Ex Parte Sarkissian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

14031757 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/031,757 09/19/2013
26285 7590 09/24/2018
K&L GA TES LLP-Pittsburgh
210 SIXTH AVENUE
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222-2613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shaunt M. Sarkissian
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.
130380 3949
EXAMINER
CHANG, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 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):
USpatentmail@klgates.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAUNT M. SARKISSIAN and MICHAEL ARNER
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection 1 of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows;
1. A computer-implemented method for a track data
point-of-sale platform, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a point-of-sale transaction
request from a point-of-sale system, the point-of-sale
transaction request being configured according to a track data
format, and the processor configured to process the point-of-
sale transaction request according to the track data format, the
transaction request comprising a primary account number field
comprising at least one parameter associated with a payment
instrument configured for use in the point-of-sale transaction,
the at least one parameter comprising an identifier embedded
therein, and wherein the primary account number field in the
transaction request comprises at least a portion of an original
account number removed and replaced with the at least one
parameter;
determining, by the processor, a transaction request type
characterized by the identifier embedded in the at least one
parameter associated with the payment instrument;
processing, by the processor, the transaction request
according to the identified transaction request type, wherein the
determined transaction request type enables the processor to
process the transaction as a predetermined transaction that is
different from a transaction characterized by the primary
account number without the identifier; and
1 We herein refer to the Specification, filed Sept. 19, 2013 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action, mailed May 28, 2015 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Aug.
12, 2016 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Dec. 27, 2015 ("Ans.");
and the Reply Brief, filed Feb. 27, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
generating, by the processor, a response to the transaction
request; and
transmitting the response to the point-of-sale system.
App. Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 3--4. 2
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 7, and 8 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred. Instead, we concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own the
reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and
Examiner's Answer.
2 We select claims 1, 7, and 8 as representative. Separate patentability, in
compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv), is not argued for claims 2-6 and
9-20. See App. Br. 6-18. Except for our ultimate decision, the rejection of
claims 2-6 and 9-20 is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
A. Section 101 Case Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained "[for] any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. v.
CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, the Supreme Court cautioned:
[W]e must distinguish between patents that claim the
"'buildin[g] block[ s]"' of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby
"transform[ing]" them into a patent-eligible invention. The
former "would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the
underlying" ideas, and are therefore ineligible for patent
protection. The latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption,
and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our
patent laws.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354--55 (citations omitted).
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, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea.
Id. The Court acknowledged in Mayo that "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. Therefore, we look to whether the
4
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and otherwise merely recite generic processes and machinery.
See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends.
Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step, in which the elements of
the claims are considered "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, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). "The question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
B. Alice/Mayo - Step 1
The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to a series of steps for
tracking data for a point-of-sale platform and involves "interpersonal
activities of managing relationships or transactions between people, social
activities, or behaviors" and "sales activities or behaviors," and, thus, claim
1 is directed to an abstract idea. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 3. Appellants
contend claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because:
By considering elements beyond the alleged abstract idea, the
Examiner has jumped to the second step of the Alice test,
considering elements beyond the alleged abstract idea, without
even supplying any reasoning for the first step. Either the
Examiner has failed to supply any reasoning in support of why
the claims are a method of organizing human activities-let
5
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
alone an abstract idea-or the Examiner has conflated the
arguments of the second step with the necessary analysis in
support of the first step.
[T]he Examiner merely supplies a bald assertion, with no
evidence, case law, or reasoning, that such elements amount to
an abstract idea. This is insufficient to establish a prima facie
case under the first step in Alice.
[T]he Examiner has ffurther] incorrectly isolated certain words
of Claim 1 in order to allege that Claim 1 is an abstract idea.
This "standard" (which is not the standard stated in Alice or in
the USPTO Guidelines), contradicts the conclusions of patented
claims held to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner's standard for determining an abstract idea is
clearly wrong, as it contradicts known case law that has deemed
the claims in question to be patent eligible [e.g., DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com].
[The claims] are not directed to an ineligible abstract idea, and
therefore satisfy the first step under Alice, because (1) they are
not directed to any of the recognized ineligible abstract idea
categories, and (2) because the claims recite sufficiently
concrete limitations such that they are not abstract and do not
preempt the alleged abstract idea.
First, [the claims] cannot be categorized as any of a
fundamental economic practice, certain methods of organizing
human activity, an idea "of itself," or mathematical
relationships/formulas, which are the only categories for
qualifying as an abstract idea as enumerated by the courts.
Second, the claims recite sufficiently concrete limitations that
are not abstract and do not preempt all space of any alleged
abstract idea.
6
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
App. Br. 8-11 (Appellants' emphasis and citations omitted; panel's
emphasis added).
The Examiner responds:
As stated in the Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC and
WildTangent decision, the current claims viewed individually or
[in] combination does "not transform the abstract idea
( organizing human activities - series of steps for tracking data for
POS platform) that they recite into patent-eligible subject
matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to
implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional
activity".
Ans. 3 (emphasis added; Appellants' emphasis omitted).
In response, Appellants continue to contend that claim 1 is not
directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because:
First, ... the claims at issue are [not] mere "interpersonal
activities" of "managing relationships or transactions between
people, social activities, or behaviors. " Rather, the claims are
specifically directed at processing point-of-sale transaction
requests by a processor. The claims inherently cannot be
performed by humans alone and are therefore not "interpersonal
activities." In particular, the claims recite specific concrete
objects, such as a processor, a point-of-sale system, a payment
instrument, and a transaction request configured in the specific
track data format.
Second, ... the claims at issue are [not] an "interpersonal
activity" of "satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation." None of
the claims . .. recite any mention of a need to satisfy or avoid a
legal obligation. Rather, as previously stated, the claims are
directed to improving the versatility of existing point-of-sale
platforms by allowing for the processing of alternative types of
payments while still using the same point-of-sale infrastructures.
7
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
Third, ... the claims at issue are [not] merely an "interpersonal
activity" of "sales activities or behaviors." While the claims at
issue allow for processing alternative types of payments in
existing point-of-sale infrastructures, the structures and
concrete objects recited in the claims establish that the claims
are not directed to a mere interpersonal activity. Again, the
claims inherently cannot be performed by humans alone in any
interpersonal activity, due to the specific structures recited, such
as a processor, a point-of-sale system, a payment instrument, and
a transaction request configured in the specific track data format.
Reply Br. 2--4 (Appellants' emphasis and citations omitted; panel's
emphasis added).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Upon review of
Appellants' claims and Specification, we agree with the Examiner's
reasoning that the claims are directed to processing a point-of-sale
transaction request received from a point-of-sale system. Such activity is
substantially similar to other methods of organizing human activity (e.g.,
managing transactions between two entities; sales activities) that were
deemed to be patent-ineligible subject matter in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) andDealertracklnc. v. Huber,
674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012). See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (holding
that claims reciting a method of using advertising as an exchange or
currency are directed to an abstract idea); see also Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at
1333 (holding that claims reciting a method of processing information
through a clearinghouse are directed to abstract idea preemptive of a
fundamental concept). Similar to Ultramercial and Dealertrack, the fact
that claims recite that processing is performed by a processor is not
sufficient to transform the recited abstract idea into a patent-eligible
8
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
invention. See Ultramercial, 772 F .3d at 716 ("[ a ]dding a computer to
otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible");
see also Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1333 ("[s]imply adding a 'computer aided'
limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, in
sufficient to render the claim patent eligible").
Regarding Appellants' arguments that claim 1 does not preempt all
transaction requests or all types of transactions, this argument is not
persuasive, as the Federal Circuit has made clear that "the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility" of a claim.
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015). Regarding Appellants' argument that the elements of
claim 1 are not generic or generally known because the Examiner has
supplied no prior art references showing where these elements are taught or
suggested, this argument is not persuasive either, as the argument conflates
the novelty and non-obviousness tests under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 with the
patent-eligibility test under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Further, regarding Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to
establish a prima facie case that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, the
Examiner is required to provide Appellants reasonable notice as to the basis
of the§ 101 rejection. The notice requirement is set forth by 35 U.S.C.
§ 132:
[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima
facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
"notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application." 35
U.S.C. § 132. That section "is violated when a rejection is so
9
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and
seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller,
906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because the Examiner
provided a reasonable explanation of the reasons why claim 1 is directed to
an abstract idea, we conclude the Examiner has met this requirement. See
Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3-5.
We have considered Appellants' other arguments and do not find
them persuasive. Accordingly, in light of the above, the Examiner correctly
concluded that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
C. Alice/Mayo - Step 2
The Examiner determines each of the elements of claim 1 separately
and in combination does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea because the elements are "mere instructions to implement the abstract
idea on a computer," and the elements merely recite "generic computer
structure that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent
industry." Final Act. 3. Appellants contend claim 1 has sufficiently more to
transform the claim from an allegedly abstract idea into patent-eligible
subject matter because:
[T]he Examiner has supplied no analysis or reasoning to justify
[ the position there is nothing "significantly more" to claim 1],
which is reversible error.
Even assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to a judicial
exception, the independent claims nevertheless satisfy the
second step under Alice because they recite "significantly
10
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
more" than merely a judicial exception. Specifically, though
independent claims need only fit into any one judicially
acceptable example establishing "significantly more," the claims
at issue satisfy at least four examples.
[The claims recite elements directed to improvements to a
technical field.] . . [A] problem exists in the art wherein
conventional point-of-sale platforms are not designed to process
alternative types of payments. The ... claims, on the other
hand, improve the art by allowing for alternative types of
payments while still using the same point-of-sale
infrastructures.
[The claims apply any alleged judicial exception with, or by use
of, a particular machine.] The ... claims are specifically
directed to processing a transaction request from a point-of-
sale system, and in general are directed toward particular
machines that process point-of- sale transaction requests. The
claims are not directed to simply any generic machine with a
generic processor, as not all machines are configured to process
point-of-sale transaction requests. Furthermore, the claims are
directed to processing special types of point-of-sale transaction
requests, in that the contemplated requests include a "primary
account number field with at least a portion of an original
account number removed and replaced with the at least one
parameter," and processing the request type which is "different
from a transaction characterized by the primary account number
without the identifier."
[The claims add specific limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, or conventional in the field.] The Final
Office Action ... does not contain any rejections under§ 102 or
§ 103 or any mention of prior art ..... Therefore, [the claims]
have been found to be novel and non-obvious, suggesting that
there are at least some limitations in the independent claims
that are not well understood, routine, or conventional in the
field.
11
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
[The claims add unconventional steps that configure the claims
to a particular useful application.] ... The present claims ...
allow for multiple types of payment methods, such as accounts
comprising reward points, digital wallet accounts, or accounts
with combinations of different payment types, to still be
processed without needing to completely overhaul or circumvent
existing point-of-sale infrastructures .... [T]he present claims
are not so generic as to cover all types of point-of-sale requests,
but rather, recite specific and unconventional steps that confine
the claims to at least one useful application in the area of
processing transaction requests.
App. Br. 10, 13-15 (Appellants' emphasis and citations omitted; panel's
emphasis added).
[A]ll the claims require no more than adding insignificant
extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere
collecting data (e.g. "receiving ... transaction request ... ") and
performing of generic computer functions ( e.g. automating
mental tasks ( determining ... ), processing data, and transmitting
data/information via network) that are well-understood, routine
and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
None of these foregoing functions are distinguishable from
what the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine,
and conventional generic computer functions; rather, each of
these particular functions fall under at least one of the following
computer functions that the courts already recognized as "merely
generic": performing repetitive calculations, rece1vmg,
processing, and storing data, electronic recordkeeping,
automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over
a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
At best, [ claim 1] might have steps to improve the abstract idea
of processing transaction request using conventional generic
computer functions, but there [aren't] any "unconventional
steps" to improve another technology or technical field.
12
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
Ans. 4--5 (emphasis added; Appellants' emphasis omitted).
In response, Appellants continue to contend that claim 1 has
sufficiently more to transform the claim from an allegedly abstract idea into
patent-eligible subject matter because, "[t]he Examiner has supplied no
analysis, explanation, or elaboration as to why the claim recitations are well-
understood, routine, and conventional, or why the claim recitations fall into
one of the computer functions that are deemed 'merely generic,"' and "the
Examiner has also left out or ignored many other functional elements in the
claims, including many specific details in claim 1." Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner that the recited computer components (e.g., "processor" and
"point-of-sale system") are recited at a high level of generality such that the
claims recite generic computer components performing generic computer
functions (i.e., receiving a transaction request, processing the transaction
request, generating a response to the transaction request, and transmitting the
response to the point-of-sale system) that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities, and the claims amount to no more than
implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claimed "[at]
least one parameter comprising an identifier embedded therein, and wherein
[a] primary account number field in [a] transaction request comprises at least
a portion of an original account number removed and replaced with the at
least one parameter," "determining, by [a] processor, a transaction request
type characterized by the identifier embedded in the at least one parameter
associated with [a] payment instrument," and "the determined transaction
13
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
request type enables the processor to process [a] transaction as a
predetermined transaction that is different from a transaction characterized
by [a] primary account number without the identifier," are not well-
understood, routine, or conventional. (See claim 1) Instead, we agree with
the Examiner that the aforementioned claim elements merely constitute
electronic recordkeeping and automating mental tasks. See Ans. 4. More
specifically, the aforementioned claim elements merely recite the automation
of steps that can either be performed mentally ( or manually with pen and
paper) via a processor. As an example, the aforementioned claim elements
can be analogized to a set of steps where a sales agent receives a written
transaction request that includes an account number and manually replaces
the account number with an identifier, and where a processing agent
subsequently receives the written transaction request, determines a
transaction request type characterized by the identifier, and manually
processes the transaction request type in an alternative manner. The
aforementioned claim elements are merely an electronic and automatic
version of the steps performed by the sales agent and processing agent.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claim 1 is
directed to an improvement to a technical field. Contrary to Appellants'
argument that allowing for alternative types of payments while still using the
same point-of-sale infrastructures is an improvement to the underlying point-
of-sale platform itself, the argued improvement is really an improvement of
the underlying method of organizing human activity (i.e., processing a point-
of-sale transaction request) implemented by the point-of-sale platform. Such
an improvement does not constitute an improvement to the functionality of
the underlying computer system or computer technology.
14
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claim 1 either
applies the method of organizing human activity with a particular machine
or adds unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful
application. Contrary to Appellants' argument, claim 1 merely recites a
"processor" and fails to recite a specific machine that would amount to
something significantly more than merely applying the method of organizing
human activity on a computerized system. Further, Appellants'
Specification discloses an examplary computing device that implements the
claimed functionality, where the examplary computing device merely
includes conventional computer components (e.g., processor). See, e.g.,
Spec. ,r,r 70-80. Even further, Appellants' Specification describes that the
disclosed aspects of the claimed invention can be "implemented ... by a
wide range of hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof."
Spec. ,r 90. In addition, contrary to Appellants' argument, claim 1 fails to
recite any elements that confine the claim to at least one useful application in
the area of processing point-of-sale transaction requests.
Regarding Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to establish
a prima facie case that claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than an
abstract idea, we conclude the Examiner has met the notice requirement for
the reasons previously described. See Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3-5.
We have considered Appellants' other arguments and do not find them
persuasive. In light of the above, the Examiner correctly concluded that
claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
15
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
D. Other 101 Arguments
Appellants further contend the additional elements of claims 7 and 8
render the respective claims patent eligible because:
[T]he elements "the at least one parameter associated with the
payment instrument is stored in a magnetic stripe" unequivocally
clarifies that said claims are not "methods for organizing human
activity," contrary to the generic, sweeping label the Examiner
has declared for Claims 1-20. This is because a human alone
necessarily cannot read, analyze, or process the at least one
parameter when it is stored in a magnetic stripe. Processing a
transaction request with a parameter associated with a payment
instrument stored in a magnetic stripe requires specific
machinery, and therefore Claims 7 and 13 satisfy the first step
under the test in Alice, as they are not abstract ideas.
Furthermore, even if Claims 7 and 13 were somehow found to be
abstract ideas, said claims satisfy the second step under the test
in Alice, because Claims 7 and 13 apply the abstract idea with,
or by use of, a particular machine. This is because a particular
machine is required to receive and process the transaction
request, due to the at least one parameter associated with the
payment instrument being stored in a magnetic stripe. Only
specific machines are able to obtain data stored in magnetic
stripes.
[T]he elements "the payment instrument is a mobile device and
wherein the at least one parameter associated with the payment
instrument is dynamically generated by the mobile device"
unequivocally clarifies that said claims are not "methods for
organizing human activity," contrary to the generic, sweeping
label the Examiner has declared for Claims 1-20. This is because
a human alone necessarily cannot practice the invention as
claimed when the payment instrument is recited as being a
particular machine (i.e., a mobile device). Furthermore, the at
least one parameter itself is dynamically generated by the
16
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
mobile device, making it impossible for a human to practice the
invention alone.
Furthermore, even if Claims 8, 14, and 19 were somehow found
to be abstract ideas, said claims satisfy the second step under the
test in Alice, because Claims 8, 14, and 19 apply the abstract idea
with, or by use of, a particular machine. This is because a
particular machine (i.e., a mobile device) is used as the
payment instrument, as well as being required to dynamically
generate the at least one parameter.
App. Br. 16-18 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added).
The Examiner responds, "all claims were considered individually and
in combination," "storing data in a magnetic stripe is considered as adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to [a] judicial exception," and
"generating data using a mobile device is also considered as adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to [a] judicial exception." Ans. 5
(underlining and emphasis omitted). In response, Appellants argue "the
Examiner [has] asserted only a conclusory statement regarding [the elements
of claims 7 and 8], as the Examiner has supplied no analysis, explanation,
elaboration, or even a second sentence," and "this is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case and is reversible error." Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner that the claimed storing of a parameter in a magnetic stripe and
dynamic generation of the parameter by a mobile device are merely extra-
solution activities that do not constitute something significantly more than
the abstract idea. See Ans. 5.
In light of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
17
Appeal2017-006184
Application 14/031,757
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
(2) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
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).
AFFIRMED
18