eBay Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 202014585107 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/585,107 12/29/2014 Oren Raab 2043.H39US1 9020 49845 7590 03/27/2020 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER MILLER, BRITTNEY N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2020 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): SLW@blackhillsip.com USPTO@SLWIP.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte OREN RAAB ____________________ Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, 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 1–12, 14, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims 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 (2016). Appellant identifies eBay Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Examiner also rejected claims 15–20 in the Final Rejection, but Appellant subsequently canceled these claims. See Appeal Br. 7 (noting an amendment to cancel claims 15–20 was filed with the Appeal Brief); Advisory Act. (Mar. 8, 2019) (entering amendment, including canceling claims 15–20). Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure generally relates “to online shopping and, more particularly, . . . buy through transactions.” Spec. ¶ 2, Abstract. More specifically, a buyer may create a “buy through listing” of products the buyer wishes to purchase at an online shopping site that the buyer could not find by searching the site. Spec. ¶ 27. Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims, and claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system, comprising: at least one hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising : receiving buyer information specifying buyer product criteria to create buy through listings for selected products of buyers, the buyer product criteria including product information of the selected products, geographic location information of the selected products, a requested delivery date for the selected products, and pricing information for the selected products, providing a user interface that creates a product listing, the user interface configured to allow a buyer to designate either a commitment for the buyer to a buy through transaction for the product or an auction sale; receiving seller information specifying seller purchase criteria related to a potential buy through transaction, the seller purchase criteria including geographic location information of sellers, product category information related to products the sellers are willing to acquire from third parties for the potential buy through transaction, and pricing information related to interested price ranges of products the sellers are interested in acquiring for the potential buy through transaction; and providing access to the buy through listings to the sellers who have seller purchase criteria matching the buyer product criteria. Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 3 REJECTION3 Claims 1–12, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4–8. ANALYSIS The Examiner concludes claims 1–12, 14, and 21 are directed to judicially excepted subject matter. Final Act. 4–8. Appellant argues the ordered combination of claim elements is not routine and conventional, the Examiner failed to consider the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination, the Examiner provided insufficient evidence that the claimed subject matter was well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal Br. 7– 16; Reply Br. 2–6. Appellant does not argue claims 2–12, 14, and 21 separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 7–16; Reply Br. 2–6. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”); USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (Oct. 17, 2019), 3 The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 15–20 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the Final Action, but the Examiner withdrew the rejection in the Answer. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 4 https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_ update.pdf (“Guidance Update”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), we determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. 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). The Guidance directs us to address this inquiry using the following two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is patent eligible under § 101. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., the claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application), we next determine whether the claim provides an inventive concept, which includes determining whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, we generally agree with the Examiner’s characterization of the representative claim 1. See Final Act. 5 (“matching buy through listings to active sellers”); Ans. 4–5 (citing Spec. ¶ 27), 7. Similar to the Examiner’s characterization, we conclude claim 1 generally is directed to providing Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 5 access to buy through listing information to sellers whose seller purchase criteria match buyer product criteria in a respective listing. The Examiner determines the combination of all steps recited in representative claim 1 sets forth this abstract idea because the abstract idea involves managing contractual relationships or transactions between sellers and buyers. Final Act. 5 (citing buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP § 2016.04(a)(2)). The Examiner also determines the claimed concept of matching buyers and sellers involves merely mental steps of collecting and comparing information (buyer and seller information) and, based on the collected information (if there is a match), displaying content to some of the users (providing sellers access to the buyer information). Final Act. 5 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017); MPEP § 2016.04(a)(2)); Ans. 7. Moreover, the Examiner’s characterization of claim 1 is consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed invention. See Spec. ¶¶ 2 (“Embodiments of the present disclosure relate generally to online shopping and, more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to a system and method for buy through transactions.”), 27 (“The listing created by a buyer may be referred to as a buy through listing. A seller who bids on the listing commits to acquire the desired product specified in the buy through listing, generally from a third party.”), 28 (“The buyer and the seller may interact directly using a buy through system available from an e-commerce system. The seller and the third party generally interact outside the buy through system in Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 6 various embodiments.”), Abstract (“a system and method for buy through transactions are presented”). Providing access to buy through listing information to sellers whose seller purchase criteria match buyer product criteria in a respective listing is a commercial or legal interaction (agreement in the form of a contract, sales activities, and business relations) and, therefore, is a certain method of organizing human activity—an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353 (evaluating claims reciting providing a transaction performance guaranty for an online commercial transaction to a party requesting the same, and concluding “arrangements involving contractual relations, which are intangible entities” recite abstract ideas); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1361–62 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining claims reciting analyzing statistics to select a price at which to sell a product was directed to the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding claims were directed to the abstract idea of determining a price using organizational and product group hierarchies); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F.Supp.3d 1007, 1009–10, 1013– 14 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding claims reciting auctioning ad slots and presenting ads to users based on user information were directed to the abstract idea of targeted advertising). Moreover, Appellant does not contest that the claims recite an abstract idea or the Examiner’s general characterization of the claims. Representative claim 1 reproduced below emphasizes in italics the limitations that recite providing access to buy through listing information to Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 7 sellers whose seller purchase criteria match buyer product criteria in a respective listing: 1. A system, comprising: at least one hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising : receiving buyer information specifying buyer product criteria to create buy through listings for selected products of buyers, the buyer product criteria including product information of the selected products, geographic location information of the selected products, a requested delivery date for the selected products, and pricing information for the selected products, providing a user interface that creates a product listing, the user interface configured to allow a buyer to designate either a commitment for the buyer to a buy through transaction for the product or an auction sale; receiving seller information specifying seller purchase criteria related to a potential buy through transaction, the seller purchase criteria including geographic location information of sellers, product category information related to products the sellers are willing to acquire from third parties for the potential buy through transaction, and pricing information related to interested price ranges of products the sellers are interested in acquiring for the potential buy through transaction; and providing access to the buy through listings to the sellers who have seller purchase criteria matching the buyer product criteria. More particularly, providing access to buy through listing information to sellers whose seller purchase criteria match buyer product criteria in a respective listing comprises (i) receiving buyer information including buyer product criteria and a commitment to a buy through transaction or an auction sale; (ii) receiving seller information including seller purchase criteria related to a potential buy through transaction; and (iii) providing sellers whose seller purchase criteria match the buyer product criteria access to the respective buy through listing. Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 8 Alternatively, receiving buyer information, allowing a buyer to select a commitment to a buy through transaction or an auction sale, receiving seller information, and providing sellers access to buyer information based on a match are mental processes performed in furtherance of the abstract idea of providing access to buy through listing information to sellers whose seller purchase criteria match buyer product criteria in a respective listing. Specifically, each step merely receives and compares information or evaluates information to determine whether to grant certain parties access to particular information. Accordingly, these steps could each be performed mentally or using pen and paper. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (explaining that observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions are abstract mental processes). Because representative claim 1 recites a judicial exception, we next determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception 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, along with the limitations that recite an abstract idea, to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates 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); Guidance Update, 11. Here, the additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 9 functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field, see MPEP § 2106.05(a); (ii) 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 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the additional elements simply use computers as tools to implement the abstract idea, requiring no more than generic computer elements to perform generic computer functions or add insignificant extra- solution activity. The only additional elements recited in representative claim 1 are the “hardware processor” and “providing a user interface . . . configured to allow a buyer to designate either a commitment for the buyer to a buy through transaction for the product or an auction sale.” Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that the hardware processor is a generic component, and the record before us adequately supports that finding. Claim 1 recites the processor at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that the recited processor is a known computer component. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 100–106 (describing hardware modules and processors as encompassing general-purpose processors), Figs. 7–8. Simply using generic computer components to apply an abstract idea on a computer is insufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–26; Guidance Update, 11–12; see Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”). Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 10 Appellant argues the Examiner provided no analysis regarding integration into a practical application and the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite “providing a user interface . . . configured to allow a buyer to designate either a commitment for the buyer to a buy through transaction for the product or an auction sale.” Appeal Br. 14–15 (quoting Spec. ¶ 29). More specifically, Appellant argues that the user interface allows a user to designate an auction sale, which is not a buy through transaction. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant contends that, when the user selects an auction sale, the claims do not match buy through listings to active sellers, substantially limiting the abstract idea and not simply amounting to applying the abstract idea on generic components. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also argues the Examiner failed to consider the claims as a whole when evaluating whether the providing a user interface step integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner’s analysis failed to consider “specific features of the recited user interface, or even that a user interface is provided.” Reply Br. 2, 5–6. Appellant also argues “a computer plays a significant part in permitting Applicant’s claims to be performed” because providing options through a user interface “cannot be performed without a computer” and Appellant’s Specification identifies “this feature as part of inventive activity included in this application.” Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶ 29). The Examiner determines the additional elements (i.e., the user interface, machine, and processor), considered alone or in combination when evaluating the claims as a whole, are insufficient to render the claimed Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 11 subject matter patent eligible because the additional elements are recited in a generic manner without imparting a meaningful limit on the scope of the claims, merely apply the abstract idea on general purpose computer components used in their ordinary way, and limit the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment. Final Act. 5–7 (citing SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Alice, 573 U.S. 208; Versata, 793 F.3d 1306; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); Ans. 6–7, 8–9 (explaining that the providing a user interface step merely recites the concept of allowing a buyer to designate a type of transaction, which is a method of organizing human activity). The Examiner also finds, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Specification fails to identify an improvement in computer technology. Ans. 5, 8. Specifically, the Examiner finds Specification paragraph 27, cited by Appellant, merely identifies an improved business practice of matching listings to sellers and improving an abstract idea does not change the character of the abstract idea to eligible subject matter. Ans. 5–6 (also noting paragraphs 26, 101, 102, and 121 “describe the additional elements” in a generic manner), 8. We agree with the Examiner that “providing a user interface . . . configured to allow a buyer to designate either a commitment for the buyer to a buy through transaction for the product or an auction sale” fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Providing an option for a buyer to select one of two options is the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent- eligible application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see MPEP § 2106.05(g); Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 12 see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (holding the use of well- known techniques to establish inputs to the abstract idea as extra-solution activity that fails to make the underlying concept patent eligible); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (recognizing “that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis”); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). To the extent Appellant is arguing that displaying and receiving particular information (i.e., information that allows a user to designate either a commitment to a buy through transaction or an auction sale) through a user interface integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, we disagree. Displaying or receiving information in a user interface, without more, fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding the claimed “interactive interface” failed to provide an inventive concept because, in part, it was “a generic computer element” and Intellectual Ventures did not “assert that it invented an interactive interface that manages web site content”); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that, when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application). Additionally, although the Specification supports the claimed features, including providing a user interface allowing the recited designation by a Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 13 buyer, we see nothing in the Specification asserting that providing the recited user interface improves computers or another technology. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 27–29. Rather, as the Examiner explains, the alleged improvement is an improvement to a business process in how a buyer acquires a desired product—i.e., through a buy through transaction or auction sale. For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Because we determine the independent claims are directed to abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine whether there are additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73, 77–79 (2012)). As stated in the Guidance, many of the considerations to determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” under step two of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our analysis, we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appellant argues the Examiner does not support the finding that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the Examiner’s findings are inconsistent with the law and the Guidance. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 3–5. Appellant further argues the claimed features, Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 14 including the recited user interface, were inventive, part of the claimed solution, and were not well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Appeal Br. 10–13 (quoting Spec. ¶¶ 27–30; citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); Reply Br. 5. We disagree. Appellant appears to confuse allegedly novel concepts with an “inventive concept,” which has a particular meaning within an analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As discussed above, we agree with Appellant that the Specification supports each of the features recited in representative claim 1. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 27–30. We disagree, however, that the Specification discloses an inventive concept embodied in the recited features. Although it is true that we consider the additional limitation or combination of limitations in light of the claim as a whole, the inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (explaining that, after determining a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?’” (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial exception and sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218– 19 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme Court in Alice “only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 15 use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional” (emphasis added)). Appellant identifies only the user interface as allegedly beyond what was conventional, well-understood, and routine in the art at the time of the invention. However, as discussed above, representative claim 1 merely recites generic computer components (i.e., a processor and user interface) performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving, displaying, and providing information), including providing a user interface to allow a buyer to choose between a commitment to buy through transaction or an auction sale. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1370 (the claimed “interactive interface” failed to provide an inventive concept because, in part, it was “a generic computer element” and Intellectual Ventures did not “assert that it invented an interactive interface that manages web site content”); Berkheimer Memo4 § III.A.1; Mort. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that, when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial 4 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (explaining that 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). Appeal 2019-005449 Application 14/585,107 16 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,” the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application). For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12, 14, and 21 as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–12, 14, 21 101 Eligibility 1–12, 14, 21 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation