Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2021

2021001444 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
14/988,926 01/06/2016 George Erhart 4366-785 4354
48500 7590 10/26/2021
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
KWONG, CHO YIU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3698
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2021 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):
cjacquet@sheridanross.com
edocket@sheridanross.com
pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GEORGE ERHART, DAVID SKIBA,
and VALENTINE C. MATULA
__________________

Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, 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 1–20. Appeal Br. 1. 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 Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to authenticating financial transactions such as
credit card transactions to determine if they are legitimate or fraudulent. See
Spec. ¶¶ 1–5. An authorizing entity can proactively enable transactions in a
specific area based on an application on a customer’s device interacting with
a “validation point” in the area of the transaction such as a city, resort, hotel,
airport, entertainment venue, or transaction terminal. Id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 8, 9, 28–34.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a request for authorization to
perform a transaction between a customer and a party utilizing a
transaction terminal;
accessing, by the processor, a device location of a device
associated with the customer;
accessing, by the processor, a validation point having a
validation point location;
making an authorization decision, by the processor, at an
authorization decision location different from the validation
point location, comprising at least determining that the device
location indicated the device was present at the validation point;
and
selectively granting or denying a transaction in
accordance with the authorization decision.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement.

Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
3
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility of Claims 1–20
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 4–11. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner determines that the claim covers the
authentication process of a transaction based on gathered information, which
is a commercial interaction within the certain methods of organizing human
activity category. Final Act. 5–8. The Examiner determines that, other than
reciting a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from being
performed as a human transaction authentication process that examines the
location information of a transaction party, manually receives a request for
authorization to perform a transaction, manually inquires about the location
of a customer, manually makes an authorization determination, manually
selects a validation point, and manually selectively grants or denies the
transaction. Id. at 7.
The Examiner determines that the additional element of a processor is
recited at a high level of generality as a generic computer component, and it
is used to perform steps of the abstract idea of receiving, accessing, decision
making, and selectively granting that amount to mere instructions to apply
the exception using a generic computer component without imposing any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Id. at 8–9.
The Examiner determines that the additional element, considered
individually and as an ordered combination, does not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea because using a processor to authenticate a
transaction amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
using a generic computer component that does not amount to significantly
more or provide an inventive concept. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
4
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.2 Id. at 52–55.

2 “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 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
5
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 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.
Step 1
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a statutory category of a process.
See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity involving commercial interactions. Final Act. 8.
The Revised Guidance also enumerates this abstract idea as a fundamental
economic practice or principle. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The application title “SECONDARY VALIDATION FOR FRAUD
PREVENTION” indicates the claims relate to validating transactions to
prevent fraud. According to the Specification, the method authenticates
financial transactions by using a validation point location. Spec. ¶¶ 1–9.
To authenticate a transaction, a processor “access[es] . . . a device location
of a device associated with the customer” and “a validation point having
a validation point location” and “determin[es] that the device location
indicated the device was present at the validation point.” Appeal Br. 16
(Claim 1). Determining a customer’s interaction with a validation point
(e.g., co-location) allows financial institutions to verify proactively that a
customer’s financial activity is legitimate. Spec. ¶¶ 4–9, 33–36.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
6
A “validation point” is a limited area that can reliably indicate the
presence of a device controlled by a customer within a sufficiently finite
area to indicate the location of the customer. Spec. ¶ 28. A customer may
check into an airport, restaurant, hotel, entertainment venue, or address that
serves as a validation point for a particular area. Id. ¶ 30. Upon determining
that the customer’s device is located at a validation point associated with a
merchant’s transaction terminal (or was at the validation point previously for
a determined period of time), an authorization agency may determine that
the customer is proximate to the transaction terminal and thereby conclude
that the transaction is legitimate. Id. ¶ 33. Authentication agency 112 may
interface with server 116 to access a location such as a check-in location
associated with a validation point 106 as maintained in a location record that
is created when a customer was at that validation point to determine if the
customer is proximate to the validation point. Id. ¶¶ 42, 43, Fig. 3 (304).
Processing and authorizing financial transactions is a fundamental
economic practice or principle long prevalent in our society and a certain
method of organizing human activity. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52; Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (local processing of payments for goods purchased
from a remote seller is a fundamental business practice and abstract idea
when implemented using generic computer technology); buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (contractual relationships
and a transaction performance guaranty relate to long-standing commercial
transactions and are an abstract idea); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tracking
financial transactions to determine if they exceed a pre-set spending limit is
a method of organizing human activity).
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
7
Here, claim 1 processes and tracks a financial transaction to determine
whether it exceeds a location limit by determining whether a user device was
present at a validation point. Mitigating risk in financial transactions such as
by verifying or authenticating a customer’s location at a validation point to
prevent financial fraud, is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in
our system of commerce. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. The claimed processor
(of authentication agency 112) acts as a third-party intermediary (similar to
the settlement intermediary in Alice, 573 U.S. at 219) to mitigate risk that a
transaction is fraudulent. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–9, 29–36, Fig. 1; see also Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (fundamental economic practices are within
the certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas).
Using location information to authenticate a financial transaction such
as a customer or a product location is a fundamental economic practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce. See Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v.
ShoppersChoice.com, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181–82 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (monitoring
the location of a mobile thing and notifying a party in advance of the arrival
of that mobile thing is a fundamental business practice of providing advance
notice of the pickup or delivery of a mobile thing and using authentication
information such as a customer’s name, address, and telephone number to
increase security is a longstanding commercial practice that is nothing more
than the gathering, storing, and transmitting information as in Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see
also Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1356–57
(Fed. Cir. 2021) (multi-factor authentication of a user’s identity to enable a
transaction using a combination of conventional authentication techniques to
achieve the expected result of a higher degree of security is abstract).
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
8
The claimed authentication process makes an authorization decision
based on the presence, or not, of a customer’s device at a validation point.
This step verifies a customer is/was located at a transaction point such as a
transaction terminal so the transaction is legitimate rather than fraudulent.
See Spec. ¶¶ 1–9, 29–35, 41–43; see also CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co.
KG v. Dui Security LLC, No. 2020-2043, 2021 WL 4515279, at *1 (Fed. Cir.
Oct. 4, 2021) (the specification of the patent-in-suit indicated using a user’s
mobile device for authentication by confirming that the person carrying the
mobile device is present at the terminal location from which the transaction
approval is requested was a conventional authentication method).
Here, claim 1 recites steps of receiving a request for authorization,
accessing a device location, accessing a validation point, and making an
authorization decision by determining that the device location was present at
the validation point in order to grant or deny a transaction without technical
details of how these steps are performed or any indication that improvements
to computers or other technologies are used. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Specification’s description of these steps without any technical details
or apparent improvements to technology confirms the abstract nature of the
claimed method. See Spec. ¶¶ 8–10, 28–43, Figs. 1, 2.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s determination that the claims are
abstract because they recite generic computing components is misplaced as
illustrated by Example 42 of Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract
Ideas because the Examiner’s determination would result in Example 42
being found patent-ineligible due to its method being performed on generic
computer components. Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant asserts that the Examiner
has not explained why the claims fit into one of the sub-groupings of certain
methods of organizing human activity of abstract ideas. Id. at 9.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
9
The Examiner analyzed the limitations of claim 1 and determined that
they recite a transaction authentication process for commercial interactions
that organizes that human activity and thus involves the certain methods of
organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Final Act. 5–8. One
sub-grouping of the certain methods of organizing human activity category
is “commercial or legal interactions.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis, and Appellant does not persuasively
argue why that determination does not fall within the Revised Guidance.
See Appeal Br. 9; Ans. 5.
The Examiner also determined that the claimed method recites steps
that can be performed as a human transaction authentication process that
examines location information of a transaction party. Final Act. 7. This
determination falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity
sub-grouping of managing interactions between people. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As discussed above, authenticating financial transactions
also recites a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our society,
which is another sub-grouping of the certain methods of organizing human
activity abstract idea category.
The Examiner’s determination also is consistent with the treatment of
claim 1 of Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract
Ideas. The analysis of claim 1 of Example 42 indicates the claim as a whole
recites a method of organizing human activity even though the method is
performed on network-based storage devices over a network using a content
server. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, 18. Reciting
generic computer components in claim 1 of Example 42 did not preclude the
claim from reciting an abstract idea. Id. Here, similarly, the recital of a
generic “processor” and “device” does not make claim 1 non-abstract.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
10
Claim 1 of Example 42 was patent eligible because it integrated the
method of organizing human activity into a practical application as
Appellant recognizes. Appeal Br. 5–6; Subject Matter Eligibility Examples:
Abstract Ideas, 18–19. We address issues of integration in the next section.
Example 46 of Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject
Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples does not recite
any exception. See Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter
Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, 41; see Appeal Br. 7–
8 (noting claim 4 of Example 46 was patent-eligible because no exception is
recited in the claim). Here, in contrast, claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity. Thus, Example 46 is distinguishable. Ans. 5.
When recited at this level of generality without technical details, such
data processing can be performed as mental processes. See Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (“[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.”); see also Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955
F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Controlling access to resources is exactly
the sort of process that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
using a pen and paper,’. . . . The idea long predates the ’510 patent and is
pervasive in human activity . . . [e.g.] banks (offering or denying loans to
applicants based on suitability or intended use).”) (citation omitted);
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (people can read credit card transactions from a database and
determine whether different credit cards of different users are used from the
same IP address as a way to detect credit card fraud); see Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
11
Here, claim 1 collects data by receiving an authorization request and
accessing a device location and validation point and then analyzes that data
to determine whether the device was present at the validation point in order
to grant or deny the transaction based on the authorization decision. The
method replicates human transaction authentication manual processes by
verifying the location information of customers. See Final Act. 7–8.
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites 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 the additional element
of a processor is recited at a high level of generality as a general purpose
computer component that performs steps of the abstract idea as instructions
to apply the exception without improving computers or other technology.
Final Act. 8. The Examiner determines that the processor does not impose a
meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Id. at 8–9. We agree.
The claim in Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples:
Abstract Ideas was integrated into a practical application because it allowed
remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format even
though information was input in a non-standardized format. Subject Matter
Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, 18–19; see Appeal Br. 5–6 (citing id.).
Here, claim 1 does not convert information that is input by a user in a non-
standardized format into a standardized format, automatically generate a
message when the updated information is stored, or transmit the message to
all users to share that information over a network as in Example 42.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
12
Example 46 (claim 4) is patent eligible because no exception is recited
in the claim. See Appeal Br. 6–7. Integration of the claim is not analyzed.
As such, it is not relevant to our Prong Two analysis of claim 1 here.
Appellant argues that considering whether the claims recite generic
computer components is to be excluded from the analysis of Step 2A. See
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also asserts that the Examiner’s determination that
the additional element of a processor does not impose a meaningful limit on
practicing the abstract idea is unsupported and merely conjecture. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the additional element of a processor
does not impose a meaningful limit on the claimed abstract idea. It does not
recite a particular machine that is integral to the claim. It does not effect a
transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
It does not apply the abstract idea in another meaningful way beyond merely
linking its use to a particular technological environment. Nor does it reflect
an improvement in computers or other technology. See Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (listing the above factors as integration considerations).
According to the Specification, the processor can be a microprocessor,
server, server array, or distributed processor (e.g., cloud). Spec. ¶ 10. The
method may be performed by hardware components or by instructions that
cause a machine such as a general-purpose or special-purpose processor
(GPU or CPU) or logic circuits programmed with instructions to perform the
method. Id. ¶ 48. We find no indication, nor has Appellant argued, that the
processor improves computers or technology. Like the generic “device,” it
is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea without imposing a meaningful
limitation on the abstract idea. See Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 6; Spec. ¶¶ 29–42.
Thus, claim 1 lacks additional elements that are sufficient to integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
13
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims 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 that
are 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 processor and device are tools used to implement the
abstract idea. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (the claims required off-
the-shelf conventional computer, network, and display technology to process
information without an inventive concept). As an ordered combination,
these elements recite no more than when considered individually. See BSG
Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“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.”); see also
Final Act. 9–10; Spec. ¶¶ 29–42.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that the additional
elements recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Appeal
Br. 11. Appellant argues that determining that additional elements require
no more than generic computer functions of storing and retrieving data and
receiving or transmitting data over a network does not address whether the
limitation of determining that a device was at a validation point is well-
understood, routine, and conventional activity. Id.; Reply Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
14
The Examiner reasonably determined that the processor performs data
storing and retrieving data and receiving and transmitting network data steps
that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Final Act. 9.
Appellant does not challenge that determination. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant’s reliance on features of the abstract idea itself to supply the
inventive concept, e.g., determining whether a user device was at a particular
validation point (Reply Br. 4) is not persuasive because the features of the
abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290
(“It 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.”); see
also CosmoKey, 2021 WL 4515279, at *1 (using a user’s mobile device for
authentication by confirming that the person carrying the mobile device
actually is present at the location of the terminal from which transaction
approval is requested is described as a conventional authentication method).
Nor do we find an inventive concept in the sequence of steps even if
we treat them as additional elements, which they are not. See Bozeman Fin.
LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 980–81 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(sequence of receiving and storing information, analyzing the information,
and sending a notification upon completion of the analysis recited a logical
sequence of steps of collecting and analyzing information for financial
transaction fraud rather than an inventive concept); Universal Secure
Registry, 10 F.4th at 1358 (authenticating a user at two locations did not
provide an inventive concept because it did not locate the authentication
functionality at a specific, unconventional location within the network).
Here, validation points are at or near the transaction location such as a
transaction terminal, hotel, entertainment venue, or airport. Spec. ¶¶ 28–36.
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
15
Thus, we determine that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept and that
claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Written Description of Claims 1–20
The Examiner determines that the Specification does not describe how
a processor accesses a validation point having a validation point location as
recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 16. Final Act. 11. The Examiner
determines that no description is provided for the process such as formulas,
algorithms, and mathematical steps. Id. The Examiner explains that the
written description requirement is satisfied if steps necessary to perform the
claimed function are described in the specification such as algorithms. Id.
Appellant responds that accessing a validation point involves the act
of accessing information with a processor. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts
that support for this limitation is found in paragraph 43 and Figure 1, which
provide details of how information may be obtained. Id. at 12–13.
“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention,
and of the manner and process of making and using it.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The written description requirement considers “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 Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(en banc).
The Examiner acknowledges that paragraph 43 of the Specification
“supports the accessing of the location data of the validation point, not the
accessing of the validation point.” Ans. 7. We agree with Appellant that
this access is all that the claims require. See Reply Br. 6 (“What is claimed
may be accomplished by accessing a server to obtain a location provided by
the device and whether that location matches a validation point.”).
Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
16
The Specification describes how customers use electronic devices 104
to access venues such as an airport, restaurant, hotel, or entertainment venue,
as a validation point 106 associated with the area. Spec. ¶ 30. A customer
may use device 104 to check in at a validation point such as an airport. See
id. ¶ 36. Authentication agency 112 (bank, credit card service bureau) may
interface with server 116 to access a location (check-in location) associated
with a validation point maintained in a location record. Id. ¶¶ 29–36, 43.
This description indicates the processor accesses location records
associated with a validation point rather than the physical location point as
the Examiner indicates. The processor accesses location data to identify a
validation point in a location record. Spec. ¶ 43. The “validation point”
corresponds to a location but the server accesses the location record data of
the validation point. The written description describes this step sufficiently
for skilled artisans to recognize Appellant possessed this subject matter.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–20 on this basis.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
1–20 112(a) Written
Description
1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

Appeal 2021-001444
Application 14/988,926
17
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