Cantor Index, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 20, 2022

2021002744 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2022)

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. 13/952,941 07/29/2013 Dominic Crosthwaite 03-6145-C2 2808 63710 7590 01/20/2022 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. INNOVATION DIVISION 110 EAST 59TH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10022 EXAMINER SHARVIN, DAVID P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2022 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 DOMINIC CROSTHWAITE and LEWIS C. FINDLAY ____________ Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 29, and 44-59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 8, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” mailed March 19, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 21, 2021) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 10, 2020). Appellant identifies Cantor Index, LLC as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The Specification states, “[t]his invention relates in general to online accounts and, more particularly, to a system and method for providing access to and managing account activity for an online account” (Spec. 1:6-8). Claims 1 and 29 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: [(a)] generating, by at least one processor, an account approval decision matrix in a memory; [(b)] transmitting, by the at least one processor, to a terminal, one or more web pages that enables an account be opened on an online platform for placing online orders for betting products; [(c)] in response to detecting activation of a web link on the one or more pages for requesting the account be opened on the platform, displaying a prompt, by the at least one processor, to provide via one or more web pages identification verification information including one or more of a name, an address, a social security number, a phone number, and an age; [(d)] presenting, by the at least one processor, via a web page terms and conditions of the platform; [(e)] receiving, by a least one server, an indication that a web link on a web page was activated, wherein activation of the web link results in a submission of identification information and signifies acceptance of the terms and conditions; [(f)] communicating, by the at least one processor, at least a portion of the identification information to an entity that performs identity authentication; [(g)] communicating, by the at least one processor, at least a portion to the identification information to an entity that performs credit verification; [(h)] receiving, by the at least one processor, a result of the identity authentication and the credit verification; Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 3 [(i)] comparing, by the at least one processor, results of the identity authentication and the credit authentication to entries stored in the decision matrix; [(j)] based at least in part on comparing the results to the entries stored in the decision matrix, approving, by the at least one processor, a request to open the account on the platform; [(k)] responsive to approving the request to open the account to enter orders for betting products on the platform, establishing, by the at least one processor, the account including establishing a user ID and a password; [(l)] activating, by the at least one processor, the account; [(m)] based on funds deposited, establishing by the at least one processor a balance associated with the account; [(n)] displaying, by the at least one processor, a prompt to provide via a web page the user ID and the password; [(o)] in response to receiving the user ID and the password, establishing, by the at least one processor, a communication session during which access to the online platform is granted; [(p)] during the communication session, receiving by the at least one processor a request to place an order for a given betting product, the request being made using the account; [(q)] determining by the at least one processor a risk value of the order for the given betting product based at least partially on a maximum loss that is likely to result from the given betting product; [(r)] determining by the at least one processor a current balance for the account; [(s)] determining by the at least one processor whether to approve the order based at least in part on the risk value determined for the order and the current balance for the account; and [(t)] if the order is approved, accepting by the at least one processor the order. Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 29, and 44-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1, 29, and 44-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1, 29, and 44-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Black (US 2003/0096651 A1, published May 22, 2003), Greene et al. (US 2002/0143686 A1, published Oct. 3, 2002) (“Greene”), and Chow et al. (US 2002/0156720 A1, published Oct. 24, 2002) (“Chow”). ANALYSIS Written Description Section 112(a) of the patent statute reads, in part, “[t]he specification shall contain a written description of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The purpose of this written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The requirement, thus, “ensures that the public receives a meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing an invention for a period of time.” Id. To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time the application was filed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In particular, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 5 understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; see also Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351; Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 61-62 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 § 112 Guidelines”). The written description requirement does not demand any particular form of disclosure; however, “a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352 (citation omitted). In rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Examiner noted that independent claims 1 and 29 recite “generate” or “generating an account approval decision matrix in a memory” (Final Act. 5). And the Examiner determined that the claims are properly rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement because although “[t]he specification contains numerous examples of applying a decision matrix,” there is no “disclosure or description in the specification of how the matrix is generated” (id.).2 Citing paragraphs 6 and 58 of Appellant’s published Specification (US 2014/0188696 A1) as support, Appellant asserts that “generation of the decision matrix in the memory is inherently performed by the processor and memory of the core server and requires no additional detailed explanation” (Appeal Br. 9-10). Appellant, thus, maintains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the matrix would be generated in the memory 2 The Examiner explained, “the Examiner has given very little patentable weight to the limitation and interpreted the limitation as storing or having an [sic] decision matrix” (Final Act. 5). Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 6 using a type of data structure in order for the processor device to approve or deny the account” (id. at 10). Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner opines, and we agree, that “[a] processor does not inherently perform or have as a property ‘generating an account approval decision matrix’” (Ans. 3). Nonetheless, we are persuaded that the Specification, at least in the identified paragraphs of Appellant’s published application, describes the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention, including the step of “generating . . . an account approval decision matrix in a memory,” at the time the application was filed. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 29, and 44-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 11-12). We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “[w]hoever 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 7 Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (alteration in original). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published revised guidance on January 7, 2019, for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).3 That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed 3 The MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) incorporates the revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 8 to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Id. at 50. The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, 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. Id. at 54-55. Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id. If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only then, is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, in rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined that the independent claims recite “providing an Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 9 account for placing online bets on a computer and approving online betting transactions,” i.e., a “concept that falls under the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity” (Final Act. 5-6). The Examiner also determined that the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application; that the independent claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself; and that the dependent claims are patent ineligible for substantially the same reasons (id. at 6-7). Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 11-12). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. The Specification is titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO AND MANAGING ACCOUNT ACTIVITY FOR AN ONLINE ACCOUNT,” and discloses, in the Background section, that “[t]he Internet and the increasing availability of broadband services has Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 10 led to the proliferation of online gambling, including online sports betting” (Spec. 2). To participate in online gambling activities, a user must open an account, e.g., a deposit or credit account, with an online gambling service (id.). To establish such an account, a user typically completes an account application, which must be approved by the gambling service (id.). For a deposit account, the user funds the account through a credit card transaction with the online gambling service or by physically mailing a check, cash, or similar payment to the gambling service; for a credit account, the user may be required to mail certain items, e.g., a credit card or bank statement, from which the gambling service can determine whether or not to approve the account application (id.). The Specification describes that this arrangement is disadvantageous inasmuch as “[s]uch mailings “introduce delays into the account opening process, which may discourage potential users from opening an account with the gambling service” (id.). The claimed invention is ostensibly intended to address this issue by providing a system and method whereby a user may establish an account with a betting service, via an online communication session, in real time or substantially in real time (Spec. 3-7). Claim 1, thus, recites a method comprising: (1) “generating . . . an account approval decision matrix in a memory” (step (a));4 (2) “transmitting . . . to a terminal, one or more web pages that enable[ ] an account be opened on an online platform for placing online orders for betting products” (step (b)); (3) detecting a user request to open an account on the online platform; presenting the user with the terms 4 We interpret step (a), as the Examiner did, as “as storing or having an decision matrix” in memory (Final Act. 5) Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 11 and conditions of the platform; and receiving user identification information and acceptance of the terms and conditions, i.e., in response to detecting activation of a web link on the one or more pages for requesting the account be opened on the platform, displaying a prompt, by the at least one processor, to provide via one or more web pages identification verification information including one or more of a name, an address, a social security number, a phone number, and an age; presenting, by the at least one processor, via a web page terms and conditions of the platform; [and] receiving, by a least one server, an indication that a web link on a web page was activated, wherein activation of the web link results in a submission of identification information and signifies acceptance of the terms and conditions (steps (c) through (e)); (4) communicating requests, including at least a portion of the user identification information, for identity authentication and credit verification; receiving the results, and, if satisfactory, approving and establishing the user account, i.e., communicating, by the at least one processor, at least a portion to the identification information to an entity that performs credit verification; receiving, by the at least one processor, a result of the identity authentication and the credit verification; comparing, by the at least one processor, results of the identity authentication and the credit authentication to entries stored in the decision matrix; based at least in part on comparing the results to the entries stored in the decision matrix, approving, by the at least one processor, a request to open the account on the platform; responsive to approving the request to open the account to enter orders for betting products on the platform, establishing, by the at least one processor, the account including establishing a user ID and a password; activating, by the at least one processor, the account; [and] based on funds deposited, establishing by the at least one processor a balance associated with the account Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 12 (steps (f) through (m)); (5) receiving a user request, during an online communication session, to place an order for a betting product, i.e., displaying, by the at least one processor, a prompt to provide via a web page the user ID and the password; in response to receiving the user ID and the password, establishing, by the at least one processor, a communication session during which access to the online platform is granted; [and] during the communication session, receiving by the at least one processor a request to place an order for a given betting product, the request being made using the account (steps (n), (o), and (p)); and (6) determining whether to approve the order based on the order’s risk value and the current balance in the user’s account, and accepting the order, if the order is approved, i.e., determining by the at least one processor a risk value of the order for the given betting product based at least partially on a maximum loss that is likely to result from the given betting product; determining by the at least one processor a current balance for the account; determining by the at least one processor whether to approve the order based at least in part on the risk value determined for the order and the current balance for the account; and if the order is approved, accepting by the at least one processor the order. (steps (q) through (t)). Appellant does not present any substantive challenge to the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Instead, Appellant maintains that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea and is patent eligible because the claim include additional elements that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application, i.e., that the claimed subject matter provides a technological improvement (Appeal Br. 11-12). Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 13 The 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/ mpep/old/mpep_E9R08-2017.htm) § 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated a recited judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In particular, the Guidance describes that an additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application if, inter alia, the additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. At the same time, the Guidance makes clear that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. Appellant argues here that the claimed subject matter, as recited in claim 1, is patent eligible because it is “directed to a technical improvement to a technical problem” (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant maintains that the claimed subject matter “provides a solution to the problem of opening an online account quickly without sacrificing identity and credit verification” and is “akin to the technical solutions held eligible by the courts” (id.). Yet, we are not persuaded that “opening an online account” is a technical problem, as opposed to a business problem, or that “opening an online account quickly without sacrificing identity and credit verification” is a technological improvement, as opposed to an improvement to the abstract Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 14 idea of “establishing an online account,” which is not enough for patent eligibility. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims[, i.e., claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how groundbreaking the advance.”). This is particularly so, where, as here, we find no indication in the Specification that the operations recited in claim 1 (specifically including steps (f) through (j), i.e., communicating requests for identity authentication and credit verification; receiving the results, and comparing the results to entries in an account approval decision matrix) require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components as tools operating in their ordinary capacity. Appellant asserts that the claimed operations “clearly improve[ ] the functioning of the computer because the claimed operations allow a user to open an account quickly while also ensuring that the user’s identity and credit are verified” (Appeal Br. 12), and that “the claimed subject matter includes specific operations that improve[ ] the speed and security of the computer” (id.). Yet, we find nothing in the Specification to support Appellant’s assertions. Instead, they appear to be no more than unsupported attorney argument. Appellant maintains that “the claimed subject matter is a practical application of online account creation” (Appeal Br. 12). Yet, the relevant question under Step 2A, Prong 2 is not whether the claimed invention itself, i.e., online account creation, is a practical application; instead, the question is whether the claim includes additional elements beyond the judicial Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 15 exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Here, the only additional elements in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are “at least one processor”; “a terminal”; “a memory”; and “a server,” i.e., generic computer components (see, e.g., Spec. 10-11, 15, 17). “And 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 conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the claim does not include additional elements or a combination of elements that integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B) Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 16 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not include any such elements or combination of elements. And Appellant offers no arguments to the contrary. We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 29, and 44-59, which fall with claim 1. Obviousness In rejecting independent claims 1 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner cited Black as disclosing substantially all of the claimed features (Final Act. 8-10; see also id. at 13 (“Claim[ ] 29 is rejected under the rationale of claim 1.”)). The Examiner, however, acknowledged that Black does not explicitly disclose “generating . . . an account approval decision matrix in a memory,” i.e., limitation (a), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 29 (Final Act. 10). The Examiner cited Greene to cure this deficiency (id. at 10-11 (citing Greene Figs. 4 and 5, Abstr., ¶¶ 85, 86)), explaining, “the Examiner has interpreting [sic] the decision matrix as a decision making tool stored in memory” and asserting that “the concept of applying factors to the account approval and registration process,” as disclosed by Greene, in paragraphs 85 and 86, is “functionally equivalent to the decision matrix method of making a determination” (id. at 11). Appellant argues that the obviousness rejection cannot be sustained because Greene does not disclose or suggest “the credit approval and memory matrix features of the claims” (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant asserts that “Greene merely teaches that there are requirements for account approval (e.g., citizenship, etc.) but does not describe an in [sic] memory matrix as Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 17 claimed in the instant case and does not describe the credit verification features” (id.). But, Appellant does not explain why the Examiner’s finding (i.e., that applying factors, i.e., requirements, to the account approval and registration process, as disclosed in paragraphs 85 and 86 of Greene, is “functionally equivalent” to the decision matrix method of making an account approval determination) is unreasonable or unsupported. We also note that the Examiner relies on Chow, not Greene, as disclosing “the credit verification features” (see Final Act. 12).5 We are not persuaded, on the present, record, that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 29 under 35 U.SC. § 103. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 44-59, which are not argued separately. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 29, 44-59 112(a) Written Description 1, 29, 44-59 1, 29, 44-59 101 Eligibility 1, 29, 44-59 5 Addressing claim 29 in the Final Office, the Examiner stated, “Claim[ ] 29 is rejected under the rationale of claim 1” (Final Act. 13). Appellant argues that “[i]ndependent claim 29 is different from claim 1 and must be interpreted and examined on its own merit” (Appeal Br. 13). Yet, Appellant seemingly undercuts its own argument, asserting, in the very same paragraph, that “claim 29 is patent eligible and not obvious over Black in view of Greene for at least the same reasons discussed above,” i.e., with respect to claim 1 (id.). Appeal 2021-002744 Application 13/952,941 18 Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 29, 44-59 103 Black, Greene, Chow 1, 29, 44-59 Overall Outcome 1, 29, 44-59 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