I'm reading it and it seems ridiculous to me. > It was the final step in the method of claim one – “moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scannin

I'm reading it and it seems ridiculous to me. > It was the final step in the method of claim one – “moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device” – that was added at the PTO to overcome the examiner’s initial obviousness concern. So the lynchpin of the case earning this company $100m is the idea of moving trays on a cart from the exit to the entrance. https://www.eff.org/files/2016/12/22/security_point_ruling.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2016/12/22/security_point_ruling.p...