Stoliartchouk, Alexei et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2020

13547771 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
13/547,771 07/12/2012 Alexei Stoliartchouk 00273-0001-01000 7644
108449 7590 10/28/2020
Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC
2020 K Street NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
LUDWIG, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2020 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):
KRoss@bomcip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
usptomail@bomcip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXEI STOLIARTCHOUK,
FORREST JORDAN, and BAXTER BOX
___________

Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

2
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.
An oral hearing was held on September 10, 2020. The record will
include a written transcript of the oral hearing. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to facilitating affiliate link generation.
(Abstract.)
Claims 1, 12, and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for dynamically generating affiliate
links over the Internet via a facilitator, the method comprising
the steps of:
receiving, from a user, a request to generate an affiliate
link for an affiliate webpage;
extracting webpage information of the affiliate webpage;
assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the
webpage information other than a uniform resource locator
matches content stored in a database and if determined the
information extracted does not match scraping and extracting
information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform
resource locator of the webpage;
dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage;
compiling the record’s metadata from the information
scraped and extracted;

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
REWARDSTYLE, INC. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

3
creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage,
wherein the new affiliate link is associated with the user; and
displaying the new affiliate link to the user.

12. A method for dynamically generating affiliate
links over the Internet via a facilitator, the method comprising
the steps of:
receiving, from an affiliate, webpage content for a
plurality of webpages and storing the webpage content in a
database separate from uniform resource locator data;
receiving, from a user, a request to generate an affiliate
link for an affiliate webpage;
assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether
content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage
content stored in the database separate from the uniform
resource locator data;
displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored
in the database to the user if determined the content from the
affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored in the
database separate from the uniform resource locator data;
displaying extracted queried webpage content separate
from uniform resource locator data to the user and presenting a
query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate
link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does
not match the webpage content stored in the database separate
from the uniform resource locator data;
facilitating the creation of an affiliate link, wherein the
affiliate link is associated with the user; and
displaying the affiliate link to the user.

14. The method of claim 12, further comprising the
steps of:
recording the affiliate link as unique to the user in the
database;
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

4
dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage;
and
compiling the record’s metadata from the information
scraped and extracted.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Katzin et al. US 2012/0303425 A1 Nov. 29, 2012
Ross, Jr. et al. US 8,515,825 B1 Aug. 20, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ross and Katzin.

OPINION
§ 112, Second Paragraph Rejection
Independent claim 1
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8) that the
limitations “dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage” and
“creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate webpage,” as recited in
independent claim 1, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that the limitations “dynamically creating a
record of the affiliate webpage” and “creating a new affiliate link for the
affiliate webpage” render independent claim 1 indefinite. (Final Act. 3; see
also Ans. 4, 12.) In particular, the Examiner stated that “[t]he language does
not correspond with [paragraphs 40–45 of] the specification and fails to
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

5
particularly point out and distinctly claim the relationship between the
record and new affiliate link generated” because “[w]ithout any direct link
between the record and the affiliate link generated the claim fails to clearly
point out how the record relates to the generation of an affiliate link”
(Ans. 4) and “there is a decision which is not found in the claim but leads to
two distinct product and non-product type of records wherein an affiliate
link is added to each distinct type of record” (id. at 12). We do not agree
with the Examiner.
Appellant’s Figure 2 illustrates a “flow diagram illustrating a method
of generating an affiliate link.” (¶ 11.) Step 206 from Figure 2 discloses
“analyze initial assessments of affiliate webpage to extract webpage
information,” followed by Step 208, which makes the following
determination: “does extracted webpage information match information
stored for a record of a webpage in database?” From Figure 2, if the answer
to Step 208 is “No,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 214, and then to
Step 216, which makes the following determination: “does the scraped
webpage contain product information?” From Figure 2, if the answer to
Step 216 is “Yes,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 218, which
discloses “create a new record of the webpage and scrape the affiliate
webpage to compile the record’s metadata,” and Step 220, which discloses
“dynamically generate an affiliate link for the webpage.”
Thus, in view of Appellant’s flow diagram in Figure 2, in particular,
Step 216, Step 218, and Step 220, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the claim limitations “dynamically creating a record of the
affiliate webpage” and “creating a new affiliate link for the affiliate
webpage.” Moreover, in one unclaimed embodiment, the process flow in
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

6
Appellant’s Figure 2 includes Step 224, which makes the following
determination: “did the user confirm creation of a non-product webpage
affiliate link?”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
Figure 2 discloses at 208 that a determination is made
whether extracted webpage information matches information
stored for a record of a webpage in database, which correlates
to the claim language “accessing the affiliate webpage to
determine whether the content extracted from the webpage
information other than a uniform resource locator matches
content stored in a database and if determined the content
extracted does not match.” Figure 2 further discloses at 218
“create a new record of the webpage,” which corresponds to the
claim language “creating a new record of the affiliate
webpage,” and also “and scrape the affiliate webpage to
compile the record’s metadata,” which corresponds to the claim
language “scraping and extracting information from the affiliate
webpage other than the uniform resource locator of the
webpage.” Figure 2 further discloses at 220 “dynamically
generate an affiliate link for the webpage,” which corresponds
to the claim limitations “creating a new affiliate link for the
affiliate webpage.”
(Appeal Br. 8.)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations
“dynamically creating a record of the affiliate webpage” and “creating a new
affiliate link for the affiliate webpage” would render independent claim 1
indefinite.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 2–11 depend from
independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–11 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

7
Independent Claim 12
First, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9) that
the limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and
presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate
link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the
webpage content stored in the database,” as recited in independent claim 12,
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that the limitation “displaying extracted
queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm
the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the
affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the
database” renders independent claim 12 indefinite. (Final Act. 3–4; see also
Ans. 4–5.) In particular, the Examiner found that following:
It is unclear how the [claimed limitation] derives the ‘extracted
queried content’. . . . More specifically, the specification
recites specific steps as they relate to scraping a webpage to
ascertain product information and generating a new record and
metadata for the record when product information is found.
The affiliate link is generated dynamically for the webpage
based on product information. User is sent a prompt to confirm
creation of non-product webpage affiliate link when the product
information cannot be scraped from the webpage. Thus, the
user is prompted to confirm creation of a non-product webpage
affiliate link. The claims should be amended to clarify the
language.
(Ans. 4–5.) We do not agree.
As discussed previously, Step 206 from Appellant’s Figure 2 discloses
“analyze initial assessments of affiliate webpage to extract webpage
information,” followed by Step 208, which makes the following
determination: “does extracted webpage information match information
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

8
stored for a record of a webpage in database?” From Figure 2, if the answer
to Step 208 is “No,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 214, and then
Step 216, which makes the following determination: “does the scraped
webpage contain product information?” From Figure 2, if the answer to
Step 216 is “No,” then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 224, which makes
the following determination: “did the user confirm creation of a non-product
webpage affiliate link?” From Figure 2, of the answer to Step 224 is “Yes,”
then the flow diagram proceeds to Step 226, which discloses “create a new
record of the webpage and scrape the affiliate webpage to compile the
record’s metadata.”
Thus, in view of the flow diagram in Appellant’s Figure 2, in
particular, Step 214, Step 216, Step 224, and Step 226, one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that the claim limitation “displaying extracted
queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm
the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the
affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the
database.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, as follows:
However, if it is determined at 208 that extracted webpage
information does not match stored information, then 216 to 222
relate to the process whereby a new affiliate link is generated,
which relates to “displaying extracted queried webpage content
separate from uniform resource locator data to the user and
presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate
an affiliate link if determined the content from the affiliate
webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the
database separate from the uniform resource locator data.”
(Appeal Br. 9.)
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

9
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation
“displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to
the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the
content from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content
stored in the database,” renders independent claim 12 indefinite.
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal
Br. 10) that the limitations “to confirm the request to generate an affiliate
link” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link,” as recited in
independent claim 12, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that the limitations “to confirm the request
to generate an affiliate link” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link”
render independent claim 12 indefinite because of multiple recitations of “an
affiliate link.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5.) In particular, the Examiner
found the following:
it is unclear whether the limitation which states ‘facilitating the
creation of an affiliate, wherein the affiliate link is associated
with the user’ refers to the original request to generate an
affiliate link or to the limitation which discloses ‘confirm the
request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content
from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content
stored in the database.[’]
(Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner.
Independent claim 12 recites three separate instances of “an affiliate
link,” as follows: (i) “receiving, from a user, a request to generate an
affiliate link for an affiliate webpage”; (ii) “to confirm the request to
generate an affiliate link”; and (iii) “facilitating the creation of an affiliate
link” (emphases added). Thus, claim 12 is indefinite because the claim
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

10
recites three separate recitations of “an affiliate link” and the interrelation
between such three separate recitations is unknown.
Appellant argues that “the issue identified by the Office can be
corrected by the proper use of antecedent basis, which has been corrected in
an accompanying amendment.” (Appeal Br. 10.) However, such
amendment to independent claim 12, submitted with Appellant’s Appeal
Brief, was not entered by the Examiner. (Advisory Act. 1, mailed Nov. 23,
2018.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations “to
confirm the request to generate an affiliate link” and “facilitating the
creation of an affiliate link” render independent claim 12 indefinite.
Last, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 9–
10) that the limitations “displaying the content from the affiliate webpage
stored in the database to the user if determined the content from the affiliate
webpage matches the webpage content stored in the database,” “displaying
extracted queried webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to
confirm the request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content
from the affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the
database,” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link,” as recited in
independent claim 12, comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that the limitations “displaying the content
from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if determined
the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage content stored
in the database,” “displaying extracted queried webpage content . . . and
presenting a query to the user to confirm the request to generate an affiliate
link if determined the content from the affiliate webpage does not match the
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

11
webpage content stored in the database,” and “facilitating the creation of an
affiliate link” render independent claim 12 indefinite. (Ans. 5; see also Final
Act. 4.) In particular, the Examiner found the following:
The ‘facilitating the creation of an affiliate link’ step should
link within the context of the claim. The specification discloses
the generation of an affiliate link corresponding to the match of
content with content stored in the database and discloses a
distinct way of generating an affiliate link which includes
scraping an affiliate webpage if the match does not exist. The
specification clearly distinguishes different affiliate links
corresponding to different content stored, scraped from the
webpage, or based on a non-product content. This is not clear
within the context of the claim yet it seems to be what appellant
is attempting to claim.
(Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner.
Independent claim 12 recites “assessing the affiliate webpage to
determine whether content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage
content stored in the database separate from the uniform resource locator
data,” which results in two conditional limitations: (i) “displaying the
content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to the user if
determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the webpage
content stored in the database”; or (ii) “displaying extracted queried
webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the
request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the
affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the
database” (emphases added). While the limitation “facilitating the creation
of an affiliate link” immediately follows the second conditional limitation
(i.e., no match), the claim is ambiguous as to which condition must be
satisfied before the step of “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link” is
performed.
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

12
Appellant argues the following:
However, it is unclear why the Office contends that the claims
should be amended, and it appears that conclusion is based on a
misunderstanding of the specification and drawings, because
the Office does not mention Figure 2 and does not appear to
have considered that figure and how it differs from the
improper understanding that the Office has of the specification.
(Appeal Br. 9–10.) However, other than a general allegation that the
rejection is based upon “on a misunderstanding of the specification and
drawings,” Appellant’s argument does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
conclusion that the claim limitations lack clarity.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations
“displaying the content from the affiliate webpage stored in the database to
the user if determined the content from the affiliate webpage matches the
webpage content stored in the database,” “displaying extracted queried
webpage content . . . and presenting a query to the user to confirm the
request to generate an affiliate link if determined the content from the
affiliate webpage does not match the webpage content stored in the
database,” and “facilitating the creation of an affiliate link,” render
independent claim 12 indefinite.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 13 and 15–20 depend from
claim 12, and Appellant has not presented any additional substantive
arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of claims 13 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the
same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 12.

Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

13
Dependent Claim 14
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 14) that
the limitation “compiling the record’s metadata from the information
scraped and extracted,” as recited in dependent claim 14, complies with 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that the limitation “compiling the record’s
metadata from the information scraped and extracted” renders dependent
claim 14 indefinite. (Final Act. 4–5; see also Ans. 5.) In particular, the
Examiner determined that “[t]he phrase ‘the information scraped and
extracted’ lacks antecedent basis since there is no mention of ‘the
information scraped’ in the claim or previous independent claim it depends
on.” (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 12 and recites “the
information scraped and extracted” (emphasis added). While claim 12
recites the limitation “displaying extracted queried webpage content”
(emphases added), the claim is silent with respect to the terms “information”
and “scraped.” Because dependent claim 14 recites “the information scraped
and extracted,” and independent claim 12 recites different language,
claim 12 provides no earlier recitation of “the information scraped and
extracted” and accordingly, the claim is unclear as to what element “the
information scraped and extracted” refers.
Appellant argues that “the Office . . . addresses certain comments and
suggested amendments to claim 14” and “are believed to be addressed by the
accompanying amendment.” (Appeal Br. 14.) However, such amendments
to dependent claim 14, submitted with Appellant’s Appeal Brief, were not
entered by the Examiner. (Advisory Act. 1, mailed Nov. 23, 2018.)
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

14
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claim limitation
“compiling the record’s metadata from the information scraped and
extracted” renders dependent claim 14 indefinite.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

§ 103 Rejection—Ross and Katzin
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 13–14) that
the combination of Ross and Katzin would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “assessing the affiliate
webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a
uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if
determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting
information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource
locator of the webpage.”
The Examiner found that the Merchant-Consumer Bridging Platform
(MCB-Platform) of Katzin, which facilitates transactions between merchants
and consumers, corresponds to the limitation “assessing the affiliate
webpage to determine whether the webpage information other than a
uniform resource locator matches content stored in a database and if
determined the information extracted does not match scraping and extracting
information from the affiliate webpage other than the uniform resource
locator of the webpage.” (Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 6–7.) In particular,
the Examiner found that “[t]he content of a URL does not include the entire
URL and thus discloses webpage content other than a URL of the page.”
(Ans. 14.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

15
Katzin relates to an MCB-Platform, which facilitate transactions
between registered merchants and consumer electronic wallet accounts, such
as “targeted offer distribution, redemption and payment during a purchasing
transaction.” (¶ 73.) Figures 6C and 6D are “logic flow diagrams
illustrating merchant site monitoring within implementations of the MCB-
Platform.” (¶ 182.) In particular, Katzin explains the following:
As shown in FIG. 6C, the MCB-Platform may obtain a new
URL from merchant enrollment 6010 and add the merchant
URL to a hash table. While . . . any URL exists in hash table
6012, the MCB-Platform may get a new URL from the hash
table 6015, and scrape contents from the URL 6018 and extract
linked URLs from contents 6020. In one implementation, the
MCB-Platform may add the extracted URLs to the hash table
6025 if not in list 6023. The MCB-Platform may then pop the
examined URL from the hash table and add it to a list of seen
URLs 6030.
(¶ 183.)
Within implementations, the MCB-Platform [in FIG. 6D] may
add a merchant URL from merchant enrollment to a hash table
6010, and then launch several threads 6040 which would get
new URLs from hash table 6015, scrape content of the URL
6018, extract URLs from contents 6020, pop URLs from hash
table 6030, add reviewed URL to a list of seen URLs 6025.
The MCB-Platform may then sleep for random amount of time
6035, and pick one URL 6040 from extracted URLs to resume
at 6015. If no URL exists 6040, the MCB-Platform may
continue monitoring.
(¶ 185.)
Although the Examiner cited to the MCB-Platform of Katzin, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence that Katzin teaches the
limitation “assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the
webpage information other than a uniform resource locator matches content
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

16
stored in a database and if determined the information extracted does not
match scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other
than the uniform resource locator of the webpage” (emphases added). In
particular, because Katzin explains that: (i) “the MCB-Platform may get a
new URL from the hash table 6015, and scrape contents from the URL 6018
and extract linked URLs from contents 6020” (¶ 183); and (ii) “the MCB-
Platform may . . . scrape content of the URL 6018, extract URLs from
contents 6020, pop URLs from hash table 6030, add reviewed URL to a list
of seen URLs 6025” (¶185), the Examiner has not demonstrated that that
“[t]he content of a URL does not include the entire URL and thus discloses
webpage content other than a URL of the page” (Ans. 14). On this record,
the Examiner has not demonstrated that Katzin teaches the limitation
“assessing the affiliate webpage to determine whether the webpage
information other than a uniform resource locator matches content stored in
a database and if determined the information extracted does not match
scraping and extracting information from the affiliate webpage other than
the uniform resource locator of the webpage.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “Katzin
specifically states ‘scrape content of the URL 6018’ at [paragraphs 183 and
185], and does not scrape webpage content” (Appeal Br. 13) and “the URL
information of Katzin . . . is not webpage information ‘other than the
uniform resource locator of the webpage,’ as claimed” (id. at 14).
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2–11 depend from claim 1. We do not sustain
the rejection of claims 2–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003279
Application 13/547,771

17
Independent claim 12 recite limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 12, as well as
dependent claims 13–20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.

DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 12–20 1–11
1–20 103 Ross, Katzin 1–20
Overall
Outcome
12–20 1–11

AFFIRMED IN PART