Personali Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

2019006858 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/164,247 05/25/2016 Keren ZIMMERMAN 31036-25 4620
28221 7590 07/16/2020
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATOR
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
ONE LOWENSTEIN DRIVE
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
WEINER, ARIELLE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEREN ZIMMERMAN and NOAM JAVITS
____________________

Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–7, 9–17, and 19. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure generally relates to systems and methods “for
generating a real-time personalized price adjustment.” Spec. ¶ 9. More

1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Personali Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

2
specifically, the claimed subject matter encodes messages, receives a
message from a sender, identifies the message recipient, securely transmits
the message to the recipient’s device, sets two timers, transmits a first
notification to the recipient indicating the user has a secure message,
monitor for an indication the recipient has read the message and, if the first
and second timers expire prior to receiving such indication, sending first and
second respective reminders of different type to the recipient. Spec. ¶¶ 3,
13–15, Fig. 2. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims, and claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method for generating a real-time personalized price
adjustment, comprising:
receiving, by an electronic commerce (e-commerce)
server, a message that at least one product is added to an
electronic shopping cart of an e-commerce website displayed on
a consumer device;
collecting, by the e-commerce server, at least one user-
activity parameter related to a user of the consumer device;
collecting at least one product-related parameter to the at
least one product;
computing an interest score based on the at least one user-
activity parameter, wherein the interest score indicates a degree
of interest of the user in the at least one product;
computing a product score based on the at least one
product related parameter, wherein the product score represents
a probability that a price of the at least one product can be
adjusted;
computing an adjustment value as a function the interest
score and the product score, where the adjustment value is
computed when the interest score is above a first predefined
threshold and the product score is above a second predefined
threshold;
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

3
generating in real-time a price adjustment for purchasing
the at least one product, wherein the price adjustment is
generated based on the adjustment value; and
displaying of the price adjustment in the electronic
shopping cart in association with the at least one product type.
The Pending Rejections
Claims 1–7, 9–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Ans. 3–9.
Claims 1–7, 9–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Ouimet (US 2012/0253907 A1; Oct. 4, 2012),
Narasimhan (US 2011/0029382 A1; Feb. 3, 2011), Walker (US
2007/0208625 A1; Sept. 6, 2007), and Savoor (US 2007/0143775 A1; June
21, 2007). Ans. 10–25.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Br. 7–14. Therefore, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of all pending claims on appeal.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility, the Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101—i.e., evaluating whether the claim
is directed to a judicially recognized exception. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). We also consider the United States Patent
and Trademark Office’s revised guidance for applying the Alice framework
when evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

4
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”); USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility
Guidance Update (Oct. 18, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/PatentEligibility
(“Guidance Update”).
As part of our inquiry, 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); see Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217 (“First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts.”). The Guidance breaks this “directed
to” inquiry (“Step 2A”) into two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite
a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) (“Prong 1”), and (ii) if so, is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application (“Prong 2”).
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
If we determine the claim is directed to an abstract idea, we then
examine “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered
combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive
concept,” “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); see Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (directing us to consider whether the additional claim elements
add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[]
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

5
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry” (“Step 2B”)).
As an initial matter, we note that the Final Rejection was issued prior
to the Guidance. Nevertheless, the Examiner has applied and followed the
Guidance in explaining the rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Ans. 3–6; see Final Act. 3–9. The Examiner concludes the claims
are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 3–6.
Guidance Step 2A (The Alice “Directed To” Inquiry)
The Examiner determines the claims are directed to “generating a
personalized price adjustment.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines
generating a personalized price adjustment is a fundamental economic
practice similar to concepts the Federal Circuit previously identified as
abstract. Final Act. 4–6 (citing OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). We agree with the Examiner’s characterization
of the claims and conclusion that the claims are directed to this concept,
which is an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We discuss our
reasoning and the Examiner’s application of the Guidance with respect to the
“directed to” inquiry’s two prongs, see Ans. 3–6, in the following
subsections.
This characterization is consistent with how Appellant describes the
claimed embodiments of the invention. At a high level, the claims
themselves recite that they are methods and systems “for generating a real-
time personalized price adjustment.” Br. 16–18 (independent claims 1, 10,
and 11. Moreover, Appellant explicitly states that “[t]he claims are directed
toward generating a real-time personalized price that is based on” user and
product parameters that are used to determine an adjustment value when a
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

6
score exceeds a threshold. Br. 9. The Specification also supports this
characterization. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2 (“The disclosure generally relates to
. . . a system and method for generating real-time personalized price
adjustments for shoppers of e-commerce websites.”), 9, 10, 16, 25, Fig. 2,
Title (“A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATION OF A REAL-
TIME PERSONALIZED PRICE ADJUSTMENT”).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Br. 7. Appellant argues the
claims are not like the ineligible claims in OIP Technologies because
Appellant’s claims do not “focus on merely pricing a product for sale based
on statistics generated about how customers have reacted to offers testing the
prices” and because the claims are not “‘exceptionally broad’ . . . as
described in OIP Tech, but rather toward a specific and limited method and
system.” Br. 9.
We disagree. Appellant is correct that the claims recite details
regarding the particular information collected and used (i.e., user activity
parameters and product parameters) from which interest scores, product
scores, and adjustment values are calculated. However, the ineligible claims
in OIP Technologies also recited more detail than simply claiming “offer-
based price optimization.” Specifically, the OIP Technologies claims
recited, among other things, (1) sending messages over a network that
presented products to potential customers, (2) details regarding the content
of the messages, (3) gathering particular statistics about how customers
responded, and (4) setting a price at which to sell products based on the
statistical analysis. We see no difference in the level of detail between
representative claim 1 and the ineligible claims in OIP Technologies, and
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

7
Appellant provides no persuasive explanation regarding any such
differences.
Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, as discussed
below, we conclude that the claims are directed to the concept of generating
a personalized price adjustment and the claims merely apply and perform
that concept in a computing environment. See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362
(concluding claims that “broadly recite[] a ‘method of pricing a product for
sale’” were directed to the concept of offer-based price optimization over a
network and, therefore, were ineligible).
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 (Recite an Abstract Idea)
The Examiner determines the claims recite receiving a message that a
product is added to a cart, collecting data (user-activity parameters and
product-related parameters), evaluating data to determine a price adjustment
(computing a product score based on the parameters, computing a price
adjustment value based on the score, and generating a price adjustment
based on the adjustment value), and displaying the price adjustment. Ans.
3–4; see also Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner determines these steps are part
of the claimed concept of generating a personalized price adjustment, which
are commercial or legal interactions and, more specifically, marketing or
sales activities or behaviors. Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 4–5 (citing OIP
Techs., 788 F.3d 1359). As such, consistent with the Guidance, the
Examiner concludes the claims fall within the category of certain methods of
organizing human activity. Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 4–6.
More specifically, claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the claim
limitations that recite aspects of the abstract idea emphasized in italics:
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

8
1. A method for generating a real-time personalized price
adjustment, comprising:
receiving, by an electronic commerce (e-commerce)
server, a message that at least one product is added to an
electronic shopping cart of an e-commerce website displayed on
a consumer device;
collecting, by the e-commerce server, at least one user-
activity parameter related to a user of the consumer device;
collecting at least one product-related parameter to the at
least one product;
computing an interest score based on the at least one user-
activity parameter, wherein the interest score indicates a degree
of interest of the user in the at least one product;
computing a product score based on the at least one
product related parameter, wherein the product score represents
a probability that a price of the at least one product can be
adjusted;
computing an adjustment value as a function the interest
score and the product score, where the adjustment value is
computed when the interest score is above a first predefined
threshold and the product score is above a second predefined
threshold;
generating in real-time a price adjustment for purchasing
the at least one product, wherein the price adjustment is
generated based on the adjustment value; and
displaying of the price adjustment in the electronic
shopping cart in association with the at least one product type.
In other words, the abstract mental process of generating a
personalized price adjustment includes the entirety of representative claim 1
except for the particular hardware recited—i.e., the e-commerce server and
the consumer device. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (describing the certain
methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas as including
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

9
commercial and legal interactions, such as “marketing or sales activities or
behaviors”).
Appellant asserts “the claims do not recite any fundamental economic
practices similar to those previously identified by courts as abstract ideas.”
Br. 9. As noted above, Appellant argues the claims are not “‘exceptionally
broad’ . . . as described in OIP Tech, but rather toward a specific and limited
method and system.” Br. 9.
We agree with the Examiner. As discussed above, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s assertion, without further explanation, that the OIP
Technologies claims’ are broader than Appellant’s claims. We agree with
and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with respect to the
limitations that recite the abstract idea (i.e., the sales or marketing activity of
generating a personalized price adjustment).
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrate Into a Practical Application)
Because the claims recite an abstract idea, we next determine whether
the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Guidance,
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. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54–55 (emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
As noted above, the portions of claim 1 not italicized—i.e., the e-
commerce server and consumer device—are the only additional limitations
recited in representative claim 1 beyond the abstract idea. Here, we find the
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

10
additional limitations 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 § 2106.05(a)); (ii) use a “particular machine” to apply or use the
judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation
of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any
other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Examiner determines the additional limitations (i.e., the e-
commerce server and consumer device) fail to integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, but rather amount to implementing the
abstract idea on a generic computer. Ans. 5–6 (citing FairWarning IP, LLC
v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see Final Act. 6–9. The
Examiner explains the claims do not improve the functioning of a computer
or any other technology, but merely improve the business process related to
e-commerce and link the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment of field of use. Ans. 5–6. The Examiner finds the claims
merely recite generic network technology performing generic computing
functions recited at a high level of generality to apply the judicial exception.
Final Act. 8–9 (explaining that the claims do not recite any arguably new
components and the recited functions could have been performed “in
existing computers long in use” (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner determines the claims
do not recite additional limitations that, individually or when considered as
an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

11
exception. Final Act. 6–9; Ans. 5–6. Therefore, the Examiner concludes the
claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Appellant argues the claims are directed to an improvement to a
technology or technical field because the claims provide “a specific
improvement of product pricing directly within an electronic shopping cart.”
Br. 10. Appellant asserts that, because the adjustment is based on particular
parameters and scores and performed in real-time, the claims “allow[] for a
clear improvement in ecommerce in general, and electronic shopping cart
motivations specifically.” Br. 10.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to Prong 2. As the Examiner notes, even to the extent
Appellant’s claims improve “ecommerce in general” and “electronic
shopping cart motivations specifically,” this is, at best, an improvement to a
business process. See Ans. 5–6. More specifically, the improvement lies in
the commercial sales activity or behavior and, as such, Appellant’s claims, at
most, improve the abstract idea itself. We also agree with the Examiner that
the claims merely recite generic computing devices (i.e., the e-commerce
server and consumer device) at a high level of generality performing generic
computer functions, which is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see MPEP § 2106.05(f);
accord Ans. 5–6; Final Act. 6–9.
Appellant’s assertions do not persuasively explain why improving
ecommerce generally or electronic shopping motivations specifically
improves a technology. Limiting the claims to ecommerce and electronic
shopping carts, at best, links the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment, which also is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

12
practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see MPEP
§ 2106.05(h); accord Ans. 6; Final Act. 8–9.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are
directed to an abstract idea.
Guidance Step 2B (Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
Because we determine representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea or combination of abstract ideas, we evaluate whether the claims
include an inventive concept. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As stated
in the Guidance, many of the considerations to determine whether the claims
amount to “significantly more” under step two of the Alice framework
already are considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception
has been integrated into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56. Thus, at this point of the analysis, we determine whether the claims
(1) add a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or (2) simply append
well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
As explained above, the only additional elements recited in the claims
are the generic e-commerce server and the consumer device. Appellant does
not dispute that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See Br. 10. Appellant merely contends that “the assertion of
additional elements, including an e-commerce server an[d] a consumer
device, is irrelevant because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.”
Br. 10. Regardless, we agree with the Examiner that the recited e-commerce
server and consumer device were well-understood, routine, and
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

13
conventional. See Final Act. 6–9 (citing Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)). This finding that the additional elements were well-
understood, routine, and conventional is supported. See Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20;
Berkheimer Memorandum 3–42; accord Final Act. 6–9.
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–7, 9–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9–17, and 19 as obvious in view of
Ouimet, Narasimhan, Walker, and Savoor. Final Act. 10–25. Of particular
relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds: (1) Ouimet’s server collecting
user-input consumer-weighted attributes teaches or suggests collecting user-
activity parameters, Final Act. 11 (citing Ouiment ¶¶ 53, 62, 70); Ans. 6–7;
(2) Ouimet’s system assigning points or credits to products based on whether
various product attributes match corresponding consumer weighted

2 On April 19, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy issued a memorandum titled: Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (i.e., “the Berkheimer Memorandum”)
(discussing the Berkheimer decision, Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2018)) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF). Support for a finding that an
element was well-understood, routine, or conventional may be shown by
citation to one or more court decisions noting the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the element(s). Berkheimer Memorandum at 4.
Additionally, a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner
that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that
the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional
elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well-
understood, routine, and conventional. Berkheimer Memorandum at 3.
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

14
attributes teaches or suggests computing an interest score, which indicates a
degree of user interest in a product, based on the user-activity parameters,
Final Act. 12 (citing Ouimet ¶ 79); Ans. 7; and (3) Ouimet’s system
iteratively increasing an individualized discounted offer based on the interest
score and the retailer’s maximum acceptable discount for the product
teaches or suggests computing a price adjustment value based on the interest
score and a product score, Final Act. 13 (citing Ouimet ¶¶ 79, 90); Ans. 8
(explaining that Ouimet computes an adjusted discount amount that lowers
the price the consumer pays, thereby teaching a “price adjustment”).
Appellant argues Ouimet does not teach a server collecting user-
activity parameters because “Ouimet requires the direct input of a consumer
in the form of weighted preferences or weighted attributes given by the user
assigned using a sliding scale.” Br. 12. Appellant contends the rejection
finds Ouimet’s consumer-entered preference level teaches both the recited
user activity parameter and the recited interest score, whereas claim 1
requires a first step to collect the user parameter and a second step to
compute an interest score based on the collected parameter, neither of which
includes user input. Br. 12.
Ouimet relates to a commerce system that optimizes a customer’s
shopping list based on product information and user-entered weighted
preferences. Ouimet, Abstract. Ouimet assigns scores (i.e., points or
credits) to products by comparing product information to the weighted
preferences. Ouimet ¶¶ 53, 62, 70, 79. Ouimet then generates an “optimal
individualized discounted offer needed to achieve a positive consumer
purchasing decision for the product from consumer” by repeatedly
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

15
“incrementally increasing the individualized discount offer until the winning
retailer is determined.” Ouimet ¶ 90.
Appellant is correct that Ouimet’s weighted preferences are entered
by a user. See Br. 12. However, simply because the claims do not explicitly
require user-entered information does not mean that the claims preclude
such user-entered information. As the Examiner correctly notes, given the
nature of Ouimet’s system, after a consumer assigns the weighted
preferences, Ouimet at least suggests a server collects the user-entered
preferences and, therefore, Ouimet teaches or suggests a server collecting
the preference. Furthermore, Appellant’s assertion that the rejection relies
on Ouimet’s weighted preferences to teach both the user activity parameter
and the interest score is incorrect. The Examiner originally found, and
reiterated in the Answer, that Ouimet’s assigning points or credits to
products based on the extent to which the products’ attributes match the
weighted preference teaches or suggests computing an interest score. Final
Act. 12; Ans. 7. Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Ouimet teaching or suggesting the collecting a user-
activity parameter step and the computing an interest score step.
Appellant also argues Ouimet fails to teach computing an adjustment
value based on an interest score and a product score. Br. 13. Appellant
asserts Ouimet “is directed toward adjusting a price so that a retailer, or an
individualized discounted offer, ‘achieve[s] a higher position on the
consumer list,’” whereas Appellant’s claimed price adjustment is based on a
computer adjustment value. Br. 13. However, Ouimet’s reason for
computing an adjustment value need not be the same as the reason for
computing the adjustment value in Appellant’s invention.
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

16
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ouimet’s cited
disclosures teach or suggest computing an adjustment value based on the
interest score. The Examiner explained why the cited disclosures teach the
disputed limitation, and Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated why
Ouimet’s disclosures are insufficient to teach the disputed limitation. See
Ans. 8 (explaining that Ouimet’s iterative incremental increase of the
discounted offer results in a reduced price to the consumer, which therefore
teaches or suggests computing and generating a price adjustment as
claimed); see also Final Act. 18–19 (finding that Savoor teaches computing
a price adjustment when multiple scores are above respective thresholds and
finding the combination of Ouimet and Savoor teaches the entirety of the
computing an adjustment value step).
Finally, Appellant asserts none of Narasimhan, Walker, and Savoor
cure the Ouimet’s alleged deficiencies because these references do not teach
“calculating a product score” or “computing an adjustment value as a
function of the interest score and the product score, where the adjustment
value is computed when the interest score and the product score are each
above respective predefined thresholds.” Br. 13. This argument is
unpersuasive because we disagree that Ouimet is deficient in the ways
Appellant asserts.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Ouimet, Narasimhan, Walker, and Savoor teaches or suggests the subject
matter recited in representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2–7, 9–17, and 19,
which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity.
Appeal 2019-006858
Application 15/164,247

17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References / Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–
17, 19 101
Ineligible Subject
Matter (Abstract Idea) 1–7, 9–17, 19
1–7, 9–
17, 19 103
Ouimet, Narasimhan,
Walker, Savoor 1–7, 9–17, 19
Overall
Outcome 1–7, 9–17, 19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED