Ex Parte Bixler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2018

12123856 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/123,856 05/20/2008
20350 7590 06/25/2018
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTONLLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Matt Bixler
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90945-746010 (010510US) 1604
EXAMINER
NELSON, FREDA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATT BIXLER, ROBERT NEWTON, DEAN SEIFERT,
DA VE OWEN, and ELIZABETH PETRI
Appeal2017-003753 1
Application 12/123,856
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21, and22, which are all the claims
pending in the application. Appellants have canceled claims 2, 3, 9-11, 20,
and 23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Western Union Co.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
"financial transaction reporting." More specifically the invention relates to
tracking and reporting a financial transaction's status as the transaction is
processed. Spec. i-f 2.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added to contested prior-art claim limitations):
1. A method for tracking and reporting multiple financial
transactions, the method comprising:
initiating, at a payment server, a plurality of financial
transactions by a user at an interface, wherein the financial
transactions include a plurality of transactional steps and a
plurality of notifications, with at least one notification for each
of the plurality of transactional steps, and wherein the interface
is configured to provide, for the plurality of transactions, a
centralized view of each of the plurality of transactional steps
and plurality of notifications for the plurality of transactions;
receiving, at the payment server, prior to receiving the
plurality of financial transactions, from the user a selection of
at least a first notification method for a first type of transaction
and a second notification method for a second type of
transaction, wherein the first type of transaction is different
from the second type of transaction, wherein the first
notification method and the second notification method are each
selected from a group consisting of: email, interactive voice
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
March 25, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 25, 2016); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 9, 2015); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed May. 20, 2008). We note Appellants did not
file a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner's factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Answer.
2
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
recognition, short message system, telephone, Internet, branch
location, and postal carrier service, and wherein the first
notification method is different from the second notification
method;
receiving, at the payment server, from the user at least
one restriction regarding notifications to other parties, wherein
the at least one restriction limits what type of notifications other
parties are allowed to receive;
generating, at the payment server, a first notification for
each of the plurality of transactions for which payment has been
initiated, and sending, by the payment server, the first
notification to the user, wherein a notification method for
sending the first notification is based on the selection received
from the user and a type of transaction for each of the plurality
of transactions;
generating, at the payment server, a second notification
for each of the plurality of transactions which have been
processed and released for payment, and sending, by the
payment server, the second notification to the user, wherein a
notification method for sending the second notification is based
on the selection received from the user and a type of
transaction for each of the plurality of transactions;
generating, at the payment server, a third notification for
each of the plurality of transactions for which funds associated
with the transaction have been made available, and sending, by
the payment server, the third notification to the user, wherein a
notification method for sending the third notification is based
on the selection received from the user and a type of
transaction for each of the plurality of transactions;
generating, at the payment server, a fourth notification
for each of the plurality of transactions to indicate a shipping
status of goods associated with the financial transaction, and
sending, by the payment server, the fourth notification to the
user, wherein a notification method for sending the fourth
notification is based on the selection received from the user and
a type of transaction for each of the plurality of transactions;
sending, by the payment server, at least one of the first
notification, the second notification, the third notification, or
the fourth notification to another party besides the user, wherein
3
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
which notifications are sent is determined at least in part on the
at least one restriction received from the user;
displaying, at the payment server, each of the plurality of
notifications within the centralized view of the interface; and
dynamically updating, at the payment server, the
centralized view in response to receiving new notifications or
updated notifications for each of the plurality of transactions.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Lai et al. ("Lai") US 2005/0219061 Al Oct. 6, 2005
Keohane et al. ("Keohane") US 2006/0089908 Al April 27, 2006
Singh et al. ("Singh") US 2006/0253339 Al Nov. 9, 2006
Ahuja et al. ("Ahuja") US 20071017 4448 Al July 26, 2007
Cole et al. ("Cole") US 7 ,464,057 B2 Dec. 9, 2008
Mengerink et al. ("Mengerink") US 8,775,273 B2 July 8, 2014
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 3.
R2. Claims 1, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Singh, Ahuja, Cole, Lai, Keohane, and Mengerink. Final Act. 4.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-10), we decide the
appeal of patent-ineligible subject matter Rejection RI of claims 1, 4-8, 12-
17, 19, 21, and 22 on the basis of representative claim 1; and we also decide
4
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
the appeal of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 1, 4-8, 12-17, 19, 21,
and 22 on the basis of representative claim 1.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1 and,
unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis
as follows.
1. § 101 Rejection RI of Claims l, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21 and 22
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6-9) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is
in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in concluding claim 1 is patent-ineligible
because it merely implements an abstract idea without providing an
improvement to the underlying technology or functioning of the computer?
5
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
Analysis
Alice Framework
Section 101 provides that anyone who "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. 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should
not extend to claims that monopolize "the basic tools of scientific and
technological work." Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012);
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patent-eligible subject matter. Id.
The Supreme Court's two-part Mayo/Alice framework guides us in
distinguishing between patent claims that impermissibly claim the
"'buildin[g] block[ s ]' of human ingenuity" and those that "integrate the
building blocks into something more." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. First, we
"determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept." Id. at 2355. If so, we "examine the elements of the claim to
determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform'
the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 2357
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 79). While the two steps3 of the Alice
framework are related, the "Supreme Court's formulation makes clear that
3 Applying this two-step process to claims challenged under the abstract
idea exception, the courts typically refer to step one as the "abstract idea"
step and step two as the "inventive concept" step. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
6
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101
inquiry." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). We note the Supreme Court "has not established a definitive rule
to determine what constitutes an 'abstract idea'" for the purposes of step one.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357).
However, our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as directed to
an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display
information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by
humans. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting cases). At the
same time, "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 71. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2355-
57. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we
articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure
the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 2354 ("[W]e tread carefully in
construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.").
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citation
omitted). If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the
inquiry ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,
1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If the concept is directed to a patent-ineligible
7
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
concept, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that second step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
Alice Step 1 -Abstract Idea
Our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as being directed to an
abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display
information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by
humans. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting cases). At the
same time, "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 71. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we
articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure
the step one inquiry is meaningful. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 ("[W]e tread
carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of
patent law.").
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d
at 1257 (citation omitted).
Turning to the claimed invention, claim 1 recites, " [a] method for
tracking and reporting multiple financial transactions." Claim 1 (preamble).
Method claim 1 's limitations also require various steps including initiating,
receiving, generating, sending, displaying and updating financial transaction
8
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
notifications. The Examiner concludes, "Claims 1, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21, and
22 are directed to the abstract idea of 'tracking and reporting financial
transactions to users' which is similar to the abstract ideas held by the courts
to be judicial exceptions." Final Act. 3 (citations omitted). Further, "the
concept of 'tracking and reporting financial transactions to users' is
described by the 'initiating,' 'receiving,' 'receiving,' 'generating,' 'generating,'
'generating,' 'generating,' 'sending,' 'displaying,' and 'updating' steps in
claims 1, 19, and22." Id.
Appellants state the claimed subject matter of "tracking and reporting
financial transactions to users" is assumed to be a fundamental economic
practice. App. Br. 7. We agree with Appellants' assumption.
As the Specification discloses, "[t]his invention relates generally to
financial transaction reporting. More specifically the invention relates to
tracking and reporting a financial transaction's status as the transaction is
processed." Spec. i-f 2. Further, "[e]mbodiments of the present invention are
directed to a method of tracking and reporting multiple financial
transactions." Spec. i-f 5. 4 We conclude this type of activity, i.e., comparing
4 See also Spec. 20 ("Abstract"):
This disclosure describes, generally, methods and systems
for tracking and reporting multiple financial transactions. The
method may include initiating a financial transaction by a user
at an interface. The financial transaction may include multiple
transactional steps. The method may further include generating
notifications corresponding to the plurality of transactional
steps. A first notification may be configured to indicate to the
user that payment for the transaction has been initiated. A
second notification may be configured to indicate to the user
that the transaction has been processed and released for
payment, and a third notification may be configured to indicate
9
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
new and stored information and generating reports, for example, includes
longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and
the Internet, and could be carried out by a human with pen and paper. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson."). 5
Our reviewing court has previously held other patent claims ineligible
for reciting similar abstract concepts. For example, while the Supreme
Court has enhanced the § 101 analysis since Cy her Source in cases like Mayo
and Alice, they continue to "treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(alteration in original) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354).
In addition, our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas
include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Additionally, the collection of information and analysis of
information (e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset) are also
abstract ideas. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting information
to the user that the transaction's funds have been made
available.
5 CyberSource further guides that "a method that can be performed by
human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible
under§ 101." CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373.
10
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
and "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category"). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Further, a
process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information is abstract. Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elec.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Also, more recently, our reviewing court has also concluded that
acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas.
Berkeimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellants further argue,
Each of the claims includes specific limitations other
than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the
field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a
particular useful application. As detailed below, the claims
overcome the current § 103 rejections, and are therefore novel
and non-obvious. Novel and non-obvious claims, by their very
definition, must include limitations other than what is well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the field, or else they
wouldn't be novel and non-obvious. Because the alleged
abstract idea has been labeled a fundamental economic practice
by the Office Action, novelty and non-obviousness cannot lie
within that portion of the claim, as fundamental economic
practices are "long prevalent in our system and taught in any
introductory finance class" (Alice, 573 U.S._ at p. 9).
Consequently, something besides the alleged abstract idea in
the claims must be novel and non-obvious, and therefore
significantly more than the alleged abstract idea is present in the
claim.
App. Br. 8-9.
11
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
The Supreme Court guides, "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in
a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining
whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of
possibly patentable subject matter." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-
89 (1981). Our reviewing court further indicates that "[e]ven assuming" that
a particular claimed feature was novel does not "avoid the problem of
abstractness." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore, under step one, we agree with the Examiner that each of
the inventions claimed in independent claims 1, 19, and 22 is directed to an
abstract idea, i.e., fundamental economic and business practices, e.g.,
tracking and reporting financial transaction to users. Id.
Alice Step 2 -Inventive Concept
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
we must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply
describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into
patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any "additional
features" in the claims that constitute an "inventive concept," thereby
12
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Those "additional features" must be
more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 566
U.S. at 77, 79.
Appellants contend "[b] eyond the mere abstract idea of 'tracking and
reporting financial transactions to users,' each of the claims provides
improvements to the capabilities of mobile devices." App. Br. 7.
Specifically, Appellants contend these improvements include mobile devices
being used to monitor funds transfers, gain greater financial control, and
gain more expediency in conducting transfers. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants
further argue particular non-generic computers, i.e., servers, are necessary to
implement the systems and methods of the claims. App. Br. 8.
Evaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we agree with the Examiner that the additional elements of a "payment
server," "an interface" and one of more of an "email, interactive voice
recognition, short message system, telephone and internet" do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. See Ans. 3. The Examiner finds
"Appellants' claims do not provide an improvement in computer-related
technology (e.g. computer functionality, performance) and/or provide
benefits over conventional software/processes." Ans. 4. The Examiner
specifically finds the computer components recited in the claims would be
routine in any computer implementation of the abstract idea. Ans. 5.
We agree with the Examiner because, as in Alice, we find the
recitation of a server, an interface and other generic computer-related
elements (claim 1) is simply not enough to transform the patent-ineligible
13
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
abstract idea here into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2357 ("[C]laims, which merely require generic computer implementation,
fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). 6
Moreover, Appellants' own specification describes such elements as generic,
general purpose and well-known components. 7
6 Appellants merely allege:
Further akin to Example 2 and the Court's opinion in DDR
Holdings, the Appellant's claims do not "merely recite the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-
[ computer] world with the requirement to perform it on [the
computer]." See Examples, P. 6. Appellant's claimed solution is
instead "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer networks." Id. The Appellant's claims provide
methods and systems for improving the manner in which
specific spend profiles are determined for consumers. Thus, the
present claims are similar to those of Example 2, for at least the
reasons set forth above (e.g., because they are rooted in and
require technology and provide a technical improvement
inseparable from the devices recited in the Appellant's claims).
App. Br. 13. We disagree with this contention because we find nothing in
Appellants' Specification or claim identifies an improvement in the
underlying conventional computer technology.
7 See, e.g., "[ w ]ell known circuits, processes algorithms, structures, and
techniques may be shown without unnecessary detail in order to avoid
obscuring the embodiments." Spec. i-f 15. See also, "[t]hese user computers
405 can also have any of a variety of applications, including one or more
applications configured to perform methods of the invention, as well as one
or more office applications, database client and/or server applications, and
web browser applications. Alternatively, the user computers 405 can be any
other electronic device, such as a thin-client computer, Internet-enabled
mobile telephone, and/or personal digital assistant, capable of
communicating via a network (e.g. the network 410 described below) and/or
displaying and navigating web pages or other types of electronic documents.
Although the exemplary system 400 is shown with three user computers
14
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
Accordingly, based upon the guidance from our reviewing courts
above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
conclusion that the appealed claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent
claim 1, and grouped claims 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21 and 22, not argued
separately, and which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims l, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21 and 22
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 9-10) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Singh,
Ahuja, Cole, Lai, Keohane and Mengerink is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests 11 [a] method for tracking and reporting multiple financial
transactions 11 in which a user selects different alert methods for different
transaction types prior to the transaction being received or initiated, as
recited in claim 1?
Analysis
The Reference Combination Teaches or Suggests disputed Limitations
Appellants argue, 11 [b Jut nowhere does Keohane disclose, or the
Office Action even allege, that Keohane disclose, that a user selects different
alert methods for different transaction types prior to the transaction being
received or initiated. 11 App. Br. 9-10. We note at the outset that Appellants
405, any number of user computers can be supported. Spec. ,-r 53. See also,
,-r,-r 54--57.
15
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
do not point to specific limitations, but instead argue paraphrased claim
limitations.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because we find
Keohane's ATM user creating specific alerts that he wishes to receive when
he later uses an ATM, teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitations.
Keohane i-fi-f 19, 9, 25, 34, 35, 38; Ans.7.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because
Keohane's variety of different types of alerts, i.e., for withdrawals over a
specific amount, for pending transactions, for customers' service emails, etc.,
teach or at least suggest 11 different alert methods for different transaction
types, 11 contrary to Appellants argument.
We note Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief, and do not address
the Examiner's further findings and clarifications in the Answer regarding
the § 103 rejections. Arguments not made are waived.
Accordingly, on this record, and by a preponderance of the evidence,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do
we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection R2 of
independent claim 1, and grouped claims 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21, and 22, which
fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSIONS
( 1) The Examiner did not err regarding Rejection RI of claims 1,
4--8, 12-17, 19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter, and we sustain the rejection.
16
Appeal2017-003753
Application 12/123,856
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejection
R2 of claims 1, 4--8, 12-17, 19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 12-17, 19,
21, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
17