Ex Parte Neuwirth

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2019

14212783 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/212,783 03/14/2014
122269 7590 04/04/2019
Brian Tucker
Kirton McConkie
36 South State Street, Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Volker Neuwirth
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.
24538.10 1723
EXAMINER
POE,KEVINT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2019 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):
btucker@kmclaw.com
ipdocket@kmclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLKER NEUWIRTH
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER S. BISK, and CARLL.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention is a system, method, and computer program
product for processing a request for user input to a client computing
device over a network. A first request for user input is received from a
merchant computing system, including contact information for a user and
a document to be presented to the user, said document representing an
1 The real party in interest is Zukunftware, LLC.
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
agreement that the user has made or will make. A second request for
user input is sent using the contact information, including the document
to be presented to the user. User interface code is sent to the merchant
computing system to enable the merchant computing system to render the
user interface code to display the user input in conjunction with account
information, such that user input can serve as authorization from the user
for performance of the agreement. Spec. ,r 10.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. In a server computing system, a method for enabling a
merchant computing system to obtain user input from a
user, the method comprising:
providing, by the server computing system, an
interface to the merchant computing system, the interface
configured to receive communications from an application
executing on the merchant computing system, the server
computing system comprising memory that stores
computer executable instructions defining the interface and
a processor that executes the computer executable
instructions to provide the interface;
receiving, via the interface, one or more first
communications sent over the internet by
the application executing on the merchant computing
system, the one or more first communications including:
(1) a request to obtain user input to serve as
authorization for the merchant computing system to
perform a transaction to an account of the user,
(2) contact information for the user,
(3) information representing the transaction, and
( 4) a document to be presented to the user, the
document representing an agreement that the user has made
or will make;
extracting the contact information, the information
representing the transaction, and the document from the
one or more first communications;
2
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
generating a first webpage that includes the
document;
generating a second webpage that includes an
input area for receiving the user input;
formatting the second webpage to include the
information representing the transaction that was provided
in the one or more first communications;
transmitting a second communication over a network
to a client computing device associated with the user based
on the contact information that was provided in the one or
more first communications, the second communication
including a link that the user can select to
cause the first or second webpages to be displayed;
transmitting the first and second webpages to the
client computing device such that the first and second
webpages are displayed to the user to allow the user to
review the document and provide the user input into the
input area;
in response to the user providing the user input,
receiving one or more third communications that include the
user input, the user input comprising an authorization for
performance of the agreement; and
sending the user input to the merchant computing
system to enable the merchant computing system to
associate the user input with the account for the user on the
merchant computing system such that the user input can
serve as authorization from the user to cause the
performance of the agreement authorized by the user
input.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Ruggiero et al.
Loomis et al.
Ritchie et al.
US 2008/0086425 Al
US 2008/0222049 Al
US 2012/0173431 Al
3
Apr. 10, 2008
Sept. 11, 2008
July, 5, 2012
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
Claim 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1 and 3-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Ritchie and Loomis.
Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ritchie, Loomis, and Ruggiero. 2
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Dec. 21, 2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Apr. 21, 201 7) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Is the claimed invention directed to a judicial exception?
2. Is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
3. Does the combination of Ritchie and Loomis disclose or fairly
suggest receiving, via the interface, one or more first communications
sent over the internet by the application executing on the merchant
computing system, including (1) a request to obtain user input to serve as
authorization for the merchant computing system to perform a transaction
to an account of the user; (2) contact information for the user;
(3) information representing the transaction; and (4) a document to be
presented to the user, the document representing an agreement that the
user has made or will make?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd
paragraph. Ans. 17.
4
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
§ 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp.
v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded
category, we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework,
described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what
concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On
their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent
ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such
as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski,
561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
584, 594--95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include
physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products"
(Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); "tanning, dyeing,
making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id.
at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854)));
5
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v.
Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785
(1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but
the Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter
otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it
uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 at 176; see also id. at 192
("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for
molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical
formula."). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a
claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is
not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle
cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to
a particular technological environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook);
see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process
may well be deserving of patent protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the
second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must
examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an
'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea
into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at221 (quotation
marks omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include
'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
6
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application
of§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Revised Guidance"). 84
Fed. Reg. 50. Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then
look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the
field (seeMPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
7
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
Appellants make a unitary argument directed to all pending claims
1-20. Accordingly, we will select independent claim 1 as representative
of the rejected claims.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
(a) providing, by the server computing system, an interface to the
merchant computing system, the interface configured to receive
communications from an application executing on the merchant
computing system; (b) receiving, via the interface, one or more first
communications sent over the internet by the application executing on the
merchant computing system; 3 ( c) extracting the contact information, the
information representing the transaction, and the document from the one
or more first communications; ( d) generating a first webpage that
includes the document; ( e) generating a second webpage that includes an
input area for receiving the user input; (f) formatting the second webpage
to include the information representing the transaction that was provided
in the one or more first communications; (g) transmitting a second
communication over a network to a client computing device associated
with the user, the second communication including a link that the user
can select to cause the first and second webpages to be displayed; (h)
3 The "one or more first communications" are to include four specific
items: (1) a request to obtain user input to serve as authorization for the
merchant computing system to perform a transaction; (2) contact
information for the user; (3) information representing the transaction; and
(4) a document to be presented to the user, the document representing an
agreement that the user has made or will make.
8
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
transmitting the first and second webpages to the client computing device
... to allow the user to review the document and provide user input; (i) in
response to the user-provided input, receiving one or more third
communications that include the user input, the user input comprising an
authorization for performance of the agreement; and (j) sending the user
input to the merchant computing system to enable the merchant
computing system to associate the user input with the account for the user
on the merchant computing system, such that the user input can serve as
authorization from the user to cause the performance of the agreement
authorized by the user input.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation,
recite presenting information to a user, and obtaining "user input" in
response to the presented information. Specifically, the claimed
invention concerns obtaining authorization for a purchase or other legal
agreement to be entered into by a user.
We regard the claimed concept of obtaining written authorization
for a purchase or other legal agreement to be a method of organizing
human activity found by the courts to constitute patent-ineligible subject
matter. Parties have been entering into contracts for the sale of goods or
property, for the performance of services, and for myriad other purposes
for centuries if not millennia. We conclude that the claimed obtention of
authorization for such an agreement is analogous to commercial or legal
interactions, including agreements in the form of contracts, and entering
into legal obligations, that the courts have found to be patent-ineligible.
See, e.g., buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (holding that concept of "creating a contractual relationship----a
9
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
'transaction performance guaranty"' is an abstract idea); In re Comiskey,
554 F.3d 967,981 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claims directed to "resolving a legal
dispute between two parties by the decision of a human arbitrator" are
ineligible); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir.
2014) (holding that claim "describe[ing] only the abstract idea of
showing an advertisement before delivering free content'' is patent
ineligible); In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed Cir. 2009) (holding
methods "directed to organizing business or legal relationships in the
structuring of a sales force ( or marketing company)" to be ineligible);
Credit Acceptance, 859 F .3d 1044 at 1054 ("The Board determined that
the claims are directed to the abstract idea of 'processing an application
for financing a purchase.' ... We agree.").
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite commercial or
legal interactions, which constitute one of certain methods of organizing
human activity identified in the Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We thus conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea, but rather to one particular way, out of many different possible
ways, in which a server computing system enables a merchant to obtain
authorization input from a user. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants' argument is
not persuasive. The claimed invention concerns the adaptation of the
abstract idea of obtaining authorization for a purchase or other legal
agreement, e.g. manually, to the context of a computer system. See Ans.
10
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
18. That the claims limit the claimed invention to one particular mode of
such adaptation does not change the character of the invention.
INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified
abstract idea of obtaining user authorization for a purchase or other legal
agreement into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 51. We consider whether there are any additional elements
beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in combination, "integrate
the [ abstract ideas] into a practical application, using one or more of the
considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit."
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55.
The claimed invention does not constitute an improvement to the
functioning of a computer; rather, it merely constitutes the adaptation of
the abstract idea of obtaining authorization input from a user, previously
performed mentally or manually, to execution as steps performed by a
computer. MPEP 2106.05(a). There is no disclosure to the effect that the
claimed invention is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine.
MPEP 2106.05(b). Appellants' invention does not effect the
transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing. MPEP 2106.05(c).
Appellants argue that "the claims are not merely about automating
the process of obtaining user input. That process has been automated
since at least the advent of computers. Instead, the claims are directed to
a very specific way for obtaining authorization input that would be
beneficial in very specific circumstances." App. Br. 14. Appellants do
not point to any disclosure concerning the claimed specific process that
11
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
would constitute an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
Appellants do not identify application of the claimed invention with, or
by use of, a particular machine.
Appellants disclose that the problem to be overcome with the
present invention is the "burdensome requirement" of printing, signing,
and returning a document. Spec. ,r 6. To that end, the invention "enables
a merchant to send a signature request ... to any device having a browser
and touch screen or other means for receiving user input. An input area
is displayed within the browser on the user's device. When the user
inputs a signature, the signature can be routed over a network back to the
merchant to provide authorization for a transaction." Spec. ,r 7. What the
Specification does not disclose, and what Appellants do not establish in
argument, is any manner in which the disclosed and claimed invention
amounts to more than the established, "manual" process of obtaining user
authorization, adapted to generic computer components.
Turning to further elements under the Guidelines for determining
whether an abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, as
discussed supra we determine that Appellants' invention constitutes mere
instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP
2106.0S(f). We determine that the claim limitations directed to
( 1) generating a first webpage that includes the document; (2) generating
a second webpage that includes information representing the transaction;
and (3) transmitting said first webpage, said second webpage, and a
second communication to a client computing device such that the first
and second webpages are caused to be displayed, are claim limitations
12
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
that constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP
2106.0S(g).
Appellants argue that the series of steps that "defines a process by
which the server generates and links together two different types of
network communications ... so that the user will ultimately be able to
provide user input" defines "a unique way in which the server can
facilitate the receipt of the user input." App. Br. 16-1 7. Appellants'
argument is not persuasive because Appellants do not explain why this
ordered combination of steps "amounts to significantly more than the
abstract idea of receiving user input." App. Br. 16-17. Appellants do
not establish how the recited steps constitute more than insignificant
extra-solution activity. Appellants do not explain how the asserted
linkage of network communications improves the functioning of a
computer, for example, or how the claimed steps are more than a generic
arrangement of network components.
WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, and
do not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not "well understood, routine, and conventional" in the field.
Revised Guidance Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellants' claims recite such technical elements as a "server
computing system," "merchant computing system," and "client
computing device." Appellants disclose that"[ c ]lient computing device
103 represents any device having a browser and a touch screen or other
means for receiving a user's signature." Spec. ,r 41, "Merchant
13
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
computing system 102 represents one or more servers or other computing
devices that a merchant uses to send requests to server system 101 over
network 104." Spec. ,r 42. "Server system 101 represents one or more
computing devices used to receive requests from merchant computing
system 102, and to send requests for signatures to client computing
device 103 and receive signatures back." Spec. ,r 43. "Server system 101
can comprise one or more server computing devices or a cloud of server
computing systems." Id.
We determine that Appellants disclose and claim generic computer
components used conventionally. We are not persuaded that Appellants
provide a non-generic arrangement of known, conventional elements. Id.
Rather, we conclude that the disclosed and claimed invention uses
generic computer components as a mere tool to implement the abstract
idea of obtaining authorization from a user.
As Appellants have not disclosed any features of the claimed
merchant system, server system, or client computing system that would
be considered as other than "well-understood, routine, and conventional,"
these claim limitations fail to indicate the presence of an inventive
concept. We further find that Appellants' disclosure, discussed supra, is
specified at a high level of generality.
MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS
Appellants argue that the claims under appeal should be found to
be patent-eligible because the claims were rewritten to conform
substantially to hypothetical claims based on the Board's holding in
covered business method proceeding CBM 2014-00170. App. Br. 17.
This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, patent
14
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
applications are examined and adjudicated on their own merits. The
outcome in CBM2014-00170 is not controlling authority with respect to
this proceeding. Second, Appellants admit that the claims of CBM2014-
00170 were found to be patent eligible for reasons having nothing to do
with the subject matter of the claimed invention: "primarily based on
how the information is disseminated ... the Board found it significant
that the patent addressed a way to disseminate information to a user's
computing device when the device is not online." App. Br. 19; see
CBM2014-00170, Paper 13.
Appellants also contend that the practices of Art Unit 3692 violate
due process. App. Br. 20. Appellants' argument is not persuasive
because it lacks factual support. By Appellants' own admission, its
argument that Art Unit 3 692 is predisposed not to pass applications to
allowance is "based on speculation." App. Br. 22. That different art
units have different allowance rates for patent applications examined
therein is not, by itself, probative of any violation of constitutional due
process, or even violation ofUSPTO procedures. One practitioner's
opinion concerning a "typical Alice rejection," an opinion that does not
even identify a particular examiner or art unit, has no relevance whatever
to establishing the practices of the art unit in which this application was
examined. App. Br. 23.
In response to Appellants' argument (App. Br. 12) that the claims
do not pre-empt the abstract idea of obtaining authorization input from a
user, we note that lack of preemption will not demonstrate patent
eligibility. "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent
ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this
15
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
We conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed "both
individually and as an ordered combination," amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the
nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2355 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
1297). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
of claims 1-20.
SECTION 103 REJECTIONS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3-15, AND 17-19
Appellants argue that the combination of Ritchie and Loomis fail
to teach or suggest each limitation of the independent claims. App. Br.
28.
Appellants argue generally that the combination of Ritchie and
Loomis fails to teach or suggest the four enumerated items recited in the
"one or more first communications" in the claim, and then proceeds to
present specific argument with respect to the four items. App. Br. 29.
We answer Appellants' arguments as they are presented.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that in Loomis,
there would never be a need for the merchant to request that a server
obtain contact information for the user. App. Br. 29. Loomis is
concerned with the conduct of electronic commerce and with the
obtention of digital signature authentication from the consumer. We find
that a person of ordinary skill would understand, if it is not explicitly
16
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
disclosed, in Loomis that contact information for the user would be
obtained, for two reasons. First, the merchant receives payment
information and shipping information from the user for many commercial
transactions. For example, in Loomis, the merchant requests payment
from the consumer by one of various payment schemes, including a
transaction card. Loomis ,r 36. User contact information would
necessarily constitute part of the information a user would provide in the
course of conducting such a commercial transaction. Second, the
consumer in Loomis performs steps to provide an authenticated digital
signature to the merchant. Loomis ,r,r 3 7-3 8. In the course of such
authentication, the consumer receives an authentication scheme from the
merchant. Loomis ,r 3 8. The consumer therefore necessarily provides
contact information either in advance of, or contemporaneous with, the
steps of providing digital signature authentication parameters, in order to
receive that authentication scheme.
Appellants' argument that "the merchant would never ... have any
reason to have a document that it would need to send to a server to
request that the server present it to the merchant" does not appear to be
germane to the claimed invention. App. Br. 29.
Appellants argue that in Loomis, the server never directly
communicates with the user, so it cannot satisfy limitations requiring the
server (not the merchant) to communicate with the user. App. Br. 30.
Appellants have not specifically identified the limitations complained of
here, and we do not find this argument to be germane to the claimed
invention.
17
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
We are not persuaded that Loomis fails to disclose a "document
representing an agreement." App. Br. 30. As discussed supra, Loomis
concerns an electronic commerce transaction. One may fairly interpret
the substance of the commercial transaction to be the claimed
"agreement." As such, any information transmitted concerning that
transaction constitutes a document representing that agreement.
Notwithstanding Appellants' argument that in Loomis the merchant
could simply display the document in the webpage that the user has
already accessed," Loomis is in fact concerned with authenticating a
consumer with a merchant through a digital signature authentication
scheme. The user receives the authentication scheme from the merchant.
Loomis ,r 38. The user then performs the steps necessary to create a
digital signature, and sends the digital signature to the merchant. Loomis
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not considered the
additional limitations that appear in claim 13. App. Br. 24. Appellants
do not enumerate what limitations are alleged to be overlooked. The
Examiner responded that the additional limitations of "generating a third
webpage" are substantially similar to and are considered to be an obvious
variant of the generation of a first webpage and generation of a second
webpage recited in claim 1. Ans. 24. Appellants provide no Reply Brief
rebutting the Examiner's statement, or any other argument to the effect
that the combination of Ritchie and Loomis fails to disclose or suggest
generating a third webpage. As a result, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in the treatment of claim 13.
We sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection.
18
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2 AND 16
Appellants present no separate argument regarding the§ 103(a)
rejection of claims 2 and 16 over Ritchie, Loomis, and Ruggiero. Claim
2 depends from claim 1, and claim 16 depends from claim 13. Because
we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 13 over
Ritchie and Loomis, supra, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection
of claims 2 and 16 over Ritchie, Loomis, and Ruggiero, for the same
reasons.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
2. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application.
3. The combination of Ritchie and Loomis fairly suggests
receiving, via the interface, one or more first communications sent over
the internet by the application executing on the merchant computing
system, including (1) a request to obtain user input to serve as
authorization for the merchant computing system to perform a transaction
to an account of the user; (2) contact information for the user; (3)
information representing the transaction; and (4) a document to be
presented to the user, the document representing an agreement that the
user has made or will make.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
19
Appeal2017-009225
Application 14/212,783
§ 101 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
20