Phillip Flaherty et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 20222021002363 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022) 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. 13/591,615 08/22/2012 Phillip Flaherty 11-2343 7500 63710 7590 03/31/2022 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. INNOVATION DIVISION 110 EAST 59TH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10022 EXAMINER GARNER, WERNER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2022 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): Caitlyn.kelly@chareiter.com gabriella.zisa@chareiter.com patentdocketing@cantor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILLIP FLAHERTY and ANDREW GARROOD Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, and 47, which are the pending claims. We have jurisdiction 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. Appellant identifies as the real party in interest CFPH, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42 are directed to an apparatus, and claim 47 is directed to a method of operating a distributed computer system. Appeal Br. 24-28 (Claims App.). Claim 47, reproduced below with added brackets and reference letters, illustrates the claimed subject matter. 47. A method of operating a distributed computer system, in which the distributed computer system includes a plurality of wagering venues as respective computer terminals communicatively coupled over a communication network with a central authority as a computing device of the distributed computer system, in which each of the computer terminals is configured to manage local risk thereof, the method comprising: controlling, by the computing device, [A] receiving, over the communication network, from a first computer terminal of the computer terminals, an amount of risk on each side of a two sided wager proposition for an in-game event through the first computer terminal, in which the amount of risk is based on outstanding wagers on the in-game event and user performance ratings for respective users on a given side of the wager proposition, in which the user performance ratings are based on historic user performance ratings based on wager outcomes; [B] receiving, over the communication network from a second computer terminal of the computer terminals, a second amount of risk on each side of the two sided wager proposition for the in-game event through the second computer terminal; [C] automatically receiving, over the communication network, in real time from a data feed source, real-time game information related to the in-game event; and [D] automatically, while a betting event for the in- game event is determined to be open based on the real-time game information: [D-1] determining a level of risk exposure for a first side of the two sided wager proposition based on risk on the first side, in which the level of risk exposure is Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 3 determined based on risk through both the first and second wagering venues; [D-2] determining a level of off setting risk exposure for the first side of the two sided wager proposition based on risk on a second side of the two sided wager proposition, in which the level of offsetting risk exposure is determined based on risk through both the first and second wagering venues; [D-3] determining a total level of risk exposure based on the risk exposure and the offsetting risk exposure; [D-4] determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than a threshold value; [D-5] determining a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload at least a part of the total level of risk exposure; [D-6] determining, based on the real-time game information, a time remaining for entering into the transaction; and [D-7] in response to determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than the threshold value, the liquidity level for the transaction and the time remaining for entering into the transaction, facilitating, over the communication network, the transaction, in which facilitating the transaction includes determining whether the transaction is legal in a jurisdiction of the first computer terminal, and if the transaction is legal, engaging in the transaction in the jurisdiction of the first computer terminal, and if the transaction is not legal, communicating the total level of risk exposure to the second computer terminal to engage in the transaction in a jurisdiction of the second computer terminal. Appeal Br. 27-28 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 4 Claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. ANALYSIS Patent Eligibility of Claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, and 47 Principles of Law Pertaining to Patent Eligibility An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. Concepts that have been determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 5 elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. We apply the PTO guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter “Guidance”).2 Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the Guidance, we first determine whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, or mental processes). See id. at 54. If a claim recites a judicial exception, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Guidance and determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance at 54; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B of the Guidance. There, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously 2 An update to the Guidance issued in October 2019 (“Guidance Update,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 6 known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance at 56. Analysis Claim 47 Step 2A, Prong One The Examiner finds that independent claim 47 recites steps or instructions for hedging, which is considered a fundamental economic practice that falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.3 Final Act. 14. The Examiner explains that, in Bilski, the claims were “directed to hedging where a first risk position is established and a second risk position counter to the first risk position is established to balance the total risk and to offload some of the risk associated with the first risk position.” Id. at 22. The Examiner submits that claim 47 likewise “hedge[s] or offload[s] risk positions to balance the total risk” by: [Facilitating] a hedging transaction to offload at least a part of a total level of risk for a two sided wager proposition based on (i) money wagered on the first side of that wager proposition (a level of risk exposure) and (ii) money wagered on the second side of that wager proposition (a level of offsetting risk). 3 See Guidance at 52 n.13 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. at 611-12 (“hedging is a ‘fundamental economic practice’ and therefore an abstract idea”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20 (“describing the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘a method of organizing human activity’”)); see also Guidance Update 6 (“a series of instructions of how to hedge risk” falls within the “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” sub-grouping of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, citing Bilski, 561 U.S. at 595). Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 7 Id. The Examiner determines that each of the limitations A to D-7 in claim 47 recites “hedging activity.” Id. at 18-21. Additionally, the Examiner finds that claim 47 recites “wagering,” which also falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.4 Final Act. 14, id. at 18-21 (indicating each of the limitations A to D-7 recites “wagering”). Further, the Examiner indicates that each of the limitations A to D-7 recites “an observation, judgment or evaluation,” which falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, i.e., “concepts performed in the human mind.” Final Act. 18-21. See Guidance at 52. Appellant contends that claim 47 satisfies Step 2A of the Guidance because “it is readily apparent that the various elements, and combinations of such elements, amount to significantly more than the purported ‘abstract idea’ created in the rejection.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added). To the extent Appellant is contending that claim 47 recites an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application, the issue of an “inventive concept” is pertinent to Step 2B of the Guidance, not to whether claim 47 recites an abstract idea. See Guidance at 56. 4 See Guidance at 52 n.13 (citing In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘[a]pplicants’ claims . . . directed to rules for conducting a wagering game’ are abstract”); see also Guidance Update 6 (“a set of rules for playing a dice game” falls within the “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” sub-grouping of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, citing In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[F]ollowing rules or instructions” falls within the “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” sub-grouping. See Guidance at 52. Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 8 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s determination that claim 47 recites abstract ideas falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and recites mental processes. We agree with the Examiner that most limitations recited in claim 47 relate to organizing human activity. Accordingly, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 47 recites abstract ideas. Step 2A, Prong Two We next determine whether claim 47 integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and thus, is not “directed to” the judicial exception, by evaluating the additional elements beyond the judicial exception to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Guidance at 54-55. The Examiner determines that claim 47 recites “additional elements” pertaining to functions of the “communication network” and “computer terminals.” Final Act. 18-21. Particularly, these additional elements are: (1) a distributed computer system; (2) a computing device (central authority) of the distributed computer system, (3) a plurality of computer terminals (wagering venues) of the distributed computer system, and (4) a communication network in which the computer terminals are communicatively coupled with the computing device. Id. at 24. The Examiner further determines that the recited limitations “over the communication network from a first computer terminal of the computer terminals,” “over the communication network from a second computer terminal of the computer terminals,” and “over the communication network” relate to the additional elements. Id. at 18-21. The Examiner determines that the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for multiple reasons, Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 9 including the additional elements do not: (a) provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or to other technology or technical field; (b) implement the abstract ideas in conjunction with a particular machine; or (c) use the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking their use to a particular technological environment. Final Act. 24- 25; see also Guidance at 55. Rather, the Examiner determines that the additional elements are merely generically-recited computer elements which fail to add a meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas beyond simply implementing them on a computer. Id. at 25. As for point (a), the Examiner submits that the Specification does not describe how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement over the prior art, or describe any technical problem having an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim. Id. In contrast, Appellant contends that claim 47 recites additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant states that the additional elements are at least the “emphasized features” in claim 47, as reproduced below. 47. A method of operating a distributed computer system, in which the distributed computer system includes a plurality of wagering venues as respective computer terminals communicatively coupled over a communication network with a central authority as a computing device of the distributed computer system, in which each of the computer terminals is configured to manage local risk thereof, the method comprising: controlling, by the computing device, [A] receiving, over the communication network, from a first computer terminal of the computer terminals, an amount of risk on each side of a two sided wager proposition for an in- game event through the first computer terminal . . .; Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 10 [B] receiving, over the communication network from a second computer terminal of the computer terminals, a second amount of risk on each side of the two sided wager proposition for the in-game event through the second computer terminal; [C] automatically receiving, over the communication network, in real time from a data feed source, real-time game information related to the in-game event; and [D] automatically, while a betting event for the in- game event is determined to be open based on the real-time game information: [D-1] determining a level of risk exposure for a first side of the two sided wager proposition . . .; [D-2] determining a level of off setting risk exposure for the first side of the two sided wager proposition . . .; [D-3] determining a total level of risk exposure based on the risk exposure and the offsetting risk exposure; [D-4] determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than a threshold value; [D-5] determining a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload at least a part of the total level of risk exposure; [D-6] determining, based on the real-time game information, a time remaining for entering into the transaction; and [D-7] in response to determining that the total level of risk exposure is greater than the threshold value, the liquidity level for the transaction and the time remaining for entering into the transaction, facilitating, over the communication network, the transaction, in which facilitating the transaction includes determining whether the transaction is legal in a jurisdiction of the first computer terminal, and if the transaction is legal, engaging in the transaction in the jurisdiction of the first computer terminal, and if the transaction is not legal, communicating, over the communication network, the total level of risk exposure to the second computer terminal to engage in the transaction in a jurisdiction of the second computer terminal. Id. at 13-14 (brackets and reference letters added). Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 11 We understand that the “emphasized features” correspond to the bolded language in claim 47, as shown above. According to Appellant, the additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application by (a) providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or to other technology or technical field, and (b) implementing the “identified” abstract ideas with a particular machine. Appeal Br. 14. We understand that the “identified” abstract ideas are those determined by the Examiner, which Appellant does not challenge. We are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to address “each of the claim limitations of independent claim 47 that are additional elements.” Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner determines that the additional elements, i.e., a distributed computer system, a computing device and computer terminals, and a communication network in which the computer terminals are communicatively coupled with the computing device, are generically- claimed computer elements. Final Act. 24. The Examiner also determines that these generically-claimed computer components enable the abstract ideas to be performed using the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks, and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., the Internet. Id. at 26. The Examiner further submits that Appellant does not identify any disclosure that shows the recited computer elements require special programming or algorithms to perform these functions. Id. at 27. In claim 47, the computer components are recited at a high level of generality, without meaningful detail as to their structure or configuration. We agree with the Examiner that the recited computer components do not reflect a particular machine or an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 12 Rather, we are unconvinced that the claimed invention is implemented using anything other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. We note “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We also are not persuaded that the additional elements asserted by Appellant integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. According to Appellant, the claimed features “help control activity over networks and control computer workload including computer resources” and “allow a computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant contends that the Specification teaches how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology, and is implemented on a particular machine. Id. at 15-17 (reproducing ¶¶ 11-14 and 16 of the published application, US 2013/0178270, published July 11, 20135). Appellant does not, however, explain persuasively how paragraphs 11-14 and 16 describe “problems with current techniques” or “technical solutions to technical problems.” See Appeal Br. 15. Appellant has merely emphasized certain description in these paragraphs pertaining to “real-time game information,” “automated information,” and “in-game events.” See id. at 15-17. Appellant does not explain how these paragraphs specifically contain a teaching as to how the claimed invention improves a computer or 5 Paragraphs 11-14 and 16 of the printed publication correspond to the paragraphs 11-14 and 16 in the version of the Specification filed on March 26, 2013. Herein, all references to the “Specification” or “Spec.” are to this version. Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 13 other technology, or is implemented using a particular machine. See id. at 15. Appellant further asserts that the improvements are in computer performance, particularly: [C]ontrolling, by a computing device, automatically receiving real-time game information related to an in-game event over a communication network and receiving, over the communication network, amount of risk from first and second computer terminals of a distributed computer system including the computing device, and automatically, while a betting event for the in-game event is determined to be open based on the real- time game information, facilitating, over the communication network, a transaction to offload a part of a total level of risk exposure based on a time remaining for entering into the transaction determined based on the real-time game information, which helps facilitate real time, communication and processing of information associated with in-game event wagering at respective computer terminals of the distributed computer system. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant asserts that “[t]he claimed features, may help improve computer performance which may help control activity over a communication network and control computer workload including computer resources such as memory, processor and network resources such as network bandwidth.” Id. Appellant also contends: Advantageously, the claimed invention provides the technical improvement of a computing device that automatically, while a betting event for an in game event is determined to be open based on real-time game information, in response to determining that a total level of risk exposure is greater than the threshold value, a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload a part of the total level and time remaining for entering into the transaction, communicates, over the communication network, the transaction to a second computer terminal to Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 14 engage in the transaction. The aforementioned claim features clearly are rooted in networking and computers. Appeal Br. 18 (additional italicized emphasis added). Accordingly, Appellant contends the purported technical improvement is the computing device automatically making several determinations while a betting event for an in game event is open, and communicating the transaction to the second computer terminal. Appellant does not explain persuasively how the computing device making these determinations amounts to a technical improvement. We also note that claim 47 does not require the transaction to be communicated to the second computer terminal. Rather, this will occur only if the transaction is not legal in the jurisdiction of the first computer terminal. Nor does claim 47 recite any limitation pertaining to determining whether the transaction is legal in that jurisdiction. Further, Appellant contends that, “[a]mong other things, speed, usability and efficiency are technological improvements addressed by the claims that are rooted in computers and networking.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant does not explain adequately what particular “speed” is addressed, or specifically how the “speed” of the recited computing device, computer terminals, or communication network is improved by performing the claimed method. Nor does Appellant explain what is meant by “usability,” or how this is purportedly provided by the claimed method. Further, Appellant does not explain what particular “efficiency” is considered a technical improvement, or how this “efficiency” is provided by the claimed method. As for Appellant’s contention that the claimed features “allow a computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer,” Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 15 the claimed steps utilize generic computer elements to perform functions that are related to abstract ideas involving hedging and wagering. See Appeal Br. 15. Appellant does not establish that the purported additional elements reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, an improvement to other technology or technical field, or implement the abstract ideas with a particular machine. Rather, the claim recites an abstract method of organizing human activity and the additional elements merely generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular field of use, namely, operating a distributed computer system. This is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See Guidance at 55. We construe the limitations A to D-7 as merely using the additional elements as tools to perform the abstract concepts, which likewise is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See id. For the above reasons, claim 47 is “directed to” the judicial exception. See Guidance at 54. Step 2B The Examiner determines that claim 47 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. Final Act. 26. Rather, the Examiner determines that the computer functions performed by the additional elements have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Id. at 26-27 (citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Appellant contends that the Examiner has not properly followed the procedure set forth in the Berkheimer Memo for Examiners to show that an Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 16 additional element, or combination of elements, is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Appeal Br. 20-21. We disagree. The Examiner cites to paragraphs in Appellant’s Specification to show that the additional elements are generic computing devices. Final Act. 27. Appellant does address these findings. The Examiner also determines that the lack of disclosure regarding any special programming or algorithms required for the additional elements to perform the recited functions demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements. Final Act. 28 (citing Berkheimer Memo, p. 3, (III)(A)(1)). Appellant does apprise us of error in this finding. The Examiner determines that the additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract ideas with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. Final Act. 30. As such, the Examiner submits, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Id. The Examiner concludes that the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract ideas into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id. To the extent Appellant is relying on the claim limitations that recite the abstract ideas as providing significantly more, “[i]t has been clear since Alice that 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). “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 17 and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG Tech LLC, 899 F.3d. at 1290-91. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed method merely calls for using generic electronic components as tools to perform the abstract ideas, which use does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract ideas. Alice, 573 U.S. at 212. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42 Appellant argues claim 21 and its dependent claims 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42 together as group. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant states, “claim 21 recites statutory subject matter for at least the same reasons discussed above [as to claim 47]. Aspects of the dependent claims may be compared with their respective base claims.” Id. Accordingly, Appellant relies on the same argument for eligibility made against claim 47, and provides no additional argument for claims 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). We sustain the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as for claim 47. Claims 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42 fall with claim 21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Written Description Claims 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42 The test for sufficiency under the written description requirement “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). This test “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 18 perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. To have “possession,” “the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Id. The Examiner determines that the following limitations recited in claim 21 (and dependent claims 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42) are not supported by Appellant’s disclosure: “a central authority as a computing device of a distributed computer system” “in which the central authority includes a non-transitory machine readable medium having stored thereon a plurality of instructions that when executed cause the computing device . . .” and “automatically, while a betting event for the in-game event is determined to be open based on the real-time game information . . . determine a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload at least a part of the total level of risk exposure.” Final Act. 7. Claim 21 recites “a central authority as a computing device of a distributed computer system.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). For each of the limitations in claim 21 determined to be unsupported, the Examiner submits that the Specification does not describe: (a) a “central authority” that performs the recited function, or (b) the algorithm, procedure, or steps required to perform the corresponding function. Final Act. 7-10. For instance, the Examiner notes that paragraph 37 of the Specification “describes determining liquidity for one or more potential offsetting wagers, wherein one example, a determination may be made that an offsetting wager to the bears winning a game may be very liquid (e.g., readily obtainable through a wagering exchange).” Id. at 7-8 (emphasis added). The Examiner determines, however, that “paragraph 37 does not describe a central Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 19 authority determining a liquidity level for a transaction that would offload at least a part of the total level of risk exposure as claimed,” nor does paragraph 37 or elsewhere in the Specification describe the algorithm, procedure, or steps required to make this determination. Id. at 8. Appellant contends that certain paragraphs of the Specification support the claimed limitations. Appeal Br. 7-10 (reproducing ¶¶ 16, 36, 37, 40, 43, 50, 51, 57, 67, 335). Of these paragraphs, only paragraphs 57 and 335 mention the word “central authority.” As emphasized by Appellant, paragraph 57 states: In some embodiments, a central authority may control information and/or offloading transactions for a plurality of wagering venues. Those venues may be in divergent locations and jurisdiction. A central authority may determine how the sum of risk in the variety of wagering venues offset one another and what a total risk for all of the wavering venues may be. That sum of risks across the various venues may be used as the relevant risk rather than the risk of a single venue when evaluating offsetting or hedging transactions. That central authority may control offsetting transactions to offset the total risk as desired. Appeal Br. 10. Paragraph 57 does not describe the “central authority” as a “computing device.” We note that paragraph 59 of the Specification discloses: For example, one jurisdiction may require public disclosure of wagers and so a central authority may receive risk information via a public disclosure, while another jurisdiction requires only private transmission of risk data and the central authority may receive that information via a private transmission. See Spec. ¶ 59 (emphasis added). Paragraph 60 discloses: An order to take an action may include a direct request to the second wagering venue by a central authority, a command Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 20 by telephone, by internet, by mail, a public statement, a private directive, and so on to a local wagering venue to engage in the transaction. For example, such information may include a public pronouncement that the central authority desires an offsetting transactions in a designated jurisdiction (e.g., published on a website). See Spec. ¶ 60 (emphasis added). Paragraphs 59 and 60 do not describe the “central authority” as being a “computing device,” as claimed. Paragraph 63 of the Specification discloses that “[t]he central authority itself may be a wagering venue in a location that allows offsetting transactions through an exchange.” See Spec. ¶ 63 (emphasis added). Paragraph 16 of the Specification cited by Appellant states: It should be recognized that any action and/or offsetting attempts may be performed by any entity at any level in any manner. For example, in some embodiments, a local facility may attempt to offset risk, prior to and/or in response to consolidated risk being determined. Offset at such facilities and/or by a risk manager may be used as input to a risk model to determine a new level of risk which may then be used to determine odds and/or desired further offsetting. See Spec. ¶ 36 (emphasis added); see Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends that this passage discloses “any action and/or offsetting attempts may be performed by any entity [e.g. a central authority].” Id. at 11. Appellant does not direct us to any disclosure that “any entity” necessarily can be “a central authority.” Nor does Appellant establish that such “central authority” is necessarily a “computing device,” as claimed, or what algorithm, procedure, or steps are undertaken to determine a liquidity level for a transaction. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant that the Specification demonstrates possession of a “central authority,” and particularly a “computing device,” that performs the recited functions identified by the Examiner as lacking written description support. Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 21 Additionally, Appellant does not persuasively address the Examiner’s position that the Specification does not describe the algorithm, procedure, or steps required to perform the limitations with the recited “computing device” in either the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. For the above, reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 21, and claims 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, and 42 depending therefrom, under the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Claim 47 Appellant does not present separate argument for claim 47. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claim 47 as failing to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections of 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, and 47. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, 47 101 Eligibility 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, 47 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, 47 112 Written Description 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, 47 Overall Outcome 21, 23-26, 30-33, 35, 36, 42, 47 Appeal 2021-002363 Application 13/591,615 22 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2020). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation