Brady Lee. Rackley et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

13618787 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
13/618,787 09/14/2012 Brady Lee Rackley III 080636C1C1 5577
23696 7590 09/23/2019
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, JOHN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRADY LEE RACKLEY III,
WARREN DEREK PORTER,
GREGORY MICHAEL RICKMAN, and
KYLE LEIGHTON COCHRAN
__________

Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,7871
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brady Lee Rackley III, et al. (Appellant) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 173–204. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

2
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
Claim 173, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
173. A method for making a financial payment to a payee via a
stored value (SV) card utilizing a mobile device connected for
communications via a wireless network, the mobile device
being connected via the wireless network with a mobile
financial transaction system (MFTS) that is operatively coupled
to a payment instruction recipient capable of issuing an SV card
to the payee, comprising the steps of:
generating by the MFTS data for displaying a plurality of
selectable payment methods corresponding to a payment to be
made to an identified payee, the plurality of selectable payment
methods including an SV card payment method; and
receiving by the MFTS a mobile payment instruction
comprising information corresponding to the identified payee
and indicating the SV card payment method, wherein the MFTS
is operatively coupled to a payment instruction recipient
capable of issuing an SV card to the identified payee and the
MFTS communicates a payment instruction to the payment
instruction recipient and the payment instruction recipient
effects the payment to the identified payee via an SV card by
issuing a new SV card to the identified payee or adding value to
a preexisting SV card of the identified payee.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Labrou US 2005/0187873 A1 Aug. 25, 2005
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

3
Smith
Stoutenburg
US 7,328,190 B2
US 2009/0145958 A1
Feb. 5, 2008
June 11, 2009

The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 191 and 198 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 173–204 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 173–204 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Labrou, Smith, and Stoutenburg.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 191 and 198 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 173–204 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 173–204 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Labrou, Smith, and Stoutenburg?

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 191 and 198 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention.
We will not sustain this rejection because the Examiner does not
explain in what way claims 191 and 198 are indefinite.
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

4
The rejection of claims 173–204 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-
ineligible subject matter.
Preliminary comment
In their briefs, the Appellant refers to prior USPTO guidance. See,
e.g., Br. 8 (“July 2015 Update”). Said guidance have been superseded by
the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter “2019 Revised 101 Guidance.” Id. 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, our analysis will not address the sufficiency of the
Examiner’s rejection against the earlier guidance.
Rather, our analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance.

Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever 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 therefor.”
We will focus on claim 173. In that regard, claim 173 covers a
“process” and is thus statutory subject matter for which a patent may be
obtained.2 This is not in dispute.

2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which
requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” Id. at
53. See also sentence bridging pages 53 and 54 (“consider[] whether the
claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable
subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101”).
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

5
However, the § 101 provision “contains an important implicit
exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
In that regard, notwithstanding claim 173 covers statutory subject
matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent-eligibility on the ground
that claim 173 is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.

Alice step one – the “directed to” inquiry
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218
(emphasis added).
The Examiner determined that claim 173 is “directed to an abstract
idea of transmitting information to make a payment via a stored value card
in a mobile environment while conducting a financial transaction
(summarized). Such functions are common to a computing device used in
fundamental economic practices and thus directed to an abstract idea.” Final
Act. 2.
The Appellant disagrees
The Appellants’ claims are directed to problems in the field of
mobile financial transactions. Conventional mobile device
technology and the financial services infrastructure do not
provide convenient, secure, and rapid attention to a person’s
financial needs in the mobile environment. Furthermore, such
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

6
conventional mobile device technology and the financial
services infrastructure do not provide for effecting payment to
an identified payee via a stored value (SV) card of the identified
payee. These problems are described in the Background section
of the Appellants’ specification.
The Appellants’ claims set forth a solution to this
problem. By providing a system and method for a mobile
device to make a financial payment to a payee via a stored
value (SV) card of the payee, the Appellants’ claims provide a
system and method that overcomes the problems described
above. As such, the Appellants’ claimed solutions inherently, if
not explicitly and necessarily, cannot be implemented in the
absence of a computerized environment that includes a mobile
financial transaction system (MFTS), a payment instruction
recipient capable of issuing an SV card, a mobile device, and a
payee SV card. Therefore, the Appellants’ claimed solutions are
not directed to an abstract idea, as the Examiner states.
Br. 9.
The Appellants respectfully submit that the subject
matter recited in the Appellants’ claims enable payment to be
effected to an identified payee via an SV card, by issuing a new
SV card to the identified payee or adding value to a pre-existing
SV card belonging to the identified payee, and therefore
constitutes “improvements to another technology or technical
field,” where the technology or technical field is that of mobile
financial transactions.
Id. at 10.
Accordingly, there is a dispute over what claim 173 is directed to. Is
it directed to “an abstract idea of transmitting information to make a
payment via a stored value card in a mobile environment while conducting a
financial transaction” (Final Act. 2) or to an improvement in mobile
financial transactions, i.e., “enabl[ing] payment to be effected to an
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

7
identified payee via an SV card, by issuing a new SV card to the identified
payee or adding value to a pre-existing SV card belonging to the identified
payee” (Br. 10).
Claim Construction3
We consider the claim as a whole4 giving it the broadest reasonable
construction5 as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the Specification6 at the time of filing.

3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).

4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).

5 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, page 53, footnote 14 (If a claim, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .”) (emphasis added.)

6 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. . .
. Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is
important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Systems
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1387 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part), citing Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), among
others.

Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

8
Claim 173 recites a “method,” and involves a mobile financial
transaction system (MFTS) and a payment instruction recipient (PIR).
The Specification defines the MFTS and PIR as follows.
Mobile Financial Transaction System (MFTS): a
system constructed as described in this document, that
facilitates financial transactions by use of mobile devices.
Spec., p. 22.
Payment Instruction Recipient (PIR): an entity to whom
a payment instruction is given for purposes of making a
payment; a payment instruction recipient may itself make a
payment, or may provide an instruction to another entity to
make the payment, such as a financial service provider. For
example, a payment instruction recipient may be a financial
service provider, a bill aggregator, or a billing entity (e.g. a
company that has authorization from a payer to draft a payment
directly from a payer’s bank).
Id. at 23.
According to claim 173, the MTFS and PIR are “operatively coupled”
and the PIR is “capable of issuing an SV [stored value] card to [a] payee.”
According to claim 173, the MFTS (1) “generat[es] . . . data for
displaying a plurality of selectable payment methods corresponding to a
payment to be made to an identified payee,” including an SV card payment
method, and (2) “receiv[es] . . . a mobile payment instruction comprising
information corresponding to the identified payee and indicating the SV card
payment method,” wherein (3) “the MFTS communicates a payment
instruction to the [PIR] and the [PIR] effects the payment to the identified
payee via an SV card by [(a)] issuing a new SV card to the identified payee
or [(b)] adding value to a preexisting SV card of the identified payee.”
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

9
As the Appellant points out,
The invention as set forth in independent claim 173 (and,
by dependency, dependent claims 174-181) relates to a method
(3100, Fig. 31) for making a financial payment to a payee via a
stored value (SV) card utilizing a mobile device (15, 3102)
connected with a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS)
via a wireless network. The MFTS (18) is operatively). coupled
to a payment instruction recipient (3140) capable of issuing an
SV card to the payee (3160). Fig. 31 is reproduced below to
assist the Board:

The method includes the MFTS generating data for
displaying a plurality of selectable payment methods
corresponding to a payment to be made to an identified payee,
including an SV card payment method (Fig. 29, pages 117-
120).
The method also includes the MFTS receiving a mobile
payment instruction comprising information corresponding to
the identified payee and indicating the SV card payment
method. The MFTS communicates a payment instruction to the
payment instruction recipient, and the payment instruction
recipient effects the payment to the identified payee via an SV
card by issuing a new SV card to the identified payee or adding
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

10
value to a pre-existing SV card of the identified payee (Fig. 30,
pages 120-121). Fig. 29 is reproduced below to assist the
Board:

Br. 2–4.
According to the Specification, the system, defined by the claimed
subject matter, is an advance in the art. The Specification states that “the
present-day communication and financial services infrastructure is still
lacking in the need for effective conduct of mobile financial transactions and
reduction of personal possession clutter.” Spec., p. 3.
Unfortunately, current mobile device technology and the
financial services infrastructure do not provide convenient,
secure, and rapid attention to a person’s financial needs in the
mobile environment. To enable a mobile device such as
cellular phone or PDA to be used successfully for mobile
financial transactions, certain functionality relating to
transactions is important.
Id.
All of these requirements - some of which are merely
desirable but some are absolutely essential - present a challenge
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

11
to the present day mobile communication and financial services
infrastructure. Prior to the present invention, no system has
been made that addresses all of these features, goals, and
desires of a mobile communication based financial transaction
system in a satisfactory manner.
Therefore, there is a need for a comprehensive solution
that allows consumers using mobile devices to consolidate their
bills and other payment obligations, pay such bills and other
obligations at anytime and anywhere, using any selectable
available funds, to merchants for goods or services, or to
anyone or any other designated entity, with knowledge of the
amounts to be paid and the funds available balances. And of
course, all of this must be convenient, secure, and rapid.
. . . the present inventors have constructed various
systems and methods for completing financial transactions in a
mobile environment that meet these and other requirements for
an efficient, effective, robust, secure and convenient solution.
Id. at 7.
In light of this intrinsic evidence, claim 173 is reasonably broadly
construed as being directed to a MFTS communicating a payment
instruction indicating a SV card payment method for an identified payee to a
PIR operatively connected to the MFTS and the PIR effecting payment by
either (a) issuing a new SV card to the identified payee or (b) adding value
to a preexisting SV card of the identified payee.

Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

12
The Abstract Idea7
Normally, we would identify in italics in the representative claim the
limitations that recite an abstract idea.8 However, based on our claim
construction analysis (above), it is unnecessary to do so. The subject matter
to which claim 173 is directed to, i.e., a MFTS communicating a payment
instruction indicating a SV card payment method for an identified payee to a
PIR operatively connected to the MFTS and the PIR effecting payment by
either (a) issuing a new SV card to the identified payee or (b) adding value
to a preexisting SV card of the identified payee, is not a matter that falls
within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas; that is “Mathematical
concepts,” “Certain methods of organizing human activity,” and “Mental
processes.”9

7 See Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines
“whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract
idea. Id. at 53. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry.

8 See Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under
examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes
recites an abstract idea . . . .” Id. at 54.

9 See Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the
[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” Id. at 54.
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

13
Improvement in the Functioning of a Computer10 (Appellant’s
Argument)
The Examiner’s characterization of what the claim is directed to is
inaccurate. The Examiner indicated that claim 173 is directed to
“transmitting information to make a payment via a stored value card in a
mobile environment while conducting a financial transaction.” Final Act. 2.
There is more going on than that. The claimed process does involve
transmitting information; namely, a payment instruction indicating a SV
card payment method for an identified payee. But central to the subject
matter claim 173 covers is a system involving a MFTS and a PIR operatively
connected to it. The PIR itself has a certain function – i.e., “capable of
issuing an SV [stored value] card to [a] payee.” As claimed, the MFTS and
the PIR perform certain functions to effect payment by either (a) issuing a
new SV card to an identified payee or (b) adding value to a preexisting SV
card of the identified payee.

10 See Prong Two (“If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate
Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application”)
of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A claim that integrates a
judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance 54. One
consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an additional element
(or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a
practical application” (id. at 55) is if “[a]n additional element reflects an
improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other
technology or technical field” (id.).

Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

14
As our claim construction analysis shows, claim 173 is directed to a
MFTS communicating a payment instruction indicating a SV card payment
method for an identified payee to a PIR operatively connected to the MFTS
and the PIR effecting payment by either (a) issuing a new SV card to the
identified payee or (b) adding value to a preexisting SV card of the identified
payee. It is the characterization the Appellant has put forward that is the
more accurate characterization; to wit,
The Appellants’ claims are directed to problems in the field of
mobile financial transactions. Conventional mobile device
technology and the financial services infrastructure do not
provide convenient, secure, and rapid attention to a person’s
financial needs in the mobile environment. Furthermore, such
conventional mobile device technology and the financial
services infrastructure do not provide for effecting payment to
an identified payee via a stored value (SV) card of the identified
payee. These problems are described in the Background section
of the Appellants’ specification.
The Appellants’ claims set forth a solution to this
problem. By providing a system and method for a mobile
device to make a financial payment to a payee via a stored
value (SV) card of the payee, the Appellants’ claims provide a
system and method that overcomes the problems described
above. As such, the Appellants’ claimed solutions inherently, if
not explicitly and necessarily, cannot be implemented in the
absence of a computerized environment that includes a mobile
financial transaction system (MFTS), a payment instruction
recipient capable of issuing an SV card, a mobile device, and a
payee SV card.
Br. 9.
“The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the
‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

15
‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Affinity Labs
of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. See also Ancora Techs., Inc. v.
HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018):
We examine the patent’s “‘claimed advance’ to
determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.”
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2018). “In cases involving software innovations, this
inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead,
on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Id. (quoting Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Computers are
improved not only through changes in hardware; “[s]oftware
can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology .
. . .” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304.
We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice
step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements.
The Specification’s description of the problem and solution shows the
advance over the prior art by the claimed invention is not in the realm of
“transmitting information to make a payment via a stored value card in a
mobile environment while conducting a financial transaction” (Final Act. 2)
but in crafting a MFTS–PIR system that can perform certain functions that
can, inter alia, effect a payment by either (a) issuing a new SV card to an
identified payee or (b) adding value to a preexisting SV card of the identified
payee. As we noted above, the Specification indicates, inter alia, that “the
present inventors have constructed various systems and methods for
completing financial transactions in a mobile environment that meet these
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

16
and other requirements for an efficient, effective, robust, secure and
convenient solution.” Spec., p. 7.
When we construe the claimed subject matter in light of the entire
Specification (which accurately describes the problem addressed and the
claimed solution thereto) the claim as a whole reflects a specific asserted
improvement in technology, rooted in computer technology, over that which
was available in the prior art. Accordingly, we find the Appellant’s
argument (see Br. 9, reproduced above) persuasive given the present record.
Specific asserted improvements, when claimed, can render claimed
subject matter not directed to an abstract idea. Cf. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When
looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological
improvement over the existing, manual 3–D animation techniques.”).
It should be noted that we have here addressed purported specific
asserted improvements in technology under step one of the Alice framework.
This is consistent with the case law. See Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1347 (“We
have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one when
sufficiently focused on such improvements.”) It can be discussed under step
two of the Alice framework as well. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765
F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[R]ecent Federal Circuit
jurisprudence has indicated that eligible subject matter can often be
identified either at the first or the second step of the Alice/Mayo
[framework].” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance at 53; see also id. at n. 17.
In any case, there is sufficient evidence in the record before us that the
claimed subject matter reflects a specific asserted improvement in
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

17
technology over that which was practiced in the art and for that reason we
determine that independent claim 173, and independent claims 182, 191, and
198 which parallel claim 173, and the claims depending therefrom, , because
there is an integration into a practical application. (I would put footnote 10
here.)
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s determination under Alice
step one is not sustainable. Consequently, we do not reach the merits of
Examiner’s determination under Alice step two.
The rejection is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 173–204 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Labrou, Smith, and Stoutenburg.
We will reverse for the reasons stated by the Appellant. Smith is
relied upon to show, inter alia, “effect[ing] the payment to the identified
payee via an SV card by issuing a new SV card to the identified payee or
effects the payment to the identified payee via an SV card by adding value to
a pre-existing SV card belonging to the identified payee” (Final Act. 9), a
limitation that is present in all the claims. .
The Examiner cites the Abstract, col.1 lines 38 - 40, col 2 lines 55-60,
and col 3 lines 17- 21 in support thereof. Final Act. 9. We have carefully
reviewed these disclosures. We do not see there any mention of effecting
payment to an identified payee by issuing a new SV card to the identified
payee or adding value to a pre-existing SV card of the identified payee as
claimed. The Abstract, col. 1, lines 38–40, and col. 2, lines 55–60 disclose
adding value to a customer’s stored–value account. And col. 3, lines 17-21,
Smith discloses “a rechargeable card feature that enables customers to use a
single card and PIN for adding value at a merchant terminal rather than
Appeal 2017-009788
Application 13/618,787

18
purchasing and activating new cards.” But here, too, there is no disclosure
whereby that feature effects payment to an identified payee as claimed. As
the Appellant argues,
[n]othing in any of the cited language of the Smith et al. reference, or
anywhere else in the Smith et al. reference, discloses or suggests
effecting payment to an identified payee, e.g., by issuing a new SV
card to the identified payee or adding value to a pre-existing SV card
of the identified payee, as is recited in the Appellants’ independent
claims 173, 182, 191 and 198.
Br. 14–15.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 191 and 198 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention is reversed.
The rejection of claims 173–204 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming
patent-ineligible subject matter is reversed.
The rejection of claims 173–204 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Labrou, Smith, and Stoutenburg is reversed.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 173–204 is reversed.

REVERSED