ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

14060518 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
14/060,518 10/22/2013 Terence Spies ID-40 Cont. 6230
146568 7590 07/02/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
KIM, STEVEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TERENCE SPIES and MATTHEW J. PAUKER
____________

Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES A. WORTH, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, 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 21, 23–28, 30–35, and 37–40, which are all the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “EntIT Software
LLC.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “purchase transaction systems
that use payment card information and, more particularly, to systems in
which cryptographic techniques are used to secure sensitive payment card
information.” Spec. 1, ll. 10–13.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 21, reproduced below with added bracketed notations and emphasis,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. See Appeal Br., Claims App.
21. A computer-implemented method comprising:
[(a)] receiving, by a transaction processing gateway, plural
encrypted data from a plurality of terminals for respective
transactions, the plural encrypted data derived by the plurality of
terminals by encrypting respective plural data using a plurality
of respective encryption algorithms, each encryption algorithm
of the plurality of respective encryption algorithms producing
respective encrypted data using a different encryption algorithm
format;
[(b)] identifying, by the transaction processing gateway,
each of the different encryption algorithm formats used in
encrypting the plural data;
[(c)] decrypting, by the transaction processing gateway,
the plural encrypted data using a plurality of respective
decryption algorithms that respectively correspond to the
different encryption algorithm formats, the decrypting of the
plural encrypted data producing respective plural decrypted data;
[(d)] based on the plural decrypted data, authorizing or
declining to authorize the respective transactions wherein the
transactions are at respective terminals of the plurality of
terminals; and
[(e)] encrypting, by the transaction processing gateway,
the plural decrypted data that has been decrypted using the
plurality of decryption algorithms using a single encryption
algorithm.
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Takagaki et al. (“Takagaki”) US 2004/0136533 A1 July 15, 2004
Oder, II et al. (“Oder”) US 7,891,563 B2 Feb. 22, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 21, 23–28, 30–35, and 37–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 21, 23–28, 30–35, and 37–40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Oder and Takagaki.
OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
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
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
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

4
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 78, 79). 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) (citation
omitted).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised
guidance 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, 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019
Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination
procedure with respect to the first step of the 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 to’ a judicial exception
if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception.” Id. at 50. The 2019 Revised Guidance, by its terms, applies to
all applications, and to all patents resulting from applications, filed before,
on, or after January 7, 2019. Id.
In rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and under the
first step of the Alice framework and the 2019 Revised Guidance, the
Examiner determined that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
“receiving transaction data, authorizing/declining transaction(s), and
securing of the transaction data.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4. According
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

5
to the Examiner, this represents “Certain Methods of Organizing Human
Activity.” Id.
We have reviewed the eligibility of the pending claims under the Alice
framework and in view of the 2019 Revised Guidance, and we are persuaded
that the Examiner erred in concluding that the pending claims are directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more.
Statutory Categories under § 101
To determine subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
Examiner must first determine if the claims fall into one of the four statutory
categories of invention: processes, machines, manufactures, or composition
of matter. See MPEP § 2106.03. Here, the Examiner makes conflicting
statements about whether the claims fall into a statutory category. See Final
Act. 4–5. The Examiner appears to find the claims do not fall into a
statutory category because they are directed to an abstract idea (id.);
however, the inquiries as to a statutory category (Step 1 of the Subject
Matter Eligibility Test Flowchart, MPEP 2016(III)) and a judicial exception
(Step 2A) are separate steps. Appellant argues, and we agree, that
“independent claim 21 is directed to a process, independent claim 28 is
directed to a machine, and independent claim 35 is directed to an article of
manufacture. Thus, all claims are directed to respective statutory categories
under § 101.” Appeal Br. 7. We now turn to the two step Alice framework.
Step One of the Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
Step 2A, Prong One
The first step in the Alice framework is to determine whether the
claims at issue are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract
idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. This first step, as set forth in the 2019
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

6
Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is a two-prong test; in Step 2A, Prong 1,
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
consider whether the claim includes additional elements, beyond the judicial
exception, that “integrate the [judicial] exception into a practical
application,” i.e., that 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 (“Step 2A, Prong 2”). 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.
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, we find the claims recite a judicial exception; however, the
claims further integrate that exception into a practical application, and thus,
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

7
we agree with Appellant that the claims are not “directed to” the judicial
exception of an abstract idea.
The Specification is entitled “PURCHASE TRANSACTION
SYSTEM WITH ENCRYPTED PAYMENT CARD DATA,” and states, in
the background section, “when a customer makes a purchase at a store with
a payment card such as a credit card or debit card, point-of-sale [“POS”]
equipment in the store is used to acquire payment card data from the
customer’s card.” Spec. 1, ll. 16–19. The POS equipment transfers this data
to a purchase transaction computer that “check[s] the customer’s account
balance and other information to determine whether the customer is
authorized to make a purchase and may debit the customer’s account
accordingly.” Id. at 2, ll. 8–11. The Specification states that, “[i]f care is
not taken to secure sensitive payment card data, it is possible that an attacker
may obtain unauthorized access to the payment card data.” Spec. 2, ll. 17–
19. To prevent such unauthorized access, the Specification states “[i]t would
therefore be desirable to be able to provide improved techniques for securing
sensitive payment card information in payment card data processing
systems.” Id. at 3, ll. 3–5.
To that end, the Specification discloses a payment transaction system
including a POS terminal that sends payment card data to a processor
gateway, which performs transaction authentication and transaction
clearance. Spec. 5, ll. 6–9. The gateway, in turn, sends payment card data
to a card brand portal or other equipment associated with a credit card
company and its affiliates for additional processing. Id. at 5, ll. 9–11. The
Specification discloses that, if the payment data is not encrypted, the
transmission of the data from the POS terminal equipment to the gateway
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

8
“in unencrypted form presents a potential avenue for attack by an attacker.”
Id. at 10, ll. 9–14. To prevent unauthorized access to the credit card
information, the POS terminal is provided with an encryption engine, which
“encrypt[s] sensitive information such as payment card information before
this information is transmitted to [the] purchase transaction processing
gateway.” Id. at 10, ll. 15–23.
The Specification discloses “different point of sale terminals in [the
system] may use different cryptographic algorithms in securing payment
card information. With this type of arrangement, encryption algorithm
identification information may be used to identify which encryption
algorithm was used in encrypting different payment card data items.” Spec.
21, ll. 4–10. The Specification provides an example encryption algorithm
implemented by each POS terminal encryption engine, such as an algorithm
with the inputs: “(1) plaintext payment card information, (2) a randomizing
input (tweak), and (3) an encryption key.” Id. at 17, l. 26–18, l. 3. “The
encryption algorithm may produce ciphertext (i.e., an encrypted version of
the plaintext payment card information) as a corresponding output” (id. at
18, ll. 3–6) and “may append an associated algorithm identifier to the
resulting ciphertext” (id. at 21, l. 27–22, l. 1).
According to the Specification, the gateway then “receive[s]
encrypted data in multiple formats (e.g., from multiple corresponding point
of sale terminals)” (id. at 21, ll. 17–19) and, using the algorithm identifier,
the gateway identifies the corresponding decryption algorithm and decrypts
the data (id. at 22, ll. 6–9). Once the payment data is decrypted, the gateway
uses the data to authorize the transaction and clear payment. Id. at 19, ll. 9–
12. After the data is decrypted, “[i]t may be desirable to secure data [in a
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

9
database at the gateway] by re-encrypting the decrypted payment card
information prior to storage in [the] database.” Id. at ll. 13–15. The
Specification discloses that, “[w]ith this type of arrangement, the payment
card data will be secure, even if an attacker gains access to the contents of
[the] database.” Id. at ll. 15–17. “The re-encrypted payment card
information may be encrypted using a cryptographic algorithm that is
different than the algorithm that is used in encrypting and decrypting the
payment card information conveyed between [the POS terminal and
gateway].” Id. at ll. 23–28. The gateway may perform re-encryption of the
payment data “with an encryption engine that uses a common key (or set of
keys) to encrypt data, regardless of which point of sale terminal originated
the payment card data. By using a single key (or set of keys), [the gateway]
may simplify the process of encrypting and decrypting data stored in [the]
database.” Id. at 20, ll. 1–6.
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 21 recites a computer-
implemented method, comprising: (a) receiving, by a transaction processing
gateway, plural encrypted data from a plurality of terminals for respective
transactions, the plural encrypted data derived by the plurality of terminals
by encrypting respective plural data using a plurality of respective
encryption algorithms, each encryption algorithm of the plurality of
respective encryption algorithms producing respective encrypted data using
a different encryption algorithm format; (b) identifying, by the transaction
processing gateway, each of the different encryption algorithm formats used
in encrypting the plural data; (c) decrypting, by the transaction processing
gateway, the plural encrypted data using a plurality of respective decryption
algorithms that respectively correspond to the different encryption algorithm
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

10
formats, the decrypting of the plural encrypted data producing respective
plural decrypted data; (d) based on the plural decrypted data, authorizing or
declining to authorize the respective transactions wherein the transactions
are at respective terminals of the plurality of terminals; and (e) encrypting,
by the transaction processing gateway, the plural decrypted data that has
been decrypted using the plurality of decryption algorithms using a single
encryption algorithm. See claim 21 supra.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a), (c), and (d)
recite a method for a secure payment transaction by (a) receiving encrypted
payment data from a plurality of transaction terminals; (c) decrypting the
data; and (d) authorizing or declining to authorize respective transactions
based on the data. For example, the method starts by a POS terminal
acquiring a customer’s payment data when the customer makes a purchase.
See Spec. 1, ll. 16–19. At step (a), the POS terminal encrypts the data and
sends it to a gateway for processing. See id. at 19, ll. 1–3. At steps (c) and
(d), the gateway decrypts the data and authorizes or declines the transaction.
See id. at ll. 4–12. These limitations recite a commercial interaction for
secure sales transactions, which is a method of organizing human activity
under the Revised Guidance and, therefore, is an abstract idea. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (Certain methods of organizing
human activity, which include fundamental economic practices and
commercial interactions involving sales activities). Similar concepts have
been held as abstract, including secure payment transactions (see Innovation
Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 778 F. App’x 859, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(securely processing a credit card transaction with a payment server is an
abstract idea)) and data encryption (see Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

11
v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 325, 333–34 (D. Del. 2015), aff'd sub
nom. Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com Inc., 671 F.
App’x 777 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using cryptography to encrypt and decrypt data
is an abstract idea)).
Accordingly, we conclude those recitations of steps (a), (c), and (d)
(without emphasis in claim 1), under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e. an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1), we next consider whether the claim recites
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (Step 2A, Prong 2). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception
into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Id. A claim may integrate the judicial exception when, for example, it
reflects an improvement to technology or a technical field. Id. at 55.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Examiner
determines the claims are not integrated into a practical application, because
they merely represent instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic
computer components. Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–5. The Examiner reasons “the
concepts of cryptography at [a] high level [of] generality is an abstract idea
and not necessarily rooted in computer technology,” because cryptography
was used to protect information even before the advent of computers. Ans.
5.
Appellant contends the Examiner did not consider the ordered
combination of the elements of the claims, as required by McRO, Inc. v.
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

12
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. Appeal Br. 8–10 (citing McRO, 837 F.3d
1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellant argues “[b]y boiling the language
of claim 21 down to a ‘financial transaction in securing of sensitive payment
information,’ or that merely encrypting or decrypting data constitutes an
abstract idea, the Examiner has in effect disregarded the actual specific
ordered combination of elements recited in claim 21.” Id. at 10. Appellant
further contends “the claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer
technology overcomes a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer technology, namely the technology of protecting data using
encryption according to multiple different encryption algorithms as part of
transaction processing.” Id. at 14–15 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellant argues
“[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the authorizing
or declining of transactions based on the foregoing of elements would lead
to more secure transaction processing, thereby leading to an improvement in
the relevant technology of transaction.” Id. at 12. Finally, Appellant states
that “the use of the ‘single encryption algorithm’ to encrypt the plural
decrypted data that has been decrypted using the plurality of decryption
algorithms can serve several useful purposes.” Id.
We are persuaded that the claims recite additional elements
integrating the judicial exception into a practical application that reflects an
improvement to technology. The additional elements recited in claim 21
supra are italicized. These additional elements are the POS terminals
“encrypting respective plural data using a plurality of respective encryption
algorithms, each encryption algorithm of the plurality of respective
encryption algorithms producing respective encrypted data using a different
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

13
encryption algorithm format,” “identifying, by the transaction processing
gateway, each of the different encryption algorithm formats used in
encrypting the plural data,” and the transaction processing gateway re-
encrypting “the plural decrypted data that has been decrypted using the
plurality of decryption algorithms using a single encryption algorithm.”
We agree with Appellant that, in view of these additional claim
elements, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
authorizing or declining of transactions based on the foregoing elements
would lead to more secure transaction processing, thereby leading to an
improvement in the relevant technology of transaction.” Appeal Br. 12. As
discussed above, each POS terminal is provided with an encryption engine,
which “encrypt[s] sensitive information such as payment card information
before this information is transmitted to [the] purchase transaction
processing gateway” to prevent unauthorized access to the credit card
information. See Spec. at 10, ll. 15–23. Further, each POS terminal uses a
different algorithm generated by random input that has particular encryption
algorithm identification information, i.e., “each encryption algorithm of the
plurality of respective encryption algorithms producing respective encrypted
data using a different encryption algorithm format.” See id. at 18, 11. 1–6;
21, ll. 4–10). Using the algorithm identifier, the gateway identifies the
corresponding decryption algorithm and decrypts the data, i.e., “identifying,
by the transaction processing gateway, each of the different encryption
algorithm formats used in encrypting the plural data.” See id. at 22, ll. 6–9.
The gateway then uses a single encryption algorithm to simplify the process
of encrypting and decrypting data stored in the database, i.e., the gateway re-
encrypting “the plural decrypted data that has been decrypted using the
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

14
plurality of decryption algorithms using a single encryption algorithm.” See
id. at 20, ll. 4–7. The resulting method provides “improved techniques for
securing sensitive payment card information in payment card data
processing systems.” See id. at 3, ll. 3–5.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that claim 21 improves the
relevant technology (i.e., secure payment transaction systems) and is not
directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke
generic processes and machinery. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314–16. In other
words, the claim limitations provide a technical improvement in the
functionality of secure payment transaction systems. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
(“Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other
Technology or Technical Field”).
Because we find that claim 21 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, we do not agree with
the Examiner that claim 21 is “directed to” an abstract idea. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 23–27, which depend from claim 21.
Independent claims 28 and 35 include language substantially similar
to the language of independent claim 21. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 35, as well as claims 30–34 and 37–
40, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with
respect to claim 21.

Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

15
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent Claims 21, 28, and 35
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds Oder teaches sending plural
encrypted data from a plurality of POS terminals to a gateway server, but
Oder does not teach encrypting and decrypting the respective plural data
based on “a plurality of respective encryption algorithms,” where each
algorithm uses “a different encryption algorithm format.” Final Act. 8
(citing Oder col. 5, ll. 10–14; col. 9, ll. 24–40); see also Ans. 6–7. The
Examiner finds Takagaki teaches the concept of using a plurality of
respective encryption algorithms to produce encrypted data with different
encryption algorithm formats. Final Act. 9 (citing Takagaki ¶¶ 109, 174,
188, 322 and 332); see also Ans. 6–7. In combining the teachings of Oder
and Takagaki, the Examiner states that “it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art of data security to substitute one known
encryption/decryption technique [in Takagaki] for another [in Oder] for
protecting data between terminal(s) and a remote server,” using no more
than “ordinary creativity” to make the substitution. Id. at 7.
Appellant contends the combination of Oder and Takagaki does not
teach “encrypting, by the transaction processing gateway, the plural
decrypted data that has been decrypted using the plurality of decryption
algorithms using a single encryption algorithm.” Appeal Br. 16–19
(emphasis added). Appellant argues Oder teaches re-encrypting payment
data at the gateway, but is silent regarding using multiple encryption
algorithms and multiple decryption algorithms. Id. at 17, 19 (citing Oder,
col. 6, l. 25). Appellant further argues that, although Takagaki refers to
multiple encryption schemes, Takagaki teaches a particular encryption
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

16
algorithm has to be agreed upon between the sender and receiver, meaning a
sender and recipient must use the same encryption algorithm. Id. at 17–18
(citing Takagaki ¶¶ 109, 174). Thus, Appellant contends the combination of
Oder and Takagaki does not teach “the concept of first decrypting data using
a plurality of decryption algorithms to produce plural decrypted data,
followed by encrypting such plural encrypted data that has been decrypted
using the plurality of decryption algorithms using a single encryption
algorithm.” Id. at 17.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in the rejection of
claim 21. The Examiner relies on Takagaki to teach encrypting and
decrypting the respective plural data based on “a plurality of respective
encryption algorithms,” where each algorithm uses “a different encryption
algorithm format.” Final Act. 8–9. However, as Appellant points out
(Appeal Br. 17–18), Takagaki teaches a particular encryption algorithm has
to be agreed upon between the sender and receiver, meaning there is only
one encryption algorithm format being used at a time. See Takagaki ¶¶ 19,
109. Takagaki is directed to encrypting broadcast video data, and uses
different levels of encryption strength to prevent CPU overload and loss of
video. Id. ¶ 16–18. Figure 6 of Takagaki depicts an overview of possible
algorithms: “algorithm a” has strong encryption but high CPU utilization;
“algorithm c” has low CPU utilization but weaker encryption. Thus,
Takagaki teaches different algorithms are possible, such as a strong
encryption/high CPU algorithm and a weak encryption/low CPU algorithm,
but only one algorithm is used for transmission at a time. See Takagaki, Fig.
6 and Fig. 16 (plural algorithms, selecting one to use). In other words, we
find no teaching in Takagaki that the video receiver is receiving “plural
Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

17
encrypted data from a plurality of terminals” and “identifying each of the
different encryption algorithm formats.” Rather, the algorithm format in
Takagaki is negotiated and determined beforehand for a single transmission.
Takagaki ¶ 109. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the combination of
Oder and Takagaki does not teach a plurality of respective encryption and
decryption algorithms for the plural encrypted data that is received at the
transaction processing gateway, as required by claim 21.
Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 21, 28, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
such, we do not sustain the rejection.
Dependent Claims
Claims 23–27, 30–34, and 37–40 depend from independent claims 21,
28, and 35, respectively. The rejections of claims 23–27, 30–34, and 37–40
suffer from the same deficiency described above in the rejections of the
independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 23–27, 30–34, and 37–40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 21, 23–28, 30–35, and 37–40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 21, 23–28, 30–35, and 37–40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.

Appeal 2020-000585
Application 14/060,518

18
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 23–28,
30–35, 37–
40
101 Eligibility

21, 23–28,
30–35, 37–
40
21, 23–28,
30–35, 37–
40
103(a) Oder, Takagaki 21, 23–28,
30–35, 37–
40
Overall Outcome 21, 23–28,
30–35, 37–
40

REVERSED