Ex Parte Crum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2018

13955838 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/955,838 07/31/2013
126944 7590 09/05/2018
MasterCard
c/o Ballard Spahr LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard Crum
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
37537.0016Ul- 3690
EXAMINER
GREGG, MARY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD CRUM and JOHN GANDER
Appeal 2016-008499 1
Application 13/955,8382
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 18,
2015) and Specification ("Spec.," filed Feb. 27, 2015), and the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 13, 2016) and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed May 14, 2015).
2 Appellants identify Mastercard International Incorporated as the real party
in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention "relate[s] in general to financial services." Spec. ,r 1.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Independent
claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A payment processor method comprising:
rece1vmg transaction data regarding a financial
transaction, the transaction data including a Primary Account
Number and a transaction type;
matching, with a processor, the Primary Account Number
with an employer from a database;
retrieving an employer travel policy from the database;
determining whether the employer travel policy applies to
the financial transaction; and,
executing with the processor, the employer travel policy
when the employer travel policy applies.
REJECTI0NS 3
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as anticipated
by Martin (US 2011/0015960 Al, pub. Jan. 20, 2011).
Claims 1-7 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Martin and Boppert (US 2012/0054000 Al, pub. Mar. 1,
2012).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Martin, Boppert, and Praisner (US 2002/0174030 Al, pub. Nov. 21, 2002).
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(d), and the objection to claim 16. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Martin and Praisner.
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellants argue claims 1-20 as a group. Br. 5-13. We select
independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fa11
with independent claim l. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
An invention is patent eligible if it is a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit
exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable." See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)).
To "distinguish[] patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts," the Supreme Court has provided a two-step
framework. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)). The first step considers
whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract
idea. Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1296-97). Ifso, the second step then
considers whether the claim recites an inventive concept-an element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure the claim amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea and transform the nature of the
3
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
claim into a patent-eligible application. Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294,
1297-98).
In rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determined that the claim are directed to "receiving transaction data ... ,
analyzing received data with rules, determining which rules apply based on
transaction data and then applying the rules," which the Examiner
determined is analogous to concepts previously held by courts to be abstract,
such as "mere data gathering" and "comparing new and stored information
and using rules to identify options." Final Act. 11; see also id. at 12
(identifying the abstract idea as "performing data analysis in order to
implement rules"). The Examiner also determined that the claims do not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. Id. at 11-12.
Under the first step of the Alice analysis, Appellants argue that the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather "solve a problem in the
field of electronic payments, which is a branch of computer networking, a
field of computer science." Br. 5---6. Specifically, Appellants contend that
"the claimed invention manages and executes functionality based on
employer travel policies." Id. at 6. Yet, there is no technological problem
arising in the field of electronic payments that the claimed invention seeks to
address. Nor is there any indication that the claimed invention is directed to
improvements in the way computers or computer networks carry out their
basic functions. See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic LLC, 2018 WL
3656048, *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2018) (citations omitted).
Instead, Appellants' Specification makes clear that the problem solved
by the claimed invention arises due to the complexity of the employee travel
4
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
policy itself. See Spec. ,r 3 ("[M]any companies have policies on the type of
expenses that are reimbursable, and ... restrictions on the vendor used.
Because of the complexity of some company policies, employees may not
realize the policy ... -such as preferred company vendors and negotiated
rates with the preferred vendors."); see also Br. 2-3. The claimed invention
thus fits into the familiar class of claims that do not focus on an
improvement in computers as tools, but rather on certain independently
abstract ideas that use computers as tools. SAP America, 2018 WL 3656048,
*6 (citation omitted).
Appellants assert that the Examiner "has not established that the
claims of the present application are directed towards an 'abstract idea,' as
meant in the relevant case law." Br. 6. Yet, the Examiner determined that
the claimed invention is akin concepts of data collection and manipulation
that the courts have held to be in the realm of abstract ideas. See Final
Act. 11; Ans. 6; see also e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims directed to an abstract
idea where "[ t ]he advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and
analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and
not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those
functions."); FairWarning IP., LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("the claims here are directed to collecting and
analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is
detected."); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[t]he abstract idea at the heart of
system claim 1 ... is 'generating tasks [based on] rules ... to be completed
5
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
upon the occurrence of an event."') ( citation omitted). The claims here are
directed to abstract ideas under those principles.
Appellants argue that the pending claims are analogous to those
described in January 2015 Guidance4, Example 2, which is modeled after the
claims in DDR Holdings. 5 Br. 6-8. Appellants assert that the claims, like
those in DDR Holdings, are "'necessarily rooted in computer technology in
order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks."' Br. 7 (quoting Jan. 2015 Guidance 6 (citing DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257)). Specifically, Appellants contend that the pending claims
"address a business challenge that arises due to technical challenges in
electronic wallets," and "enable intelligent management and implementation
of travel policies related to expenses occurred using a payment card." Br. 7.
Yet, managing and implementing travel policies does not arise due to a
technical challenge in electronic wallets, nor is it a challenge rooted in
technology. Instead, Appellants explain that the invention addresses issues
related to an employer travel policy being too complex for employees to
realize. See Spec. ,r 3; Br. 2-3. At best, the pending claims use a computer
network in its ordinary capacity (e.g., retrieving data) to serve a
conventional business purpose (i.e., managing and implementing employer
travel policies). See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257 (distinguishing the
claims at issue from patent-ineligible claims that simply use computers to
serve a conventional business purpose). Unlike the situation in DDR
Holdings, there is no indication that Appellants' claims change the routine,
4 See Examples: Abstract Ideas (Jan. 2015) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/abstract_idea_examples
.pdf) (hereinafter "Jan. 2015 Examples")
5 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
6
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
conventional functioning of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257 (determining that the claims changed the routine, conventional
functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol).
Turning to the second step, Appellants argue that "[ e ]ven if the claims
are considered by the Office to be directed to an 'abstract idea,' the present
claims include additional limitations[,] such as using a payment network
device ... and network interface to carry out the method of claim 9." Br. 8.
Yet, there is no indication that the particular operations recited in the claims
are implemented using other than generic computer components to perform
the claimed method steps. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 23-26, 37 ("[n]etwork
interface 2300 may be any data port as is known in the art"); see also DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 ("after Alice, there can remain no doubt:
recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible").
Appellants further assert that the claims "facilitate for a new manner
in which to update or refine a computerized model via methods and systems
rooted in computer technology." Br. 8 (citing July 2015 Guidance6,
Example 21 ). Appellants argue that the claims are analogous to patent-
eligible claim 2 of Example 21, not ineligible claim 1. See id. ("the present
claims are similar to ... Example 21 "); see also July 2015 Guidance 4.
We do not agree with Appellants that claim 2 of Example 21 is
comparable to the present claims. Claim 2 "recites a series of acts for
distributing stock quotes to selected remote devices." July 2015 Guidance 4.
6 See July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples ( available at
https ://www. uspto. gov/ sites/ default/files/ documents/ieg-july-2015-
app 1. pdf).
7
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
Applying the first step of the Alice analysis, the July 2015 Guidance
determines that steps of comparing and organizing data are a mental process,
similar to other concepts held by the courts to be abstract. Id. Turning to
the second step, the July 2015 Guidance explains that some of the additional
limitations (e.g., storing subscriber preferences and transmitting an alert),
viewed individually, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. Id. However, when viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed
invention "amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea of organizing
and comparing data." Id. Specifically, the claimed invention "addresses the
Internet-centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive
information when the subscriber's computer is offline" by transmitting the
alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer
application, thereby causing an alert to display and enabling a connection
over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online. Id.
We are not persuaded that the present claims address any comparable
Internet-centric challenge.
We also are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' argument
regarding preemption. Br. 8-10. There is no dispute that the Supreme Court
has described "the concern that drives [ the exclusion of abstract ideas from
patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption." Alice Corp.,
134 S. Ct. at 2354. But characterizing preemption as a driving concern for
patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test
for patent eligibility. "The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle
of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability" and
"[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by
the§ 101 analysis." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d
8
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354).
"[P]reemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, [but] the absence
of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Id.
Appellants argue that the claims are inextricably tied to a computer-
implemented environment to overcome a problem that has arisen in updating
a computer model, analogous to the claims in DDR Holdings. Br. 10; see
also id. at 11 ("the recited elements cannot be separated from the computer-
implemented environment (e.g., specific tangible parts programmed in
specific ways to communicate very specific data)"). However, limiting the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment ( e.g., a
computer-implemented environment) is insufficient to transform an
otherwise patent-ineligible abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355
("the claims' invocation of computers, networks, and displays does not
transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications"). We
also see no parallel to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings for the reasons
described above.
Appellants argue that the claims "do not merely implement the
abstract idea on a generic computer, but rather, specif[y] how the computer
processor acts in a very specific manner, communicate/receive specific
information, evaluates and allocates data (funds) in a specific manner."
Br. 11. "[T]hese activities go well beyond what is routine and
conventional." Id. However, "[a]s many cases make clear, even if a process
of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a
particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract." SAP America, 2018 WL 3656048, *6 (citing Elec.
9
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355); see also id. (distinguishing cases in which
"claims were patent-eligible because they were directed to improvements in
the way computers and networks carry out their basic functions" and claims
focused on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools)
( citations omitted). The claims here, like the claims in SAP America, fit into
the familiar class of claims that focus on independently abstract ideas that
use computers as tools, and not on any improvement in the way computers
and networks carry out their basic functions.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims
"require specific programming, [ and] the resulting computer would be a
specific purpose computer." Br. 12 (citing In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526,
1543 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In Eon Corp. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616
(Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit explicitly noted that "Alappat has been
superseded by Bilski and Alice Corp." Id. at 623 ( citations omitted). Here,
there is no indication that the claimed devices, e.g., "processor," "database,"
"network interface," "computing device," are other than generic computer
limitations. And, as the Supreme Court made clear in Alice, the recitation of
generic computer limitations is not enough to transform an otherwise patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patentable invention. See Alice Corp.,
134 S. Ct. at 2358.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the claims
solve a technological problem, analogous to the claims at issue in Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Br. 12-13. The claims inDiehrwere
directed to a process for curing synthetic rubber, and recited a series of steps
(e.g., the loading of a mold with raw, uncured rubber, closing the mold,
constantly determining the mold temperature, constantly recalculating the
10
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
cure time, and automatically opening the press at the proper time) that
together provided a significant and novel practical application of the
well-known Arrhenius equation and transformed uncured synthetic rubber
into a new state or thing. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184--87.
Appellants argue that the present claims "store, receive, model and
additionally generate very specific and sensitive information in a very
specific manner in a hardware-based system that has not been done before
in the industry." Br. 13. Yet, determining whether an employer travel
policy applies ( e.g., receiving transaction data, matching the primary account
number with an employer, retrieving an employer travel policy, and
determining whether the employer travel policy applies), and executing the
policy if it applies is not similar to controlling a physical process that
involves the transformation of an article into a different state or thing, like
the rubber molding process in Diehr.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in determining that the
claims do not require "significantly more" than the abstract idea, because
"[ t ]he Final Office Action has failed to teach each of the recitations" recited
in the claims. Br. 13. But it is not enough for subject-matter eligibility that
the claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art. SAP
America, 2018 WL 3656048, *1; see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304. Much
like the claims at issue in SAP America, the claims here are ineligible
because their innovation is in ineligible subject matter. SAP America, 2018
WL 3656048, *1 ("No matter how much of an advance in the finance field
the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with
no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm."); see
also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed.
11
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The
search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating
§ 102 novelty"). Appellants have not identified, and we do not find, any
plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract realm.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's determination that independent claim 1 is patent-ineligible.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, with claims 2-20 falling therewith.
Anticipation
Independent Claim 9 and Dependent Claim 14
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) because Martin does not teach each and every
limitation, as recited in claim 9. Br. 13-14. The Examiner maintains Martin
discloses each of the limitations, as recited in claim 9. Final Act. 13 ( citing
Martin, Figs. 1 and 3, and their associated text, and ,r,r 20, 68-72, 77, and
78); see also Ans. 13-18 (quoting Martin ,r,r 20, 68-72, 77, 78, Fig. 1).
By way of background, Martin provides techniques for rewarding
healthy behaviors or encouraging appropriate purchases with a reward card.
Martin ,r 5. The reward card stores transaction card data, such as a user's
primary account number and/or personal identification number. Id. ,r 20.
With reference to Figure 3, Martin describes that employers design and
administer matching criteria and thresholds that enable system inquires to
identify qualifying cardholder transactions. Id. ,r 68. Once a qualifying
transaction is identified, the system notifies the employer of the transaction,
and the employer loads funds to the cardholder's prepaid card. Id. For
example, an employer rewards an employee participating in a smoking
12
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
cessation with a prepaid card for $50. If the employee spends these funds at
a gym, the employer provides a matching usage reward of $50 to employee;
but if the employee spends these funds at a liquor store, the employer
provides no matching usage reward. Id. ,r 70. Merchant category codes or
other transaction indicators identify spend categories and allow employers to
match dollars spent in qualified categories. Id. ,r 71. Structurally, an
incentive platform tracks goals, and a prepaid platform initiates loading
value onto the card due to achieving wellness goals, and tracks how funds on
the reward card are spent. Id. ,r 72. Specifically, the prepaid platform
compares transaction details, such as merchant category codes ("MCC"),
merchant identity, or identity and/or category of items purchased, to
parameters in a database to determine if the funds are being spent in a
manner consistent with the grant of additional value. Id. ,r,r 72, 77. A
matching configuration module allows employers to set allowable purchase
level data that triggers matchings. Id. ,r 78.
Appellants argue that "the Martin reference fails to teach or suggest
an employer travel policy" (Br. 14) and, as such, "does not teach or suggest
the retrieval, determination of applicability or execution of employer travel
policies as required by independent claim 9" (id.). Appellants' argument is
not persuasive because the feature that Appellants rely upon for patentability
- whether the employer policy is a travel policy- constitutes
nonfunctional descriptive material.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 9 and
dependent claim 14.
13
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
Dependent Claims 10-13 and 15
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Martin's disclosure of
merchant category codes does not teach an indicator of a location of the
financial transaction, as recited in dependent claim 10. See Br. 14.
Directing us to the Internal Revenue Service website, Appellants argue that a
merchant category code is a four-digit number assigned to a business that
classifies the business by the type of goods or services it provides, and is not
merchant-specific. Id. ( citing Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-31, available
at https://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-3 l_IRB/arl 7.html). The Martin reference
also describes using the merchant category code to indicate an acceptable
category for a merchant, such as a "gym," instead of a particular merchant at
a particular location. See Martin ,r,r 70-72, 77. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of dependent claim 10 and claims 11-13 and 15, which depend
therefrom.
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1, and Dependent Claims 6 and 7
We are not persuaded by Appellants argument that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Boppert does not
teach an employer travel policy. Br. 15-16. In rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner finds Martin teaches each of the claim limitations, except that the
employer policy is a travel policy. Final Act. 17. The Examiner relies on
Boppert at paragraphs 49 and 66 as disclosing that in the context of reward
policies applied to transactions, a travel policy is another consideration to
reduce customer attrition. Id. at 18. However, the Examiner further found
that data content, i.e., whether the policy is a travel policy or reward policy,
refers to data content and does not make the method unique. Id.
14
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Boppert does not teach or suggest an employer
travel policy. Br. 15-16. We agree with Appellants that the Boppert
generally relates to managing a rewards program. See Boppert ,r 1. For
example, paragraph 49 of Boppert describes a qualification criteria for a
rewards program includes a geographic area where the reward points were
earned. However, Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error
for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9, namely, the
argued limitation constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 6 and 7,
depending therefrom.
Dependent Claims 2-5
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 2 because Martin's disclosure of MCC is not an
indicator of a location of a financial transaction. Br. 16. Appellants'
argument is not persuasive because the Examiner further relies on Boppert
as disclosing a location of a financial transaction. See Final Act. 18-19
(citing Boppert ,r,r 49, 56, 62, 79). Boppert describes at paragraphs 49 and
79 using the geographic area where the reward points were earned as
qualification criteria, and further describes at paragraph 62 classifying spend
data based on the geographic area.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 and claims
3-5, depending therefrom.
Dependent Claim 8
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Praisner does
15
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
not teach matching transaction data to an elite cardholder policy, and
applying the elite cardholder policy, as recited in claim 8. Br. 17-18 (citing
Spec. ,r 12 (identifying Worldâ„¢ and World Elite TM branded cards from
MasterCard® as non-limiting examples of elite payment cards)). Appellants
argue that Praisner teaches spending control activities, but not an elite
cardholder policy or status, such as Worldâ„¢ and World Eliteâ„¢ branded
cards from MasterCard®. Appellants' argument is not persuasive, at least
because the feature that Appellants rely upon for patentability- whether
the policy is an elite cardholder policy- constitutes nonfunctional
descriptive material.
Additionally, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that Praisner discloses the argued limitations at paragraph 114.
By way of background, Praisner relates to purchasing management systems
for product and service procurement, purchasing mechanisms, including
payment cards, and related processing infrastructure. Praisner ,r 2. With
reference to Figure 8A, Praisner describes that spending control activities
include a wide variety of mechanisms for controlling corporate spending,
such as various sets of spending rules that can be set by an administrator,
including organizational rules, financial rules, and any other set of spending
rules. Id. ,r 114. Organizational rules and policies include creating
hierarchies of groups, assigning users to the groups, and creating any desired
organizational related rule. Id. Financial rules include implementing
corporate-wide or group-level spending policy rules, and implementing other
spending policy rules. Id.
The Examiner determines that applying spending rules to groups in a
hierarchy, as taught by Praisner, teaches "matching the transaction data to an
16
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
elite cardholder policy in the database," and "applying the elite cardholder
policy," as required by claim 8. Ans. 21 (finding that Praisner describes a
"hierarchy" as "ranking one group of people above the other according to
authority," and that a higher ranking in the hierarchy discloses the claimed
elite card holder policy); see also Final Act. 21-22 (finding Praisner uses
different rule sets).
Appellants' Specification describes at paragraph 31 that classes may
be determined by an analysis of cardholder elite status. At paragraph 39, the
Specification provides that an elite cardholder database is configured to store
data and policies for elite cardholders. In our view, one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand in light of the Specification that an "elite
cardholder policy," as recited in claim 8, constitutes a cardholder having an
elite status, such as member of a high-ranking group in a hierarchy. As
such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Praisner
describes the argued limitations, as recited in claim 8.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8.
Independent Claim 16
Independent claim 16 recites language similar to independent claim 1,
and stands rejected based on similar findings. See Final Act. 23-25.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 for the same
reason as claim 1, i.e., Boppert does not teach an employer travel policy.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 for the
same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
Dependent Claims 17, 19, and 20
Appellants argue that dependent claim 17 is allowable because
Martin's MCC is not an indicator of a location. Br. 19. Appellants'
17
Appeal2016-008499
Application 13/955,838
argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner additionally relies on
Boppert for this limitation. See Final Act. 26 (citing Boppert ,r,r 49, 56, 62,
79).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 17 for the
same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 19 and 20, which depend from claim 17.
Dependent Claim 18
Appellants argue that dependent claim 18 is allowable because the
Examiner's citations to paragraphs 46, 56, 63, 71, and 77 of Martin all relate
to the merchant category code, not a geographic location component of an
employer travel policy. Br. 19. However, the Examiner additionally cites
Boppert for this limitation. See Final Act. 27 (citing Boppert ,r,r 49, 56, 62,
79).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 18.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18