George Kunjachan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 14, 2021

2021000875 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 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.
15/610,510 05/31/2017 George Chiramattel Kunjachan 37202/698001; 1710244US 8280
57956 7590 06/14/2021
FBFK/Intuit
Robert Lord
3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 3200
HOUSTON, TX 77027
EXAMINER
ZHANG, DUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2021 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):
docketing@fbfk.law
jhathaway@fbfk.law
rlord@fbfk.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GEORGE CHIRAMATTEL KUNJACHAN,
AMIT ARYA, and PETER ALLEN VOGEL
__________________

Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–21, which are all of the pending claims.
See Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Intuit, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A system, comprising:
a plurality of transaction storage devices, each
transaction storage device of the plurality of
transaction storage devices comprising:
a data store that:
receives a request, from a computing system of
a service provider, to push a detailed
transaction corresponding to a secure
identifier,
wherein the secure identifier is generated,
using an encoding function, from a user
identifier of a user; and
stores the detailed transaction based on a
determination that the detailed transaction is
valid; and
a validator that:
obtains, from a registry, a validation rule
corresponding to the secure identifier; and
performs the determination, wherein the
determination comprises applying the
validation rule to the request; and
the registry, that stores at least the validation rule.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sahu2 and MacGregor.3

2 US 9,256,761 B1, issued February 9, 2016.
3 US 2015/0269541 A1, published September 24, 2015.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

3
Claims 4–6, 12–14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sahu, MacGregor, and Carrott.4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–8 Rejected for Indefiniteness
The Examiner determines that the limitations “data store,” “validator,”
and “registry” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the Specification
does not disclose corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing
the claimed function or clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the
function. Non-Final Act. 5–6. In particular, the Examiner determines that
each term is a generic placeholder or nonce term with no specific structural
meaning for performing the claimed function, and each term is modified by
functional language rather than structure, material, or acts for performing the
claimed function of each. Ans. 3–4.
To determine whether § 112(f) applies to a limitation, we consider
“whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill
in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). If
a limitation uses the word “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that
§ 112(f) applies. Where, as here, Appellant has not used the term “means,”
there is a rebuttable presumption that the provision does not apply. Id. at
1348–49. Where a claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption can
be overcome and § 112(f) will apply if it is demonstrated that a claim term
fails to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed
function. Id. at 1349.

4 US 2016/0132877 A1, published May 12, 2016.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

4
Appellant argues that these features are described in the Specification
as computing system structures rather than generic placeholders that invoke
¶ 112(f). Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 2. Appellant also asserts that these
features are recited to perform actions rather than functions. Appeal Br. 9.
The term “data store” conveys a meaning of structure that stores data.
Indeed, claim 1 recites the data store “stores the detailed transaction based
on a determination that the detailed transaction is valid.” Appeal Br. 24
(Claims App.). The Specification describes “data store” as having structure.
The data store is part of a transaction storage device, which is any type of
storage unit or device for storing data (e.g., file system, database, collection
of tables, or other storage mechanism. Spec. ¶ 26. A data store 118a–n is
used to store transactional information. Id. ¶¶ 27, 30. A data store may be
an accounting system or a personal financial management application such
as Mint® or a business management application such as Intuit® QuickBooks
Online®. Id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 27. “The data store may be viewed as similar to an
email inbox: anyone may push a transaction to the data store if they know
the address of the data store (e.g., just as anyone can send an email message
to a recipient if they know the recipient’s email address.)” Id. ¶ 17. When a
user transacts business with a user identifier, the detailed transaction can be
pushed to the appropriate data store and stored with the secure identifier for
that user identifier so all of the transactions for the same secure identifier can
be aggregated and stored at a single data store. Id. ¶ 20. The data store thus
contains transactional information for a secure identifier and information for
multiple secure identifiers. It also provides functionality to process a request
to push (store) detailed transactions for a secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 30, 36. 43,
48, 52.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

5
The Specification describes flowcharts and procedures used by the
data store to receive a request to push and store a detailed transaction at the
data store. See Spec. ¶¶ 17–21, 30, 43, 46–54, Fig. 3.
“Registry” conveys a meaning of structure that stores validation rules.
A system includes a registry configured to store validation rules. Spec. ¶ 5.
A registry 106 is “any type of storage unit and/or device (e.g., a file system,
database, collection of tables, or any other storage mechanism) for storing
data.” Id. ¶ 28. A registry may include multiple different types of storage
units and/or devices as part of computing system 600. Id. The registry may
include a data store map that maps secure identifiers to universal resource
identifiers (URIs) of data stores so a URI of a data store is registered with a
corresponding secure identifier to indicate which data store is designated to
store detailed transactions for a secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 17, 29. A registry
can process a user request to register a URI of a data source and a service
provider request to lookup a URI of a data store. Id. ¶¶ 20, 33, 44, 48.
The registry also includes a validation profile 202 that may include a
secure identifier and a validation rule that specifies a particular validation
procedure that may be used to validate a detailed transaction when a specific
secure identifier is included in a request. Spec. ¶¶ 34, 40, 42. The registry
obtains a validation rule from a user so the validation rule thereafter can be
obtained from the registry. Id. ¶¶ 5, 50. The registry includes functionality
to process a request from a validator of a transaction storage device to obtain
a validation rule corresponding to a secure identifier. Id. ¶ 44. Appellant
describes flowcharts for this process. Id. ¶¶ 46–66, Figs. 3, 4A. In step 302,
a validation rule corresponding to a secure identifier may be obtained from
the registry. Id. ¶¶ 50, 55 (step 402 of Fig. 4A), Fig. 3.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

6
The “validator” obtains a validation rule corresponding to the secure
identifier from the registry and applies the validation rule to the request.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The validator is implemented in hardware
(e.g., circuitry), software, or a combination, and it evaluates the validity of a
detailed transaction and requests a push to a data store when it validates the
transaction. Spec. ¶ 43. A validation rule specifies a particular validation
procedure to be used by the validator to validate a transaction and different
validation rules may specify different conditions for different validation
procedures to be triggered for a specific secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 34, 35, 40,
42, 50, 51. The validator applies a validation rule to a detailed transaction to
determine whether the transaction is valid. Id. A flowchart of this process is
provided in Figure 4A. Id. ¶¶ 53–60. The Specification describes different
types of validation rule procedures to be performed by the validator such as
automatically validating a detailed transaction by comparing it to transaction
summaries or validating a transaction only after the participant(s), service
provider, or financial institution provide explicit approval. Id. ¶¶ 40, 50.
The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the
presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. Each of the limitations of a data
store, a registry, and a validator, interpreted in light of the Specification,
convey sufficient structure used to perform the claimed functions. Even if
we consider these limitations to invoke ¶ 112(f), the Specification describes
sufficient corresponding structure with flowcharts and procedures used to
implement these limitations and perform the claimed functions and/or acts as
discussed above.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–8 for
indefiniteness.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

7
Eligibility of Claims 1–21
Appellant largely argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 10–18.
We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
We also address Appellant’s separate arguments for claim 9.
The Examiner determines claim 1 recites an apparatus as a statutory
category of invention. Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner determines that to
receive a request to push a detailed transaction, obtain a validation rule,
determine whether the detailed transaction is valid, and store the detailed
transaction recites a method of organizing human activity except for the
transaction storage device. Id. at 8–9. The Examiner determines that each
function can be performed manually by a person receiving and writing down
a request to push a detailed transaction from another person and manually
sending it to another person, obtaining a validation rule from another person,
and validating and manually storing the detailed transactions as part of
normal sales activities or behaviors. Id. at 9; Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner determines that the additional element of a transaction
storage device uses a computer and network to perform the abstract idea but
does not improve computer functions, other technology, or a technical field.
Non-Final Act. 9–10. The Examiner determines that claim 1 does not apply
the abstract idea on a particular machine, transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing, or use the abstract idea in a meaningful
way beyond generally linking it to a particular technological environment.
Id. The Examiner also determines that using the transaction storage device
to perform the claimed functions amounts to an instruction to apply the
abstract idea on a generic computer system without significantly more. Id.
at 10–11.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

8
Principles of Law
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.5 Id. at 52–55.

5 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will 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.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

9
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides to an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Revised Guidance Step 1
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a system, which is a
statutory category of invention, namely, a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity involving a fundamental economic practice and
mental processes that can be performed by a person as mental steps or with
pen and paper. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The claimed system receives, validates, and stores transaction data.
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The system stores financial transaction data
generated by transaction sources for later access by a financial (accounting)
application of a user. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–5, 17–22. Receiving, validating, and
storing financial transaction data by an intermediary party is a fundamental
economic practice. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (intermediated settlement by
a party that creates and updates shadow records of parties’ actual accounts at
exchange institutions is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in
our commerce system).
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

10
Here, the claimed system uses a transaction storage device and a data
store to receive requests from service providers to push a detailed transaction
and then to store the detailed transaction in the data store after validating it.
Essentially, the data store creates a shadow record of the detailed transaction
for accounting by a user or other party and validates the transaction before
storing it to mitigate the risk that the transaction is not accurate or does not
correspond to the user. Mitigating risk is another fundamental economic
practice. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010).
Receiving data such as a detailed transaction and storing that data is a
method of organizing the human commercial activity represented by the data
and can be performed as a mental process. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information,
by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing
significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose
implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of
abstract ideas.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital image data in an organized
manner recites a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction
& Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (data collection, recognition, and storage are functions that
humans always have performed such as banks reviewing checks,
recognizing relevant data, and storing that information in their records).
Here, claim 1 recites a system comprising generic transaction storage
devices and a data store that receive and store detailed transaction data after
validating the data by applying a validation rule. These functions are recited
at a high level of generality without any technical details.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

11
The claimed validator simply obtains a validation rule from a generic
registry and applies the validation rule to the request without any technical
details being claimed for this function. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The
generic description of the validator and its function in the Specification also
confirm that it replicates mental steps that a person would perform to apply a
rule to validate a request. The validator includes functionality to evaluate
the validity of a detailed transaction using validation rules. Spec. ¶¶ 43, 51.
A validation rule may specify that a particular validation procedure be used
by the validator. Id. ¶¶ 40, 50. A validation rule may specify a particular
validation procedure to be used such as automatic validation by comparing
the detailed transaction with a transaction summary, or validation after the
user, service provider, and/or financial institution identified in the detailed
transaction provides explicit approval. Id. ¶ 50. A person can apply such a
validation rule as a mental process to validate a detailed transaction. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (holding steps of obtaining information about Internet credit card
transactions, making a map of the credit card numbers, and using the map to
determine if a transaction is valid can be performed entirely in the human
mind including the logical reasoning steps by writing down a list of credit
card transactions from a particular IP address and observing transactions to
see if they use different credit cards and user names at the same IP address).
Appellant argues that the claims relate to receiving a request to push a
detailed transaction, obtaining a validation rule, determining if the detailed
transaction is valid, and storing the detailed transaction but does not relate to
agreements and contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, and
sales activities or behaviors or business relations. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

12
As discussed above, the Revised Guidance recognizes fundamental
economic practices as certain methods of organizing human activity. The
independent claims recite a fundamental economic practice as identified
above. The Specification confirms that detailed transaction data relates to
commercial activities of financial institutions that offer credit/debit cards to
users, retailers, and e-commerce stores. Spec. ¶¶ 18, 20, 24. User identifiers
may be payment card numbers. Id. ¶¶ 29, 31, 32, 41. A detailed transaction
may be Level 3 data of the credit card industry. Id. ¶ 37. Banks and credit
card processors may approve detailed transactions for the validator. Id. ¶ 40.
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s determination that claim 9
recites an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 12–13. We agree with the Examiner
that claim 9 recites the abstract idea identified above by steps of receiving a
request to push a detailed transaction corresponding to a secure identifier,
obtaining a validation rule corresponding to the secure identifier, applying
the validation rule to determine whether the detailed transaction is valid, and
storing the detailed transaction based on determining that it is valid. Appeal
Br. 25–26 (Claims App.); Non-Final Act. 8. As discussed above for claim 1,
these data gathering and analysis steps recite certain methods of organizing
human activity of the fundamental economic practice identified above with
mental process steps. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; TLI Commc’ns,
823 F.3d at 613; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1372–73; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Put another way, the
system claims are no different from the method claims in substance.”);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266,
1276–77 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that the form of various method, system,
and media claims did not change the patent eligibility analysis under § 101).
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

13
Appellant argues that, interpreted consistent with the Specification,
the claimed steps cannot be performed by a human because the Specification
describes computing systems used to implement the claimed subject matter.
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant asserts that the Specification does not describe
human performance of the claimed subject matter steps, and claim 1 recites a
data store of a transaction storage device that receives and stores a detailed
transaction, a validator that obtains a validation rule from a registry, and a
registry that stores the validation rule, and these features cannot be human
behaviors or activity and are not normally performed by humans. Id.
Purely mental processes can be unpatentable even when performed by
a computer. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson,
409 U.S. 63 (1972)). As discussed above, data receiving, processing, and
analysis steps, when recited at such a high level of generality, recite mental
processes and methods of organizing human activity as indicated by the
decisions discussed above. The fact that a computer and its components
exist in the physical realm does not end the § 101 inquiry; otherwise, patent
eligibility would depend on the draftsman’s art. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224.
As indicated by Content Extraction, claims to a computerized system
used to collect, recognize, and store data recite functions that humans always
have performed such as banks reviewing checks, recognizing relevant data,
and storing that information in their records. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d
at 1347. Similarly, analyzing Internet credit card transactions made from an
IP address by collecting, mapping, and analyzing (validating) transactions
based on credit card numbers and other information can be performed as
mental processes to detect credit card fraud. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1372–73. Here, the claims receive, validate, and store transaction data.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

14
Accordingly, we determine that claims 1 and 9 recite the abstract idea
identified above.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not
improve computers or technology or implement the abstract idea with a
particular machine that is integral to the claim. Nor does claim 1 include
elements that transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or
thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a
particular technological environment. See id. at 55; Non-Final Act. 9–10.
Appellant argues that the claims provide a practical application by
receiving a request to push a detailed transaction for a secure identifier,
generating using an encoding function, obtaining a validation rule for the
secure identifier, and determining based on applying the validation rule to
the request, whether the transaction is valid. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant
argues that these features aggregate transactions into a single data store so
users don’t have to enter data for important transactions. Id. at 14–15.
These features are part of the abstract idea identified in Prong One.
As such, they cannot be additional elements that integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24
(“additional elements” are claim features, limitations, and/or steps recited in
a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at
221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to
ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

15
Appellant argues that the claims recite specific steps to accomplish a
desired result using a specific implementation of an existing tool to improve
the functioning of an overall technological process to make the claim patent
eligible. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M
GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). We are not persuaded.
The claims in Koninklijke improved existing technological processes
of error checking in data transmissions. Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150. The
claims required a permutation applied to original data modified “in time” as
a specific way of varying the way check data is generated to improve the
ability of prior art error detection systems to detect systematic errors. Id.
Here, claim 1 applies “a validation rule” to a request to push a detailed
transaction without any technical details or improvements to the validation
process. As discussed under Prong One, the validation rule is described in
generic terms. Spec. ¶¶ 5–7, 34. It may require explicit approval of a user,
service provider, or financial institution. Id. ¶¶ 22, 40. Applying a generic
rule to validate a request to push a detailed transaction does not improve
computers or technology. The Specification confirms that the claim does
not improve computers or technology but instead replicates mental steps.
McRO illustrates why claim 1 here is not patent eligible. There, the
claimed display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated
characters on screens for viewing by human eyes improved how a display
operated to produce better quality images. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also SAP
Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The
claims in McRO were directed to the creation of something physical.”). No
such improvement is claimed here.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

16
Without more, encoding and decoding data does not render a claim
non-abstract. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322,
1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims recited the abstract idea of encoding and
decoding image data) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin.
Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing, displaying, and
manipulating data encoded for human- and machine-readability is directed to
an abstract concept)); see also Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns,
Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 888–90 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (generating a request
identifier by encrypting a user identifier in an alphanumeric string did not
make the claim patent eligible where the patentee did not claim to have
invented encryption techniques or user identifiers).
Finjan and Ancora recognized improvements to computer security as
patent eligible subject matter as Appellant argues. Appeal Br. 15. However,
those decisions illustrate why claim 1 here is not patent eligible.
In Finjan, the court held virus scanning is well-known and an abstract
idea, but a claimed “behavior-based” virus scan was eligible subject matter
because it analyzed downloadable code to determine whether it performed
dangerous or unwanted operations, e.g., renaming or deleting files. Finjan,
Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As
such, it improved on traditional “code-matching” systems that recognize the
presence of previously-identified viruses by comparing downloadable code
to a database of known suspicious code. Id. The “behavior-based” approach
protected against previously unknown viruses and “obfuscated code” used to
cosmetically modify known viruses to avoid detection by focusing on the
way that the code operated. Id. Here, claim 1 recites no particular method
of validating or encoding data, much less one that improves these processes.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

17
Ancora stands for the proposition that “[i]mproving security . . . can
be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific
technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer
problem.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). There, the method improved the vulnerability
of license-authorization software to hacking. Id. at 1349. It did so by using
a specific functional improvement of a structure containing a license record
stored in a particular, modifiable, non-volatile portion of a computer’s BIOS
and the structure in that memory location interacted with computer memory
that contains the program to be verified. Id. at 1348–49. Here, the claimed
validator obtains a validation rule from a registry and applies the rule to the
request with no technical details or purported innovation to computers or to
validation processing. The Specification describes the encoding function as
a one-way hash function used to generate a secure identifier. Spec. ¶ 31.
Other encoding and cryptographic techniques may be used to generate the
secure identifier from a user identifier. Id. ¶ 32. Not even these generic
details of encoding are claimed. Nor is there any indication that Appellant
has invented or improved the claimed encoding or validation functions.
The claimed transaction storage device is any type of storage unit
and/or device such as a file system, database, collection of tables, or any
other storage mechanism for storing data and may include multiple different
storage units and/or device. Spec. ¶ 26. This description indicates that the
transaction storage device is a generic storage device that does not improve
computers or other technology. Nor does it represent a particular machine
that is integral to the claim or that places a meaningful limitation on the
abstract idea recited in the claim.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

18
The data store, validator, and registry are described in equally broad
terms as devices and applications that perform generic functions of receiving
data (a request) and storing data (a detailed transaction) and analyzing data
(a request) using a validation rule stored in the registry. No improvement is
made to computers or other technology by these devices.
Automating a process that can be performed manually does not make
that process patent eligible. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that
mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not
constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. In those cases,
‘the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as
tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as
tools.’”) (citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding generic speed and efficiency
improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task, at
most, improves the abstract idea using the computer as a tool but does not
improve the functioning of the computer itself); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278
(“To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be
integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a
person making calculations or computations could not.”).
Communicating over a network for device interaction is a building
block of the modern economy rather than an improvement to computers or
other technology. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
759, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Spec. ¶¶ 23, 95, 98–100, Fig. 6B.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks an additional element
that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

19
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of
the Alice analysis considers if a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity).
Individually, the additional elements of claim 1 are generic computer
components used to implement the abstract idea identified under Prong One.
Without the generic computer limitations nothing remains in the claims but
the abstract idea of methods of organizing human activity and mental steps.
Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280. “[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible
concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that
renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG
Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Using a generic computer or network to automate or implement an
abstract idea cannot provide significantly more. See Non-Final Act. 10–11;
Ans. 8–9. Any alleged novelty arises in the context of the abstract idea not
the physical realm of computers or technology. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291
(“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not
add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea
without reciting computer improvements were not patent eligible).
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

20
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the
limitations are considered individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (the use of off-the-shelf, conventional computer,
network, and display technology to gather, send, and present desired
information, including concurrent visualization of two or more types of
information, even time-synchronized, did not provide an inventive concept).
As discussed under Prong Two, the descriptions of the transaction
storage device, data store, validator, and registry indicates these elements are
well-known and perform routine, conventional activities to receive requests,
store detailed transactions, and obtain and apply validation rules stored in a
generic registry. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (where nothing in the
claims, understood in light of the specification required anything other than
off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for
gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information, such invocation
of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive does not
provide an inventive step in the application of the abstract idea).
The data store is described as including conventional accounting
applications that perform well-known activities. See Spec. ¶¶ 19, 21, 27.
The transaction storage device and registry include any type of conventional
storage unit and/or device. Id. ¶¶ 26, 28. The validator can be hardware
(circuitry), software, or a combination. Id. ¶ 43. The general descriptions of
these elements confirm they are well-known enough that further details of
their structure and functions are not necessary to understand their operation.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

21
Nor has Appellant established that the functions performed by these
elements are innovative, unconventional, or non-routine in the art. Even if
the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the improvement is to
the abstract idea rather than to computers or other technology. See Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013);
accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in
the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of
abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract
application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”);
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”);
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–21, which fall therewith.
Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–18, and 21
Rejected over Sahu and MacGregor
Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 recites a limitation that
receives by the transaction storage device or data store a request to push a
detailed transaction corresponding to a secure identifier and store the
detailed transaction. Appeal Br. 24–27 (Claims App.).
The Examiner cites Sahu to teach transaction storage devices that
receive a request from a computing system to push a detailed transaction
corresponding to a secure identifier and MacGregor to store the detailed
transaction based on a determination that it is valid. Non-Final Act. 12–13.
Appellant argues that Sahu receives a request to retrieve data from a
database table rather than a request to push data as claimed. Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

22
The Specification distinguishes between accessing transactional data
by using a “pull” model driven by explicit requests to retrieve the data from
financial institutions, as is done conventionally, and the claimed request to
push detailed transaction data for storage in a transaction storage device or a
data store. See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 17, 21, 30. Whereas conventional pull systems
require requests to collect each detailed transaction making it difficult to
collect such detailed transactions in a timely manner (id. ¶ 3), the claimed
push model allows a user to register a secure identifier to a data store and
then allow financial institutions and others to push transactions to the data
store by providing the data store address similar to an email inbox (id. ¶ 17).
Users permit service providers to push data to a data store and store the data
with a user’s secure identifier. Id. ¶¶ 20, 21. A request to push transaction
data is essentially a request to store the data in a data store. See id. ¶ 30.
In contrast to the claimed request to push a detailed transaction, Sahu
teaches a conventional pull request in which a user’s request to retrieve data
from a collection is received and the data is retrieved from a data table and
provided to the user in response to the request. See Sahu, 103:40–105:36,
Fig. 34 (cited in Non-Final Act. 12–13 and Ans. 9).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 16 or
their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 21.
Claims 4–6, 12–14, 19, and 20
Rejected over Sahu, MacGregor, and Carrott.
The Examiner’s reliance on Carrott to teach features of claims 4–6,
12–14, 19, and 20 does not cure the deficiencies of Sahu as to claims 1, 9,
and 16 from which these claims depend. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of these claims.
Appeal 2021-000875
Application 15/610,510

23
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–21 101 Eligibility 1–21
1–8 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–8
1–3, 7–11,
15–18, 21
103 Sahu, MacGregor 1–3, 7–11,
15–18, 21
4–6, 12–14,
19, 20
103 Sahu, MacGregor,
Carrott
4–6, 12–14,
19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–21
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).
AFFIRMED