Saul ELBAUM

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2021

2020002352 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
15/948,447 04/09/2018 Saul ELBAUM 0509.0001CON 3042
27896 7590 01/13/2021
EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
EZEWOKO, MICHAEL I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2021 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAUL ELBAUM
____________

Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,4471
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Oral arguments were presented Dec. 10, 2020.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Saul Elbaum (Appellant3) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 48–57, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of enabling the sale of products or
services on the internet using retail locations. Specification 1:3–4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 48, which is reproduced below.
48. A method of selling non-stocked items in addition to
stocked items in a traditional walk-in store comprising:
a) providing the store with photos of items which are
available for sale on the internet but not stocked in the store;
b) providing the store with website addresses of the sellers
of the non-stocked items:,
c) providing visitors to the store with discount codes
associated with the non-stocked items, said discount codes
applicable to purchases made directly from the sellers;

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed November 7, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January
31, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 30, 2019),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 25, 2019).
3 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 the
inventor Saul Elbaum (Appeal Br. 1). Appellant as inventor identifies
himself as a Registered Patent Attorney. Appeal Br. 17.

Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

3

d) enabling the sellers of said non-stocked items to
recognize when a purchase is made with one of said discount
codes,
e) enabling the sellers of the non-stocked items to identify
the walk--in store in which the non-stocked items were
displayed; and
f) paying a finder's fee from each seller of a non-stocked
item to the store.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Aihara US 2013/0132173 A1 May 23, 2013
Wedderburn US 2015/0127438 A1 May 7, 2015
Claims 48–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 48–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wedderburn and Aihara.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
paying a finder’s fee from each seller of a non-stocked item to the store.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

4

Facts Related to the Prior Art
Wedderburn
01. Wedderburn is directed to managing a retail affiliate network.
Wedderburn para. 2.
02. Wedderburn describes managing retail transactions between at
least one manufacturer and/or merchant of a product or service
and at least one retail affiliate having a physical space for
showcasing the product or service; wherein managing retail
transactions includes: providing at least one promotional material
to the at least one retail affiliate, for promoting the product or
service in the physical space of the at least one retail affiliate;
providing affiliate-specific data to each of the at least one retail
affiliates for communication to one or more consumers, the
affiliate-specific data being unique to each of the at least one retail
affiliates and usable by the one or more consumers for online
purchase of the product or service; tracking online purchase of the
product or service by the one or more consumers, and attributing
the online purchase as a referral by a particular one of the at least
one retail affiliates, using the affiliate-specific data; and managing
transfer of compensation from the at least one manufacturer and/or
merchant to the particular one retail affiliate, as a result of the
tracked online purchase. Wedderburn para. 5.
03. Wedderburn describes a manufacturer merchant promoting its
products through a network of independent retailers. Wedderburn
para. 50.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

5

Aihara
04. Aihara is directed to a mobile shopping system in which a
mobile device, such as a mobile phone or a smartphone,
repeatedly performs the operation of scanning a barcode or IC
chip of an item tag for an item to be purchased and acquiring item
information to create shopping information, and sends the
shopping information to a shopping-payment management system
to complete payment. Aihara para. 2.
05. Aihara describes a mobile device, such as a mobile telephone or
a smartphone, repeatedly (without communication with an
external server) scanning a two-dimensional barcode or IC chip of
an item tag for an item to be purchased and acquiring item
information to create shopping information, and sending the
shopping information to a payment system using a mobile
telephone network only at the time of payment. Aihara para. 31.
06. Aihara describes an item tag management system that creates
the item tag for each item sold at the store. The item information
acquired contains a manufacturer name, an item name, an item
code, a price, additional information, a store code, and valid
conditions. Aihara para. 135.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

6

ANALYSIS
Claims 48–57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 14
Claim 48, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite

4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from the 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

7

one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 48 recites providing photo, web address, and discount code data,
enabling purchase and store identifier recognition, and paying a fee.
Providing data is storing data. Enabling recognition of data and events is
rudimentary data analysis and reception. Paying a fee is data processing.
Thus, claim 48 recites storing, receiving, analyzing, and processing data.
None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any
of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible
means.
From this we see that claim 48 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

8

extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts,5 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity,6 and (3) mental processes.7 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 48 recites the concept of
managing sales transaction activity. Specifically, claim 48 recites operations
that would ordinarily take place in advising one to pay a finder’s fee for
sales of non-stocked items based on sending item codes to sellers. The
advice to pay a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked items based on sending
item codes to sellers involves paying a finder’s fee, which is an economic
act, and making a purchase, which is an act ordinarily performed in the
stream of commerce. For example, claim 48 recites “paying a finder’s fee,”
which is an activity that would take place whenever one is paying such a fee
for a sales transaction. Similarly, claim 1 recites “a purchase is made,”
which is also characteristic of sales transactions.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to sales activities
or behaviors. Final Act. 2. The preamble to claim 48 recites that it is a

5 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

9

method of selling non-stocked items in addition to stocked items in a
traditional walk-in store. The steps in claim 48 result in managing sales
transaction activity by paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked items
based on sending item codes to sellers absent any technological mechanism
other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations a–c recite storing data.
Limitations d–f recite generic and conventional receiving, analyzing, and
processing of sales and product data, which advise one to apply generic
functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for
paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked items based on sending item
codes to sellers. To advocate paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked
items based on sending item codes to sellers is conceptual advice for results
desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at 1:3–4 describes the invention as relating to
enabling the sale of products or services on the internet using retail
locations. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 48 recites
managing sales transaction activity. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing sales activity
is a commercial interaction. The concept of managing sales transaction
activity by paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked items based on
sending item codes to sellers is one idea for coordinating interactions for
multi-vendor sales. The steps recited in claim 48 are part of how this might
conceptually be premised.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

10

Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (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 a memory.)
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of storing, receiving, analyzing,
and processing data mimic human thought processes of observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the
data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 48, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data storage, reception, analysis,
and processing and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation”). As such, claim 48 recites storing, receiving, analyzing, and
processing data, and not a technological implementation or application of
that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 48 recites
managing sales transaction activity by paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-
stocked items based on sending item codes to sellers, which is a commercial
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

11

and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity
identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 48 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.8
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps a–c are pure data storage steps.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps d–f
recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by
any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice.
All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data

8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

12

interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 48 simply recites the concept of
managing sales transaction activity by paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-
stocked items based on sending item codes to sellers as performed by a
generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters
for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process
those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 48 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 6+ pages of specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment9 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing sales transaction activity by paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-
stocked items based on sending item codes to sellers under different
scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a
computer functions. Instead, claim 48 at issue amounts to nothing
significantly more than an instruction to apply managing sales transaction
activity by paying a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked items based on
sending item codes to sellers using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.

9 The Specification describes a computer as a device comprised of central
processing unit, main internal memory, output module, and input module.
Spec. 4:16–18.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

13

None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 48 is directed to achieving the result of
managing sales transaction activity by advising one to pay a finder’s fee for
sales of non-stocked items based on sending item codes to sellers, as
distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying
that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall
within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract
ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 48 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

14

Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for storing, receiving, analyzing, and processing data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
See also 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”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

15

some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “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., 898 F.3d at 1168.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 48 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data storage- reception-analysis-
processing is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving,
selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving
payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission),
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d
1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling,
and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional.
We conclude that claim 48 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 48 is representative. The other independent method claims 52
and 58 are substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The
remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

16

that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept
itself, and not to the practical application of that concept.
There are no structural claims. As a corollary, the claims are not directed
to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing sales transaction activity by advising one to
pay a finder’s fee for sales of non-stocked items based on sending item
codes to sellers, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–4 and Answer 6–9 and
reach similar legal conclusions. As Appellant does not respond further in
the Reply Brief, we note the following as to the Appeal Brief arguments.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “[t]he 2019
Guidance lists three groupings of abstract ideas: mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. These
claims do not fall within any of these groupings.” Appeal Br. 11. The
claims recite a conceptual idea for selling goods. Such sales activities are
commercial activities, which are among certain methods of organizing
human activity.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

17

We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “[a]ll of these
methods contribute to a practical application.” Appeal Br. 12. All of the
steps are conventional selling process steps. The only recitation of computer
elements is for the conventional purpose of those elements. As we
determine above, the claims are directed to achieving the result of managing
sales transaction activity by advising one to pay a finder’s fee for sales of
non-stocked items based on sending item codes to sellers, as distinguished
from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result.
This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain
methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “these claims
recite a great improvement - a walk-in retail store that competes with the
internet.” Id. Utility of an abstract idea is insufficient to confer eligibility.
“That the automation can ‘result in life altering consequences,’ is laudable,
but it does not render it any less abstract.” Univ. of Fla. Research Found.,
Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Claims 48–57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wedderburn and Aihara
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
The fundamental difference between Wedderburn and
applicant’s invention is that Wedderburn requires the use and
expense of a third party, the RNA, between the buyer and the
seller. By eliminating the third party, applicant’s invention is
able to give a discount to the buyer and pay a fee to the store.
Appeal Br. 14. For example, limitation (f) recites paying a fee from each
seller to the store. Wedderburn introduces a third party instead. The
Examiner does not respond to this particular argument.
Appeal 2020-002352
Application 15/948,447

18

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 48–57 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 48–57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wedderburn and Aihara is improper.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 48–57 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
48–57 101 Eligibility 48–57
48–57 103 Wedderburn
Aihara
48–57
Overall Outcome 48–57

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED