Ex Parte Milam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13949066 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/949,066 07/23/2013
75564 7590 12/25/2018
DANIEL M. FITZGERALD (21652)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AmyC.Milam
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.
21652-00273 6085
EXAMINER
PRESTON, JOHN 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMY C. MILAM, ANITA C. GALLIAN!, STEPHAN J. KLAUS,
WALTER LOFARO, LORRIE M. LITTLEFIELD, PAULINE OW,
GAUTAMUPPALAPATI, and THAKURB. KONDASANI
Appeal2017-011317 1
Application 13/949,066
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-23. App. Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is MasterCard International Incorporated. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011317
Application 13/949,066
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to "facilitating processing of electronic
payments by approximate matching payee information, entered on behalf of
a payor for a bill being paid by the payor." Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 9, and 17
are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A computer system for verifying payee information in an
electronic payment, said computer system comprising a payee
verification processor in communication with a database, said
payee verification processor programmed to:
identify a plurality of billers from the database, each
biller of the plurality of billers including biller information,
wherein the biller information includes a plurality of biller
fields;
receive, at a gateway processor of said payee verification
processor, a payee file that includes payee information
identifying a payee, wherein the payee issues a bill for payment
to a payor, wherein the payee information includes a plurality
of payee fields;
selectively distribute, using a load balancer of said payee
verification processor, the payee file to at least one node of a
multi-node cluster;
extract, using an inbound process at the at least one node,
the payee information from the payee file;
store the payee information in a flow control database;
detect, by a data warehouse node of said payee
verification processor, that the payee information is stored in
the flow control database;
determine an approximate match score for each biller in a
first set of billers of the plurality of billers by using a matching
engine of the data warehouse node to compare the payee
information stored in the flow control database to the biller
information;
identify a candidate list of billers from the first set of
billers, wherein each of the billers included within the candidate
list has an approximate match score indicating a likelihood of
matching the payee information;
2
Appeal 2017-011317
Application 13/949,066
adjust the candidate list of billers, including altering the
match score of at least one candidate biller by comparing a
payee account number of the payee information to an account
mask associated with the at least one candidate biller;
identify a set of data fields included within the plurality
of payee fields for calculating a confidence score;
calculate the confidence score for each biller included in
the candidate list of billers, the confidence score of each biller
being generated by assigning a confidence value for each of the
data fields included within the set of data fields, wherein the
confidence value represents a degree of match between the data
field and a corresponding biller field of a respective biller;
determine that at least one biller from the candidate list
has a confidence score that exceeds a confidence score
threshold; and
output candidate biller information of the at least one
biller from the adjusted candidate list having the confidence
score that exceeds the confidence score threshold.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
a judicial exception to patent eligibility. Final Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014),
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
3
Appeal 2017-011317
Application 13/949,066
matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the first step, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. In the
second step of the Alice analysis, we "consider the elements of each claim
both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). In other words, the
second step is to "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. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-
73).
Regarding step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner determines
the claims are abstract, as they are directed to "the basic concept of
manipulating information using mathematical relationships" and similar to
the subject matter of Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Ans. 3. Regarding step two
of the Alice framework, the Examiner determines that, taking the claim
elements separately or considered as an ordered combination,
the limitations describe a field of use that attempt to limit the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The
additional elements also fail to provide significantly more than
the abstract idea itself. The type of information being
manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render
the idea less abstract.
Ans. 3.
4
Appeal 2017-011317
Application 13/949,066
Appellants argue that "the Digitech decision is not remotely
analogous" to the claims (Reply Br. 3) and that "the present claims recite
specific rules directed to a technological improvement, and are analogous to
the patent-eligible claims in McRO [McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]." Reply Br. 6. Appellants
further contend the "claims specifically address the problem of verifying
imperfect payee information when processing electronic bill payment data
for an electronic payment transaction" and are "are analogous to the patent-
eligible claims" in both Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327
(2016) (see Reply Br. 6) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Reply Br. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract
concept. See Final Act. 2--4, Ans. 2--4. Without re-enumerating the entire
claim, the claim ultimately "output[ s] candidate biller information" after
determining an approximate match score, altering the match score,
calculating a confidence score, assigning a confidence value, and using a
confidence score threshold. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
determining the claims are directed to "manipulating information using
mathematical relationships." Ans. 3; see also Spec. ,r 56 ("This approximate
matching methodology utilizes a technique of string comparison that
captures, mathematically, the linguistic concept of 'nearness', as applied to
biller names and addresses.").
The claims are, thus, comparable to claims found to be directed to
abstract ideas. "Without additional limitations, a process that employs
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate
additional information is not patent eligible." Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
5
Appeal 2017-011317
Application 13/949,066
Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis" are "abstract-idea processes"); Return
Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, 868 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (Claim reciting, inter alia, "receiving from a sender a plurality of mail
items" and "identifying undeliverable mail items" held "directed to the
abstract idea of 'relaying mailing address data"'); Accenture Glob. Servs.,
GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
("the abstract idea of handling insurance-related information," which
includes "generating tasks [based on] rules ... to be completed upon the
occurrence of an event") (internal quotations and citation omitted); Easy Web
Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 689 F. App'x 969, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(Determining the claim, which verifies the sender based on a data
comparison, "merely recites the familiar concepts of receiving,
authenticating, and publishing data.").
With regard to Appellants' arguments regarding McRO, Enfzsh, and
DDR Holdings, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that "the
present claims recite specific rules directed to a technological improvement"
as the claims describe mathematical operations performed in order to
"verify[] payee information in an electronic payment." Reply Br. 6-7. We
agree with the Examiner that to the degree computer hardware is recited in
the claims, these "limitations describe a field of use that attempt to limit the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment" and any
improvements relate to the abstract process itself and not to the
technological environment. Ans. 3.
6
Appeal 2017-011317
Application 13/949,066
Further, we find no support in the disclosure for improvements in the
technological environment as touted by Appellants. Instead, we find the
disclosure describes an improvement of ''facilitating increased usage of
electronic payments by identifying payees capable of receiving electronic
payments" (Spec. ,r 31, emphasis added), in part through calculation of a
string similarity value that is "in the realm of linear algebra" (Spec. ,r 65).
The claims address a problem which does not specifically arise in the
operation of computer software, nor does the invention amount to an
improvement to technology. See Spec. ,r,r 20, 23, 34, 94--102, 119, 120. We
agree with the Examiner's finding that "[p ]rocessing imperfect payee
information rapidly and efficiently is not a technical issue. It is a clerical
issue." Adv. Act. 2.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. We sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-23.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7