “receiving and redistributing email messages on a
computer network” including the step of “automatically deliver[ing] the e-
mail message to a first destination post office.” Despite this step
incorporating an automatic action, the Federal Circuit determined that “with
the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.” Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1317–18.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that claim 1 recites elements that can be performed in the
human mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. (See Final Action 10–11.)
With regard to our analysis under prong two, we note that the
limitations of claim 1 do not recite technological implementation details for
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

10
any of the elements. Claim 1 merely recites functional results to be achieved
by any means, e.g., claim 1 does not recite how information objects are
retrieved from the database, how the paragraph identifiers are detected, how
the information objects are mapped, how the mapped information objects are
inserted into the paragraphs, how the list of all paragraph identifiers for non-
mapped information objects is created or displayed, how user input is
received, or how the document is displayed. “Indeed, the claim language
here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how
a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual
Ventures I LLC, 850 F.3d at 1342.
Nor do we find persuasive Appellant’s argument that “claim 1 does
not recite generic computer components, but rather is directed to an
improved lesion tracking interface.” (Appeal Br. 7.)
“As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and
analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular
‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than
abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). The “character of [the] information simply invokes a separate
category of abstract ideas.” Id.
Claim 1 does not recite a computer, a processor, or any other
computer components, save, arguably, for the generic recitation of a
“database.” Claim 8, which recites a system, and includes language similar
to that of claim 1, merely recites generic computer components, i.e., a
database and a mapping device (a display and one or more processors). (See
Spec. 9, ll. 1–13.)
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

11
In cases involving software innovations, such as we arguably have
here, the inquiry as to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea
“often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC, 822 F.3d at 1335–36). And “[e]ven if we
accept [Appellant’s] assertions, the claimed invention merely improves the
abstract concept . . . using a computer as a tool. This is not what the
Supreme Court meant by improving the functioning of the computer itself
nor is it consistent with [the Federal Circuit’s] precedent applying this
concept.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Thus, under prong one of the two prong test in the 2019 Guidance,
claim 1 recites an abstract idea, i.e., mental processes; and, under prong two,
additional elements in claim 1 do not “apply, rely on, or use the judicial
exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the judicial exception.” (See 2019 Guidance at 54.) As such,
under step one of the Alice framework, claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea, and we move to step two.
Step two of the Alice framework has been described “as a 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 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

12
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed in
claim 1 by the generic database, i.e., storing data, is purely conventional.
Similarly, the functions performed in claim 8 by the generic database and
mapping device (display and one or more processors) are purely
conventional. Storing data, retrieving data, recognizing data, manipulating
data, and displaying data are conventional functions previously known in the
industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not
include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering,
analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely
conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an
arguably inventive concept . . . .”); see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., 793
F.3d at 1335 (determining claims requiring “arranging, storing, retrieving,
sorting, eliminating, determining” to “involve the normal, basic functions of
a computer” and to be “conventional, routine, and well-known”), In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming.”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic database, display,
and processor(s) add nothing that is not already present when the limitations
are considered separately. For example, neither claim 1 nor claim 8 purports
to improve the functioning of the database itself or of any computer
components. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or
technical field. Instead, claims 1 and 8 amount to nothing significantly more
than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer
components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

13
transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 225–26. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 8. Claims 7 and 13 contain similar language and fall for
similar reasons. Dependent claims 6, 12, and 17 merely add detail to the
abstract idea. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 14, and 15 are not separately argued and
fall with their respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The § 103 rejections
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that Kumar teaches a system including “displaying a list of all
paragraph identifiers for information objects which are not mapped to the
one or more paragraph identifiers to the user,” as recited in claim 1. (Final
Action 20 (citing Kumar ¶ 231, Fig. 18).) Specifically, the Examiner finds
that Kumar
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

14
teaches that, where transactions cannot be categorized
automatically (i.e., information objects which are not mapped to
the one or more paragraph identifiers), they are listed as
uncategorized in the default mode. The user may change the
category associated with any line item by simply interacting with
the drop-down menus (i.e., displaying a list of paragraph
identifiers for the information objects which are not mapped to
the one or more paragraph identifiers) and selecting an alternate
category.).
(Id. at 21.)
Appellant argues that “Kumar does not disclose that all possible
paragraph identifiers are displayed for a user to select from. Instead, Kumar
discloses that a basic category is selected, and then a list of options is
displayed for the user to select from.” (Appeal Br. 10.) “This is different
from claim 1, which recites that all paragraph identifiers are displayed in a
list for the user.” (Reply Br. 6.)
Kumar discloses that “a transaction module having a displayable
summary interface is provided as part of a software suite for enabling
viewing and manipulation of multiple categories of aggregated data
compiled from a plurality of data sources.” (Kumar ¶ 19.) Figure 18 of
Kumar is reproduced below.

Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

15
Figure 18 shows “an exemplary screen shot of the Transaction Center––
Default view.” (Kumar ¶ 49.) In particular, Figure 18 shows “a plurality of
drop-down menus listing a plurality of transactions category options.” (Id.
¶ 231.) Kumar discloses that
a user may arbitrarily change a category associated with any line
item by simply interacting with the drop-down menus such as
menu 315, and selecting an alternate category. Where
transactions cannot be categorized automatically, they are listed
uncategorized in the default mode. . . . By selecting one of the
basic categories, transactions are sorted and displayed according
to that category. By selecting one of the subcategories associated
with the basic category, transactions are sorted and displayed
according to that subcategory.
(Id.) By selecting different categories and selecting drop-down lists from
each category, a user could eventually display all of the categories
(including subcategories), i.e., all paragraph identifiers.
But claim 1 recites “displaying a list of all paragraph identifiers for
information objects which are not mapped to the one or more paragraph
identifiers to the user.” Applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, we
determine that “displaying a list of all paragraph identifiers” includes
displaying all paragraph identifiers in one displayed list. In other words, we
give weight to the term “a list,” i.e., there is a difference between displaying
all paragraph identifiers, and “displaying a list of all paragraph identifiers.”
And although we would agree with the Examiner that Kumar teaches
displaying all paragraph identifiers, we do not agree that Kumar teaches
“displaying a list of all paragraph identifiers.” Rather than displaying a list
of all categories, i.e., all paragraph identifiers, the relied upon portions of
Kumar teach, at best, displaying multiple lists, each list displaying a subset
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

16
of all of the categories.3 The Examiner does not find that it would have been
obvious to modify Kumar’s multiple lists to create “a list of all paragraph
identifiers.”
The Examiner also cites to McGlynn as teaching “displaying a list of
all paragraph identifiers for information objects which are not mapped to the
one or more paragraph identifiers to the user.” (Final Action 21 (citing
McGlynn ¶ 78).) Appellant argues that “McGlynn suffers from the same
deficiencies as Kumar.” (Appeal Br. 10.)
McGlynn discloses “a system and method for community-based
transaction categorization that utilizes previous categorizations of
transactions by members of a community of users to categorize a new
transaction for an individual member of the community.” (McGlynn,
Abstract.) Paragraph 78 of McGlynn, cited by the Examiner, refers to
Figure 6. Figure 6 of McGlynn is reproduced below.

3 The Examiner notes that “[p]aragraph [0231] does not state that the
subcategories are not displayed unless the user selects the basic category
first.” (Answer 5.) But this tells us what Kumar does not disclose. We do
not infer from this silence that Kumar discloses displaying all categories and
subcategories in a list.
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

17

Figure 6 shows a screenshot of an “example user interface[] for use in a
community-based transaction categorization system.” (Id. ¶ 17.) McGlynn
teaches presenting the user with a list of categories, i.e., paragraph
identifiers. These appear on the left side of Figure 6. These “categories may
have subcategories, sub-subcategories, and so on. The user is also presented
with a list of uncategorized transactions with various transaction attributes
associated with each transaction.” (Id. ¶ 77.) The user may manually select
a category for a transaction. Figure 6 shows use of a drag-and-drop
operation to drag the MARY KAY transaction from the uncategorized list to
the PERSONAL CARE category. (Id. ¶ 78.)
Figure 6 shows “+” signs adjacent to several of the categories. It is
unclear, however, if one could select every “+” sign so as to display a list of
all categories, i.e., to display a list of all paragraph identifiers. The
Examiner makes no such finding and we decline to make such a fact finding
in the first instance. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that McGlynn
suffers from the same deficiencies as Kumar.
Appeal 2021-000402
Application 15/118,159

18
In view of the above, we will reverse the rejection of claim 1 under
§ 103. Independent claims 8 and 13 contain similar language and for similar
reasons we will reverse the § 103 rejections of claim 8 and 13, and of claims
3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12–15, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4,
6–10,
12–15, 17
101 Eligibility 1, 3, 4,
6–10,
12–15, 17

1, 4, 6–8,
10, 13, 15
103 Reicher, Kumar,
McGlynn
1, 4, 6–8,
10, 13, 15
3, 9, 14 103 Reicher, Kumar,
McGlynn, Koll
3, 9, 14
12, 17 103 Reicher, Kumar,
McGlynn, Yu
12, 17
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4,
6–10,
12–15, 17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED