DOOLEY, Terry et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

13555963 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020)

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.
13/555,963 07/23/2012 Terry DOOLEY SHZM.268233 4744
145140 7590 02/03/2020
ITS, Inc.
c/o Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
2555 Grand Blvd.
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
BARTLEY, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TERRY DOOLEY, MANISH NATHWANI,
STEPHAN THOMASEE, and SCOTT DOBESH
____________

Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–24, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 9 and 13 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ITS, Inc. Appeal
Brief filed April 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 3.
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to “processing payment
transactions and in particular to processing consumer authentication value
(CAV) based electronic fund transfer (EFT) transactions with dual message
capabilities.” Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification states that, in a conventional
CAV-based transaction, a single message is generated that includes a request
to transfer an amount of funds. Id. ¶¶ 2–3. Upon approval, the funds are
transferred, and the CAV is deleted for security purposes. Id. ¶ 3. In other
words, a conventional CAV-based transaction requires the CAV for each
transfer request and “offers little flexibility such as partial transfers of the
approved amount.” Id. As a result, a restaurant, for example, “may be
unable to pre-authorize an amount greater than the dining bill in order to
account for potential tips,” because a conventional CAV-based transaction
“would cause the entire pre-authorization amount to be transferred upon
approval.” Id. ¶ 5.
The Specification describes a system and method that addresses the
aforementioned drawbacks of a conventional CAV-based transaction. Id.
¶ 7. Specifically, a merchant communicates an authorization request that
includes an encrypted CAV and a total amount of funds to an EFT server,
which then communicates an authorization request to a financial institution.
Id. ¶¶ 24–26. The financial institution then communicates an authorization
approval response to the EFT server. Id. ¶ 27. The EFT server generates a
unique data element, such as a private key, that is associated with the
authorization approval response and communicates the approval and unique
data element to the merchant. Id. ¶¶ 29–31.
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

3
To receive a portion of the total amount of authorized funds, the
merchant communicates a settlement advice request message that includes
the unique data element and the requested portion of the authorized funds to
the EFT server. Id. ¶¶ 34–35. The EFT server compares the unique data
element in the settlement advice request message with the unique data
element previously generated by the EFT server. Id. ¶ 36. If there is a
match, the EFT server communicates the settlement advice request message
to the financial institution, and the financial institution transfers the
requested portion of the authorized funds to the merchant. Id. ¶¶ 36–37.
The Specification explains that by using this “dual message format (one type
of message for pre-authorizing and another type of message for settlement
advice requests) for CAV-based transactions, the system may leverage the
added security provided by CAV-based authentication without having the
CAV communicated multiples times amongst the relevant entities.” Id. ¶ 10.
Claim 22 is representative and is reproduced below.
22. A computer-implemented method of facilitating
multiple electronic funds transfers associated with a single
consumer authentication value (CAV)-based transaction, the
method comprising:
receiving, by an electronic funds transfer (EFT) server
device and from a remote merchant acquirer device, a first
generated authorization request comprising an encrypted CAV
and a total amount of funds associated with the single CAV-
based transaction to be transferred, wherein the remote
merchant acquirer device is configured to obtain the first
generated authorization request via at least one of a merchant
terminal device, a merchant e-commerce web server device, and
a consumer communications device;
generating, by the EFT server device and in response to
receiving the first generated authorization request, a second
authorization request associated with the received first
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

4
generated authorization request, the second generated
authorization request comprising the encrypted CAV and the
total amount of funds to be transferred;
communicating, by the EFT server device and to a
remote issuing financial institution device, the second generated
authorization request;
receiving, by the EFT server device and from the remote
issuing financial institution device, an authorization approval
response that indicates that the total amount of funds to be
transferred included in the second generated authorization
request is authorized;
generating, by the EFT server device and in response to
receiving the authorization approval response, a unique data
element that is uniquely associated with the received
authorization approval response and provides an indication that
the total amount of the funds to be transferred has been
authorized;
communicating, by the EFT server device and to the
remote merchant acquirer device, an updated authorization
approval response including the generated unique data element;
receiving, by the EFT server device and from the remote
merchant acquirer device, a first settlement advice request
message comprising the generated unique data element and a
request to transfer a first amount that is less than the authorized
total amount of the funds to be transferred; and
in response to receipt of the first settlement advice
request message and a first determination, by the EFT server
device, that the generated unique data element included in the
received first settlement advice request message matches the
generated unique data element included in the received
authorization approval response, causing, by at least the EFT
server device, the first amount to be transferred without
requiring additional communications comprising the CAV from
the remote merchant acquirer device;
receiving, by the EFT server device and from the remote
merchant acquirer device, a second settlement advice request
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

5
message, wherein the received second settlement advice request
message includes a second amount that is less than the total
amount of the funds to be transferred, and the generated unique
data element; and
in response to receipt of the second settlement advice
request message and a second determination, by the EFT server
device, that the generated unique data element included in the
received second settlement advice request message matches the
generated unique data element included in the received
authorization approval response, causing, by at least the EFT
server device, the second amount of the total amount to be
transferred without additional communications comprising the
CAV.
REJECTION
Claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Action mailed
September 7, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”) 21–28.
Claims 1–8, 10–12, and 22–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Non-Final Act. 28–29.
OPINION
SECTION 101 REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–24 under § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 21–28.
Appellant’s arguments focus on the limitations of claim 22 (Appeal Br. 20–
23), so we analyze claim 22 as exemplary below.
Standard for Subject Matter Eligibility
For issues involving subject matter eligibility under § 101, we apply
the two-step test set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

6
(2014). In the first step, we “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. If the initial threshold is
met, we move to the second step, in which we “consider the elements of
each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Id. at 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs.
v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)). The second step is a
search for “an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of
elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at
217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
The USPTO has published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance,
we first determine whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54–55.
If a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we then determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

7
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Revised Guidance, we determine
whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity, or mental processes). Id. at 52, 54. The
Examiner finds that the claims recite the abstract idea of “authorizing fund
or payment transfers.” Non-Final Act. 22. Appellant disagrees, arguing that
“[t]he claims are not analogous to any of the judicial exception[s] from the
court decisions cited by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 25–26 (emphasis
omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, the claims recite concepts that can be performed in the human
mind or by a human with pen and paper, and, therefore, qualify as “mental
processes” under the Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. For example, claim 22 recites “receiving . . . a first generated
authorization request comprising an encrypted CAV and a total amount of
funds associated with the single CAV-based transaction to be transferred.”
This step could be performed by a human receiving, verbally or in writing, a
first authorization request including an encrypted CAV and a total amount of
funds from another human.
Claim 22 recites “generating . . . in response to receiving the first
generated authorization request, a second authorization request associated
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

8
with the received first generated authorization request, the second generated
authorization request comprising the encrypted CAV and the total amount of
funds to be transferred.” This step could be perform by a human generating,
in the mind or using pen and paper, a second authorization request including
the encrypted CAV and the total amount of funds.
Claim 22 recites “communicating . . . the second generated
authorization request.” This step could be performed by a human
communicating, verbally or in writing, the second authorization request to
another human.
Claim 22 recites “receiving . . . an authorization approval response
that indicates that the total amount of funds to be transferred included in the
second generated authorization request is authorized.” This step could be
performed by a human receiving, verbally or in writing, an authorization
approval response including the total amount of funds from another human.
Claim 22 recites “generating . . . in response to receiving the
authorization approval response, a unique data element that is uniquely
associated with the received authorization approval response and provides an
indication that the total amount of the funds to be transferred has been
authorized.” The Specification explains that a “unique data element may
include an alphanumeric string, a digital certificate, a binary file, and/or
other data that can uniquely identify an authorization.” Spec. ¶ 7. Thus, this
step could be perform by a human generating, in the mind or using pen and
paper, a unique data element, such as an alphanumeric string, that is
associated with the authorization approval response and provides an
indication that the total amount of funds has been authorized.
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

9
Claim 22 recites “communicating . . . an updated authorization
approval response including the generated unique data element.” This step
could be performed by a human communicating, verbally or in writing, an
updated authorization approval response including the unique data element
to another human.
Claim 22 recites “receiving . . . a first settlement advice request
message comprising the generated unique data element and a request to
transfer a first amount that is less than the authorized total amount of the
funds to be transferred.” This step could be performed by a human
receiving, verbally or in writing, a first settlement advice request including
the unique data element and a request to transfer a first amount less than the
authorized total amount of funds from another human.
Claim 22 recites “in response to receipt of the first settlement advice
request message and a first determination . . . that the generated unique data
element included in the received first settlement advice request message
matches the generated unique data element included in the received
authorization approval response, causing . . . the first amount to be
transferred without requiring additional communications comprising the
CAV.” The first part of this step could be perform by a human determining,
in the mind or using pen and paper, whether the unique data element in the
first settlement advice request matches the unique data element in the
authorization approval response. The second part of this step could be
performed by a human causing, verbally or in writing, the first amount to be
transferred without requiring additional communications including the CAV.
Claim 22 recites “receiving . . . a second settlement advice request
message, wherein the received second settlement advice request message
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

10
includes a second amount that is less than the total amount of the funds to be
transferred, and the generated unique data element.” This step could be
performed by a human receiving, verbally or in writing, a second settlement
advice request including the unique data element and a request to transfer a
second amount less than the authorized total amount of funds from another
human.
Claim 22 recites “in response to receipt of the second settlement
advice request message and a second determination . . . that the generated
unique data element included in the received second settlement advice
request message matches the generated unique data element included in the
received authorization approval response, causing . . . the second amount of
the total amount to be transferred without additional communications
comprising the CAV.” The first part of this step could be perform by a
human determining, in the mind or using pen and paper, whether the unique
data element in the second settlement advice request matches the unique data
element in the authorization approval response. The second part of this step
could be performed by a human causing, verbally or in writing, the second
amount to be transferred without requiring additional communications
including the CAV.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 22 recites concepts
performed in the human mind, which is one of the mental processes
identified in the Revised Guidance, and thus an abstract idea. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of
generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

11
themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally
or with pen and paper.”).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance, we determine
whether the claims recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54–55. The Examiner finds that “[t]he claims recite the additional
limitations of: an electronic funds transfer server device, a remote merchant
acquirer device, a terminal device, a financial institution device, a merchant
e-commerce web server device, a consumer communications device, and
processors.” Non-Final Act. 23. The Examiner further finds that “[t]he
servers, devices and processors are recited at a high level of generality and
are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in
computer applications.” Id.
Appellant contends that the claims recite “very specific features” that
“improve the limitations of conventional technologies.” Appeal Br. 28.
According to Appellant, “conventional electronic transferring computing
systems present problems that include, among other things, requiring that a
CAV be transmitted multiple times over networks that are susceptible to
security breaches, and limiting an electronic value transfer amount to a fixed
and immutable value.” Id. at 19. Appellant asserts that the claims address
those deficiencies by “facilitating multiple electronic fund transfers
associated with a single CAV-based transaction.” Id. at 22. Specifically,
Appellant argues that “the claims recite a new kind of security and transfer
function that enables a computer EFT server . . . device ‘to do things it
could not do before’ by adding dual messaging capabilities (security) and
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

12
generating a unique data element that causes a transfer of amounts less than
the total amount (flexibility).” Id. at 20. Appellant contends that this
“improves security risks associated with the repetitious communication of
sensitive data” and “enhances conventional CAV-based payment systems by
employing a unique data element in communications involving the merchant
to facilitate multiple fund transfers for a single CAV-based transaction.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 22’s additional
elements recite “an electronic funds transfer (EFT) server device,” “a remote
merchant acquirer device,” “a merchant terminal device,” “a merchant e-
commerce web server device,” “a consumer communications device,” and “a
remote issuing financial institution device.” The Examiner’s determination
that these additional elements are generic computer components is supported
by the Specification. For example, Figure 1 shows the “EFT server device”
as a box labeled “EFT server 130” including “processor 135” and “memory
136,” and the Specification describes it in generic terms:
EFT server 130 may include a processor 135, a memory 136,
and/or other components that facilitate the functions of EFT
server 130. In some implementations, processor 135 includes
one or more processors configured to perform various functions
of EFT server 130. In some implementations, memory 136
includes one or more tangible (i.e., non-transitory) computer
readable media. Memory 136 may include one or more
instructions that when executed by processor 135 configure
processor 135 to perform functions of EFT server 130.
Spec. ¶ 49, Fig. 1.
As to the “remote merchant acquirer device,” this device is shown in
Figure 1 as a box labeled “merchant acquirer 120,” and described
generically in the Specification:
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

13
[M]erchant acquirer 120 may include a processor 125, a
memory 126, and/or other components that facilitate the
functions of merchant acquirer 120. In some implementations,
processor 125 includes one or more processors configured to
perform various functions of merchant acquirer 120. In some
implementations, memory 126 includes one or more tangible
(i.e., non-transitory) computer readable media. Memory 126
may include one or more instructions that when executed by
processor 125 configure processor 125 to perform functions of
merchant acquirer 120.
Id. ¶ 48, Fig. 1.
Similarly, Figure 1 shows the “consumer communications device” as
a box labeled “communication device 105,” and the Specification describes
it generically, explaining that it “may include any one or more of, for
instance, a personal computer, portable computer, personal digital assistant
(PDA), workstation, web-enabled mobile telephone, WAP device, web-to-
voice device, or other device.” Id. ¶ 20, Fig. 1. The “merchant terminal
device” is shown by another box labeled “merchant terminal 101” in Figure
1, and the Specification explains that it may be “a card reader.” Id. ¶ 51,
Fig. 1. The “merchant e-commerce web server device” is shown by a box
labeled “merchant website 103” in Figure 1, and described generically as
“an online ‘virtual’ store of the merchant.” Id. ¶ 20, Fig. 1. And the
“remote issuing financial institution device” is shown by a box labeled
“financial institution 140” in Figure 1. Id. at Fig. 1.
Finally, the Specification states that “the invention may . . . be
implemented as instructions stored on a machine-readable medium, which
may be read and executed by one or more processors” and that the
“machine-readable storage medium may include read only memory, random
access memory, magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

14
memory devices, and other tangible storage media.” Spec. ¶ 85. In other
words, claim 22’s servers, devices, and terminals implement instructions
using generic processors and memory. Id.
Further, Appellant fails to demonstrate sufficiently that the claims
recite technical improvements to these various generic components.
Specifically, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding the
recited features of communicating dual messages and generating a unique
data element. See Appeal Br. 20. As discussed above, claim 22’s steps
relating to communicating dual messages and generating a unique data
element are concepts that could be performed in the human mind and thus
are part of the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea using
generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a
claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in
the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is
still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be
performed in the mind.”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”).
Thus, we conclude that claim 22 does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, we determine whether the
claims add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or simply
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

15
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner finds that the claims add “[g]eneric computer
components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-
understood, routine and conventional activities that amount to no more than
implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.” Non-Final
Act. 23. Appellant argues that “the claims are directed to an inventive
concept that addresses a technological problem with conventional CAV-
based electronic transfer computing systems that fail to provide adequate
security or flexibility.” Appeal Br. 31. Specifically, according to Appellant,
“[t]he claimed invention provides a specific ‘EFT server device’ that
employs, among other things, dual messaging capabilities to provide robust
security by reducing repetitive communication between devices, and a
unique data element that facilitates the ability to transfer less than a full
amount.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims simply append well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. As
discussed above, claim 22’s additional elements recite generic computer
components that are used for implementing the abstract idea. Non-Final
Act. 23; Spec. ¶ 85. For example, as discussed above, the Specification
describes the “EFT server device” as including a conventional processor,
memory, and computer instructions. Spec. ¶ 49.
Appellant does not dispute that the recited computer components were
well-understood, routine, conventional components, and described as such in
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

16
the Specification. Appellant instead points to the functions of
communicating dual messages and generating a unique data element as
providing an inventive concept. Appeal Br. 31. But, as discussed above,
claim 22’s steps relating to communicating dual messages and generating a
unique data element are concepts that could be performed in the human
mind and, thus, are part of the abstract idea.
In other words, claim 22 does not recite any improvement to the
computer components. Claim 22 simply recites the abstract idea and
appends well-understood, routine, conventional computer components that
are used for implementing the abstract idea. Therefore, we conclude that
claim 22’s elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, do
not provide an inventive concept. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56; Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The
limitations amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing
and comparing data with conventional computer components.”).
Summary
For the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 22 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appellant
acknowledges that “the other independent claims are analogous to claim 22”
(Appeal Br. 23), and Appellant does not present any separate arguments for
the other independent claims or the dependent claims. See id. at 15–36.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10–12, and
14–24 under § 101.
SECTION 112 REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 10–12, and 22–24 under § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

17
Non-Final Act. 28–29. Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the remote
merchant acquirer device is configured to obtain the first generated
authorization request via at least one of a merchant terminal device, a
merchant e-commerce web server device, and a consumer communications
device.” Independent claims 7 and 22 recite a similar limitation.
The Examiner finds that “no written description of the e-commerce
web service device can be found in the disclosure.” Id. at 29. Appellant
argues that paragraphs 40 and 51 of the Specification “show at least that an
eCommerce merchant service can send authorization requests.” Appeal
Br. 38.
We agree with Appellant that the Specification provides sufficient
written description of the recited merchant e-commerce web service device.
The Specification states that “[b]y providing separate authorization requests
and settlement advice request messages, CAV-based transactions may be
facilitated at any merchant site (e.g., eCommerce or ‘brick-and-mortar’).”
Spec. ¶ 40 (emphasis added). The Specification also states that “merchant
acquirer 120 may receive the consumer request via a communication device
of the consumer (such as communication device 105 illustrated in Figure 1)”
and “consumer 205 may use communication device 105 to navigate an
eCommerce website of merchant 207.” Id. ¶ 51 (emphasis added). Thus, the
Specification describes receiving an authorization request via a merchant e-
commerce website. Id. ¶¶ 40, 51.
Although the Specification uses the phrase “eCommerce website,”
rather than the claim phrase “e-commerce web service device,” we agree
with Appellant that the Specification reasonably conveys to those skilled in
the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter. See
Appeal 2018–008226
Application 13/555,963

18
Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en banc) (“[T]he written description requirement does not demand
. . . that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba.”).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8, 10–12, and
22–24 under § 112.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–24
under § 101 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–8, 10–12, and 22–24
under § 112 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10–12,
14–24
101 Eligibility 1–8, 10–12,
14–24

1–8, 10–12,
22–24
112 Written
Description
1–8, 10–12,
22–24
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 10–12,
14–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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