Fannie Mae

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020004902 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/839,320 03/15/2013 Stacey Shifman 880417-0125-US00 3901
134795 7590 05/03/2021
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (DC)
790 N WATER ST
SUITE 2500
MILWAUKEE, WI 53202
EXAMINER
MADAMBA, CLIFFORD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
DCipdocket@michaelbest.com
ajheins@michaelbest.com
nbenjamin@michaelbest.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STACEY SHIFMAN, OLEKSIY MEDINETS,
EDWARD DOMBROSKI, LOIS WESLY,
DAVID MONACO, MATTHEW GIBBS,
KATHERINE MELNICHENKO, KRISTI HEUTNIK,
JAMES BEATTIE, MICHAEL BALES,
ROBERT BARCLAY, PATRIA S. KUNDE,
AMANDA WOODS, and ERIC ROSENBLATT
____________

Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,3201
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection2 of claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). A hearing was held on April 15, 2021.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Fannie Mae as the real party in
interest.
2 All references to the Final Office Action refer to the Final Office Action
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant states the invention relates to “a decision support system
and method for end user computing (EUC) that may provide through
generated user interfaces a view of appraisal, loan, and underwriting data.”
Spec. ¶ 11.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for detecting an inappropriate manipulation of an
automated underwriting system, the method comprising:

retrieving, with a computing device, data for a plurality of loan
packages, each of the plurality of loan packages respectively corresponding
to a loan and containing a plurality of data fields populated incident to an
application for the loan or incident to an underwriting submission for the
loan, each data field of the plurality of data fields being one of a plurality of
types;

for each of the plurality of types:

determining a set of independent variables that are correlated to an
existence of a misrepresentation, each of the set of independent variables
being based on at least one of the plurality of types,

generating a coefficient for each of the set of independent variables by
regressing over values for the set of independent variables that are based on
the plurality of data fields of the plurality of loan packages, and

mailed on Apr. 18, 2019.
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

3

selecting acceptable coefficients from less than all of coefficients that
have been generated for the set of independent variables based on selection
heuristics;
receiving, with the computing device, a request to evaluate a given
loan processed by the automated underwriting system;

obtaining, with the computing device, a given loan package that
corresponds to the given loan and contains a second plurality of data fields
that were filled incident to an application for the given loan or incident to an
underwriting submission for the given loan, each data field of the second
plurality of data fields being the one of the plurality of types;

obtaining, with the computing device, secondary information for the
given loan package that corresponds to the second plurality of data fields of
the given loan package;

comparing, with the computing device, each instance of the secondary
information to a corresponding data field of the second plurality of data
fields of the given loan package to determine whether there is a discrepancy
therebetween;

responsive to determining that there is the discrepancy therebetween,
identifying, with the computing device, the corresponding data field as
defective;

for each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been
identified as defective, automatically estimating, with the computing device,
a probability that the discrepancy is the misrepresentation based on the
acceptable coefficients that have been selected for a corresponding one of
the plurality of types;

automatically aggregating, with the computing device, probabilities
that have been estimated for the each data field of the second plurality of
data fields that has been identified as defective;

generating, with the computing device, a confidence metric for the
each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been identified
as defective based on the probabilities that have been estimated and
aggregated; and
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

4

identifying, with the computing device, the given loan as the
inappropriate manipulation of the automated underwriting system based on
the confidence metric for the each data field of the second plurality of data
fields that has been identified as defective,

wherein identifying the given loan the inappropriate manipulation of
the automated underwriting system further includes generating, with the
computing device, a graphical user interface with a loan summary screen
including

confidence metrics for the given loan including the confidence metric
for the each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been
identified as defective,

the each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been
identified as defective, and

a discrepancy message based on the each data field of the second
plurality of data fields that has been identified as defective.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16,
17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
nonstatutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 2–12 in the
Final Office Action and on pages 3–18 in the Examiner’s Answer.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14,
16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

5

The Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19,
20, 22, 24, and 26 as a group. (Appeal Br. 11). We select claim 1 as the
representative claim for this group, and so the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept
of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
(“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

6

such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

7

566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency
management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;4 see also October
2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5

3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
4 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04 and also supersedes all versions of the
USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related guidance issued prior
to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should
not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments challenging the
sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection will not be addressed to the extent
those arguments are based on now superseded USPTO guidance.
5 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

8

Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the [S]pecification, 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 Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36.
In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a “directed to” two prong
test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the
claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies],

additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–
55.
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

9

rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.04–2106.05.
The Specification states:
Misrepresentation of income, assets, identity, or other key
factors on a loan application is difficult to predict because, by
definition, borrowers purposefully attempt to hide fraud in order
to secure the loan and evade criminal punishment. The anecdotes
of janitors reporting extreme salaries, loan officers helping
borrowers to write gift letters to hide loans, or pressuring
appraisers to raise their estimates of value, are lurid and
memorable, but rarely observed. Because these
misrepresentations present a significant risk in lending, it may be
prudent to search for and identify loan applications with
characteristics indicative of misrepresentation so that a reviewer
may make a more educated decision regarding pricing
determinations, repurchase decisions, and/ or transaction
validations.

Spec. ¶ 1.

A credit report may be an account or statement describing an
individual’s financial history. In general, an organization, e.g., a
credit bureau, compiles financial information for each individual.
When that individual applies for a new loan or credit account,
lenders use their financial information to determine the
individual's credit worthiness. Credit worthiness is a
determination of an individual's ability to make, willingness to
pay for, and track record for debt payments, as indicated by
timely payments to past or current financial obligations.

Spec. ¶ 26.

The preamble of claim 1 states it is for “detecting an inappropriate
manipulation of an … underwriting system.”
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

10

Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
retrieving, . . . data for a plurality of loan packages, each of the
plurality of loan packages respectively corresponding to a loan
and containing a plurality of data fields populated incident to an
application for the loan or incident to an underwriting submission
for the loan, each data field of the plurality of data fields being
one of a plurality of types; for each of the plurality of types:
determining a set of independent variables that are correlated to
an existence of a misrepresentation, each of the set of
independent variables being based on at least one of the plurality
of types, generating a coefficient for each of the set of
independent variables by regressing over values for the set of
independent variables that are based on the plurality of data fields
of the plurality of loan packages, and selecting acceptable
coefficients from less than all of coefficients that have been
generated for the set of independent variables based on selection
heuristics; receiving, . . . a request to evaluate a given loan
processed by . . . underwriting…; obtaining, . . . a given loan
package that corresponds to the given loan and contains a second
plurality of data fields that were filled incident to an application
for the given loan or incident to an underwriting submission for
the given loan, each data field of the second plurality of data
fields being the one of the plurality of types; obtaining, . . .
secondary information for the given loan package that
corresponds to the second plurality of data fields of the given
loan package; comparing, . . . each instance of the secondary
information to a corresponding data field of the second plurality
of data fields of the given loan package to determine whether
there is a discrepancy therebetween; responsive to determining
that there is the discrepancy therebetween, identifying, . . . the
corresponding data field as defective; for each data field of the
second plurality of data fields that has been identified as
defective, automatically estimating, . . . a probability that the
discrepancy is the misrepresentation based on the acceptable
coefficients that have been selected for a corresponding one of
the plurality of types; automatically aggregating, . . . probabilities
that have been estimated for the each data field of the second
plurality of data fields that has been identified as defective;
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

11

generating, . . . a confidence metric for the each data field of the
second plurality of data fields that has been identified as
defective based on the probabilities that have been estimated and
aggregated; and identifying, . . . the given loan as the
inappropriate manipulation of … underwriting …based on the
confidence metric for the each data field of the second plurality
of data fields that has been identified as defective, wherein
identifying the given loan the inappropriate manipulation of . . .
underwriting further includes generating, . . . , a graphical user
interface with a loan summary screen including confidence
metrics for the given loan including the confidence metric for the
each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been
identified as defective, the each data field of the second plurality
of data fields that has been identified as defective, and a
discrepancy message based on the each data field of the second
plurality of data fields that has been identified as defective.

The Examiner found claim 1
is directed to a method (process) which is one of the statutory
categories of invention and generally describes steps directed
towards verifying the accuracy of data elements associated with
a financial (e.g., loan underwriting) transaction utilizing well-
established statistical and probability techniques and/or
principles in an automated manner. The reason that the claim is
considered to be an abstract idea is because the recited steps are
primarily concerned with comparing and/or measuring data
variability through the application in a financial environment of
well established statistical and probability techniques and/or
principles such as risk heuristics, probability estimates and
confidence metrics. Because the claim is directed to the
performance of financial transactions, it is thus directed to an
abstract idea.

Final Act. 9.
Accordingly, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites a
way of detecting collateral fraud and risk in a loan application by comparing
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

12

documentation data fields to identify acquisition defects and determine a
probability estimate of an identified defect so as to establish a confidence
metric based on an aggregation of the probability estimations. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s determination. Claim 1 recites loan
application steps, such as
retrieving, with a computing device, data for a plurality of loan
packages, each of the plurality of loan packages respectively
corresponding to a loan and containing a plurality of data fields
populated incident to an application for the loan or incident to an
underwriting submission for the loan, each data field of the
plurality of data fields being one of a plurality of types[,] . . .

obtaining, with the computing device, a given loan
package that corresponds to the given loan and contains a second
plurality of data fields that were filled incident to an application
for the given loan or incident to an underwriting submission for
the given loan, each data field of the second plurality of data
fields being the one of the plurality of types.

These steps verify factual information to a financial transaction to insure
against fraud in the loan procurement process which is a fundamental
economic principle. Fundamental economic principles or practices
(including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and commercial or legal
interactions are ones of certain methods of organizing human activity that
are judicial exceptions. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Also, the steps of,
determining a set of independent variables that are correlated to
an existence of a misrepresentation, each of the set of
independent variables being based on at least one of the plurality
of types, generating a coefficient for each of the set of
independent variables by regressing over values for the set of
independent variables that are based on the plurality of data fields
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

13

of the plurality of loan packages, and selecting acceptable
coefficients from less than all of coefficients that have been
generated for the set of independent variables based on selection
heuristics,

mimic human thought processes of selecting certain information over others,
i.e., evaluation, and creating perhaps with paper and pencil, graphic data
interpretation perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns
LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit
has held similar concepts to be abstract. Thus, for example, the Federal
Circuit has held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data,
analyzing the data, and reporting the results of the collection and analysis,
including when limited to particular content. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures
I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(identifying the abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating
data); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and
presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more,
as matters within the realm of abstract ideas). Thus, under the first prong,
claim 1 also recites the patent ineligible judicial exception of a mental
process. Mental processes constitute a judicial exception. Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only
generically requires an “automated underwriting system,” “a computing
device,” and “a graphical user interface.” These components are described
in the Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. ¶¶ 16–22, Fig. 1.
We fail to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

14

components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to
“impose[] a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The claimed,
wherein identifying the given loan the inappropriate
manipulation of the automated underwriting system further
includes generating, with the computing device, a graphical user
interface with a loan summary screen including confidence
metrics for the given loan including the confidence metric for the
each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been
identified as defective, the each data field of the second plurality
of data fields that has been identified as defective, and a
discrepancy message based on the each data field of the second
plurality of data fields that has been identified as defective,

merely recite resulting systems. That is, such limitations “do not claim a
particular way of programming or designing the software to create [a loan
summary screen including confidence metrics for the given loan]… that
have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems.
Essentially, the claims are directed to certain functionality—here, the ability
to generate …[data fields] with certain features.” (citations omitted). Apple,
Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Moreover, this step constitutes nothing more than data gathering
and/or outputting result steps considered insignificant extra-solution
activities. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611–12
(Fed. Cir. 2016). It is also simply outputting the results of the analyses, a
post-solution activity. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92.
Thus, we find that the claims recite the judicial exceptions of a certain
method of organizing human activity and a mental process.
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

15

That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to loan application fraud detection, does not make them any less
abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization
or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not
make them any less abstract.”).
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must
include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim
in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Concerning this step, the Examiner found, “[t]he claim does not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception.” Final Act.10. We agree with the
Examiner. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer. As noted above, limitations such as,
wherein identifying the given loan the inappropriate
manipulation of the automated underwriting system further
includes generating, with the computing device, a graphical user
interface with a loan summary screen including confidence
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

16

metrics for the given loan including the confidence metric for the
each data field of the second plurality of data fields that has been
identified as defective, the each data field of the second plurality
of data fields that has been identified as defective, and a
discrepancy message based on the each data field of the second
plurality of data fields that has been identified as defective,

are but recitations of expectations, which are aspirational. In short, each step
does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer
functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the
functioning of the computer itself. The Specification spells out different
generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of information access under different scenarios. See, e.g., Spec.
¶¶ 16–22, Fig. 1. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly
more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified,
generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis
(retrieving/determining/generating/selecting/receiving/obtaining/comparing/
identifying/aggregating/identifying) and storing is equally generic and
conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving,
selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving
payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

17

of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of
processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering
of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
As to the structural claims (13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 26), they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101
“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). As a corollary, the
claims are not directed to any particular machine.
We have reviewed all the arguments Appellant has submitted
concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Appeal Br. 11–22). We find that our analysis above
substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which have been
made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant argues

the Examiner’s generic statement does not provide Appellant
notice on a limitation-by-limitation basis as required by the
Office. Instead, the Examiner’s generic statement addresses
independent claim 1 as whole without providing sufficient
specificity regarding each claim limitation, which does not give
Appellant sufficient notice to respond effectively. Thus, for at
least this reason alone, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

18

Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant similarly argues,
the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the Examiner failed to correctly explain
why each specific limitation recited in the claim falls within one
of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas to establish a prima
facie case under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

(Appeal Br. 14).
We are not persuaded that the rejection is so uninformative as to fail
to comply with the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132 — the standard by
which the sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection is properly assessed.
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the
USPTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when
its rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132); Chester v. Miller,
906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Section 132 is violated when a
rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing
and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.”). In rejecting the pending
claims under § 101, the Examiner analyzed the claims using the Mayo/Alice
two-step framework, consistent with the Guidance. Specifically, the
Examiner notified Appellant that the claims are directed to “a method
(process) which is one of the statutory categories of invention and generally
describes steps directed towards verifying the accuracy of data elements
associated with a financial (e.g., loan underwriting) transaction utilizing
well-established statistical and probability techniques and/or principles in an
automated manner.” (Final Act. 9). The Examiner then additionally noted
claim 1 recites mental process steps, namely, “comparing and/or measuring
data variability through the application in a financial environment of well
established statistical and probability techniques and/or principles such as
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

19

risk heuristics, probability estimates and confidence metrics.” Id. The
Examiner’s “directed to” findings thus identify two judicial exceptions
which collectively cover all claim limitations save the generically recited
additional elements noted above which fail to qualify the claim as
“significantly more.”
Appellant argues, “[c]ontrary to the Examiner’s generic statement, the
above–noted features of claim 1 are not a fundamental economic principle,
fundamental economic practices, fundamental economic concepts.” (Appeal
Br. 13).
We disagree with Appellant for the reasons set forth above with
respect to our directed findings. The courts have held similar verification
concepts to be abstract whereby factual information is verified in a financial
transaction to insure against fraud. For example, the Federal Circuit has
held abstract the concepts of collecting and analyzing information for the
purpose of preventing improper access in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), verifying the validity of
a credit card transaction over the Internet in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011), “[v]erifying financial
documents to reduce transactional fraud” in Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed.
Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2020), “the formation
of financial transactions in a particular field . . . and data collection related to
such transactions” in Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit
Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As such, we disagree that
the Appellant’s contentions that the abstract idea recited in claim 1 is not at
least a fundamental economic practice or principle.
Appellant argues,
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

20

claim 1 is an improvement that solves the technical problem
identified at paragraph [0001] of Appellant’s originally filed
specification. As explained above, a user that needs to make a
decision regarding pricing determinations, repurchase decisions,
and/or transaction validations cannot make an educated decision
regarding a potential underwriting manipulation without
independent claim 1.

(Appeal Br. 16).
We are unpersuaded because the alleged improvement lies in the
abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement. See BSG Tech
LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Although the claims purport to efficiently facilitate the necessary “more
educated decision regarding pricing determinations, repurchase decisions,
and/or transaction validations” (Spec. ¶ 1), our reviewing court has held that
accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general
purpose computer “do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the
claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Even if the advance
over the prior art is to “make an educated decision regarding a potential
underwriting manipulation” (Appeal Br. 18), that purported advance is an
abstract idea itself, i.e., performing a fraud analysis based on evaluation.
Appellant argues, “the Examiner cannot assert that an additional
element is well-understood, routine or conventional unless the Examiner
finds and expressly supports a rejection in writing with the above-identified
objective evidence or with an affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § l.104(d)(2).”
(Appeal Br. 18).
We disagree with Appellant. The Federal Circuit in Berkheimer made
Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

21

clear that “not every § 101 determination contains genuine disputes over the
underlying facts material to the § 101 inquiry.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at
1368. In fact, the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer did not require evidentiary
support for independent claim 1 because “[t]he limitations [of claim 1]
amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and
comparing data with conventional computer components.” Id. at 1370.
Concerning claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26,
we decline to find error here in the Examiner’s decision not to address the
patent eligibility of each of these claims separately. These claims depend
from independent claim 1 or a dependent claim similar, and are directed to
the same abstract idea as claim 1. See Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(explaining that when all claims are directed to the same abstract idea,
“addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.”). These
dependent claims recite additional features related to the loan packaging
process e.g., lag value determination (claims 2 and 8), delaying evaluation
tied to lag value (claim 14). But, the additional claim elements recited in
these claims are insufficient, in our view, to confer patent eligibility.
For the reasons identified above, we determine there are no
deficiencies in the Examiner’s prima facie case of patent ineligibility of the
rejected claims. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2020-004902
Application 13/839,320

22

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 10,
11, 13,
14, 16,
17, 19,
20, 22,
24, 26
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 10,
11, 13,
14, 16,
17, 19,
20, 22,
24, 26

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED