Ex Parte Lanxner et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

12626061 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/626,061
147142 7590
Symantec Corporation
1389 Center Drive
Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
11/25/2009
04/02/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eyal S. Lanxner
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.
S2891.10339US01 1434
EXAMINER
OUELLETTE, JONATHAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
docket@mabr.com
jgadd@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EY AL S. LANXNER and SHAY RAZ
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Symantec Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-29 and 31. Claim 3 0 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Illustrative Claims
Illustrative claims 1 and 4 ( emphasis added) under appeal read as
follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having
instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a
computer processor, cause the computer processor to perform
operations comprising:
for each previous transaction among one or more
historical transactions for a party:
determining, by the computer processor configured
to automate categorization, a similarity value between a
current transaction for the party and the previous
transaction, wherein the similarity value is determined by
computing an initial weight for each of the properties of a
set of properties, computing a similarity between each of
the properties of the current transaction and the
properties of the previous transaction, adjusting the initial
weight for each of the properties based on a measure of
the commonness of each of the properties of the set of
properties, normalizing the adjusted weights, and
computing the similarity value by summing the products
of the normalized adjusted weights and the computed
similarities;
determining, by the computer processor configured
to automate categorization, that the similarity value is
greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value;
2
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
categorizing, by an anomaly confidence generator
component of the computer processor, the current
transaction as not anomalous in response to determining
that the similarity value is greater than or equal to the
predetermined threshold value;
determining, by the computer processor configured
to automate categorization, a factor for the previous
transaction based on an age of the previous transaction;
computing, by the computer processor configured
to automate categorization, a rank for the previous
transaction using the similarity value and the factor; and
storing, by the computer processor configured to
automate categorization, the computed rank in a database
configured to store the computer rank; and
computing, by the computer processor configured to
automate categorization, a confidence in the categorization of
the current transaction as not anomalous based on the stored
ranks, wherein the confidence indicates whether the current
transaction for the party is a fraudulent transaction.
4. The computer readable medium of claim 1 wherein
the current transaction is an Internet log-in.
App. Br. 15-16 (Claims Appendix).
Rejection on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 2 See Final Act. 2.
2 We select claims 1 and 4 as representative. Separate patentability, in
compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv), is not argued for claims 2-3, 5-29
and 31. See App. Br. 6-13; see also Reply Br. 2-5. Accordingly, except for
our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 2-3, 5-29 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 4 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter?
ANALYSIS
A. Section 101 Case Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained "for any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that
analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. The Court
acknowledged in Mayo that "all inventions at some level embody, use,
reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. Therefore, we look to whether the claims
focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and
otherwise merely recite generic processes and machinery. See Enfzsh, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims are
4
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry
proceeds to the second step, in which the elements of the claims are
considered "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79, 78).
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO's
January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised
Guidance"). Under the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the
claim recites:
(1) (Step 2A - Prong One) any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) (Step 2A - Prong Two) additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a}-( c ), ( e }-(h)). 3
3 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Revised Guidance). Solely for
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Revised Guidance). See Revised
Guidance 54--55.
5
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
See Revised Guidance 54--55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception
and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we
then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance 56.
C. Examiner's§ 101 Rejection Alice/Mayo-Steps 1 and 2
C.1. USPTO Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong One
Applying step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes
claim 1 recites and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1-29 and 31 is/are directed to the abstract idea of fraud
detection. While the claim does not explicitly recite "fraud
detection", the concept of "fraud detection" is described by the
determining, categorizing, computing, and storing steps.
Similar to Cyberfone Systems v. CNN Interactive Group the
recited claims uses categories to organize, store and transmit
information. As in Cyberfone, "the well-known concept of
categorical data storage, i.e., the idea of collecting information
in classified form, then separating and transmitting that
information according to its classification is an abstract idea".
Furthermore, as in Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for
Imaging, Inc. the claims are found to be abstract because they
"[describe] a process of organizing information through
mathematical correlations".
Final Act. 2-3 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 3-5.
6
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
C.2. USPTO Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong Two
Applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner concludes:
The claim( s) does/do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional element(s) or combination of
elements in the claim( s) other than the abstract idea per se
amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement
the idea on a computer[.] . .. The additional elements do not add
meaningful limitations to the idea of fraud detection beyond
generally linking the system to a particular technological
environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as
a whole, these additional claim element( s) do not provide
meaningful limitation( s) to transform the abstract idea into a
patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the
claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself
Final Act. 3 ( emphasis added).
The examiner notes the 'field' of fraud detection is not deem[ed]
a technological improvement but rather a business solution to
a business problem. The examiner notes the technological aspect
of using the computer to perform the abstract idea is indeed
simply using a generic computer to perform in a conventional
manner as expected. The examiner refers to appellant's
disclosure in ,r 21 [:]
The processor 112 can be a general purpose
microprocessor configured to execute instructions
and data, such as a Pentium processor manufactured
by the Intel Corporation of Santa Clara, California.
It can also be an Application Specific Integrated
Circuit (ASIC) that embodies at least part of the
instructions for 20 performing the method in
accordance with the present invention in software,
firmware and/or hardware. As an example, such
processors include dedicated circuitry, AS/Cs,
combinatorial logic, other programmable
processors, combinations thereof, and the like.
7
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
Therefore, appellant's claims have not improved the general
purpose computer.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
[T]he examiner notes aside from simply defining a transaction as
an internet log-in of claim 4[,] appellants claims do not claim the
internet nor unconventional use of the [I]nternet. . . . The
examiner notes the claims do not encompass the specifics of
behavior directed to locations of internet log-in, furthermore the
section does not disclose how this if it were to be claimed would
be an improvement to technology or an unconventional use of
technology.
The claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically
rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an
improvement to another technology or technical field,
[demonstrate] an improvement to the function of any computer
itself, [apply] the exception with, or by use of, a particular
machine, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally
linking an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment such as the Internet.
Ans. 8 (emphasis added).
C.3 USPTO Revised Guidance Step 2B
Further applying step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner
concludes:
The claim( s) does/ do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional element(s) or combination of
elements in the claim( s) other than the abstract idea per se
amount(s) to no more than: ... (ii) recitation of generic
computer structure that serves to perform generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the pertinent industry. For
example, the processor as recited is a generic computer
component that performs functions (i.e. categorizing
transactions, computing scores, etc.). These are generic
8
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry . ...
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element( s) do not
provide meaningful limitation( s) to transform the abstract idea
into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the
claim( s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.
Final Act. 3 ( emphasis added).
The examiner notes [paragraphs 62-64 of Appellants'
disclosure] are understood be a general purpose computer
performing the instructions for making the claimed
determinations as such the computer performing as is well
understood and conventional/unctions of the general purpose
computer that is disclosed fin] 1/ 21.
Ans. 7 ( emphasis added).
D. Appellants'§ 101 Arguments
D.1. Step 2A, Prong 1
D.1.a.
As to claim 1, Appellants contend the claim is "not directed to an
abstract idea." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants particularly
contend:
As in McRO and Enfish, the present claims are not directed to the
abstract idea of fraud detection, but rather are directed to a
specific technique for performing fraud detection, based on
specific techniques for characterizing the similarity of
transactions to prior transactions and then making a
determination as to whether a given transaction is likely to be
fraudulent.
App. Br. 7 ( emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 2-3.
[T]he claims here are not simply directed to standard concepts
long utilized such as organizing and arranging data. The claims
here instead are directed to a specific implementation of a fraud
detection system which improves the functionality of
9
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
enterprises engaged in e-commerce by reducing the potential
for fraudulent transactions. The existing data is not organized
into a new form, unlike the claims in Digitech, but rather the
existing data is used to implement fraud detection on a new
transaction.
App. Br. 8 (Appellants' citations omitted; panel's emphasis added);
see also Reply Br. 3--4.
Here, the claims incorporate mathematical operations for the
purpose of solving the problem of determining if a particular
transaction, as implemented by a computer, is fraudulent. This
problem is technological - it does not arise in the same context
in transactions not implemented via computer as, critically, the
participants in the transaction are known to one another and
physically present in the same location. And, like the claims in
Thales Visionix, the claims here are not to the equations
themselves but rather to the application of those equations to
solve the problem of fraud detection.
App. Br. 9 ( emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4.
D.1.b.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[(A)] for each previous transaction among one or more
historical transactions for a party:
[ ( 1)] determining . . . a similarity value between a
current transaction for the party and the previous
transaction, wherein the similarity value is determined by
computing an initial weight for each of the properties of a
set of properties, computing a similarity between each of
the properties of the current transaction and the properties
of the previous transaction, adjusting the initial weight for
each of the properties based on a measure of the
commonness of each of the properties of the set of
properties, normalizing the adjusted weights, and
computing the similarity value by summing the products
of the normalized adjusted weights and the computed
similarities;
10
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
[(2)] determining, ... that the similarity value is
greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value;
[(3)] categorizing ... the current transaction as not
anomalous in response to determining that the similarity
value is greater than or equal to the predetermined
threshold value;
[ ( 4)] determining . . . a factor for the previous
transaction based on an age of the previous transaction;
[(5)] computing . . . a rank for the previous
transaction using the similarity value and the factor; and
[ ( 6)] storing . . . the computed rank in a database
configured to store the computer rank; and
[(B)] computing ... a confidence in the categorization of
the current transaction as not anomalous based on the stored
ranks, wherein the confidence indicates whether the current
transaction for the party is a fraudulent transaction.
In short, claim 1 recites a method of detecting whether a current
transaction is fraudulent that comprises steps of: (a) determining a similarity
value between the current transaction and a historical transaction;
(b) categorizing the current transaction based on the determined similarity
value; ( c) determining a factor for the previous transaction; ( d) computing a
rank for the previous transaction using similarity value and the factor; and
( e) computing a confidence in the categorization based on the computer
rank. See Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 2. Because, with the exception of
generic computer-implementation ("by the computer processor"), there is
nothing in the steps themselves that foreclose them from being performed by
a human, mentally or with pen and paper, we conclude that Appellants'
claimed process comprises steps that can be performed "by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
11
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 recites a mental process, which
is one of the categories of abstract ideas enumerated in the Revised
Guidance, and thus, is an abstract idea. See Revised Guidance 52.
Appellants' argument that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea
because the claim is directed to a specific implementation of fraud detection
is not persuasive. The fact that the claim recites and is directed to a specific
mental process does not change the fact that the claim is directed to a mental
process, which, as described above, is a category of abstract ideas, as
explicitly enumerated by the Revised Guidance.
D.1.c.
Claim 1 does not define "transaction," and Appellants' Specification
describes an embodiment where the claimed "transaction" is a "financial
transaction." See e.g., Spec. ,r 23 ("[p ]attems associated with financial
transactions such as a money transfer can include a periodicity and a range
of amount transferred"). Although not necessary to conclude that claim 1
recites, and is directed to, an abstract idea, the aforementioned steps recited
in claim 1 can alternately be considered steps involving financial
transactions, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with
Appellants' Specification and the Examiner's findings, as the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed "transaction" includes a financial
transaction, in light of Appellants' Specification, as previously discussed
above. See e.g., Spec. ,r 23. The detection of fraud in a financial transaction
is a way to manage risk involved in financial transactions. Thus, like the
concept of mitigating settlement risk in Alice, and the concept of hedging
against risk in Bilski, the concept of detecting fraudulent transactions recited
in claim 1 "is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system
12
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
of commerce." Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). The Revised Guidance also identifies "certain methods of
organizing human activity" as an enumerated category of abstract ideas,
where the Revised Guidance specifically identifies "fundamental economic
practices" as certain methods of organizing human activity. See Revised
Guidance 52. Thus, for this additional reason, claim 1 recites and is directed
to an abstract idea. 4
D.2. Step 2A, Prong 2
Also as to claim 1, Appellants contend the claim provides "an
inventive concept 'found in the ordered combination of claim limitations
that transform the abstract idea of [ fraud detection] into a particular,
practical application of that abstract idea."' App. Br. 10. Appellants
particularly contend:
The claims here, like those in DDR Holdings, BASCOM, and
McRO, provide a particularized solution to a problem found in
computing technology, and thus are directed to a particular,
practical application of the abstract idea of fraud detection.
While implemented on a computer, the present claims recite a
particular set of rules for implementing a particular solution to
the problem of detecting fraudulent transactions. When
considered as a whole, these limitations are not conventional,
generic, or well known in the art, nor do they claim all possible
ways to implement the abstract idea of detecting fraud. As a
result, there is no evidence that the claims would amount to no
more than an instruction to use a computer to perform an abstract
idea or a previously known process. Accordingly, the claims are
directed to a meaningful application of the specific techniques
claimed, and should be allowable on that basis as well.
4 We do not reach the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is directed to a
mathematical equation or calculation (see Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3), as it
is not necessary to reach this issue to resolve the appeal.
13
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
App. Br. 10 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Like the claims in McRO, and unlike the claims in Flook, Bilski,
and Alice, here it is the use of the specific calculations in the
specified order that provide an improvement to the existing
technological process, not the use of a computer. Thus, when
the claim limitations are considered as an ordered combination,
they recite more than generic computer functions by reciting a
specific combination of computer functions in order to produce
a result, not generic to the art, that improves the functioning of
computer-implemented transactional systems by providing
improved fraud detection in such systems.
App. Br. 11 (Appellants' citations omitted; panel's emphasis added); see
also Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants' argument that claim 1 provides an improvement to an
existing technological process, or an existing computer-implemented
transaction system, is not persuasive. Consistent with the Examiner's
findings, the alleged improvement of the process recited in claim 1 is not a
technological improvement, but rather a business solution to a business
problem. See Ans. 5. More specifically, the problem identified in
Appellants' Specification is not limited to online or Internet fraud, but
encompasses all types of fraud, including identity theft. See e.g., Spec. ,r 1
("Identity theft and on-line fraud have become widespread problems in the
United States. Each year, many adults in the U.S. have their identities stolen
and numerous accounts are compromised, leading to significant losses as a
result of identity theft.")
Further, the solution identified in Appellants' Specification is to
weigh the calculated similarity value between a current transaction and a
historical transaction based on specific characteristics of the historical
transaction, such as age or status of transaction. See e.g., Spec. ,r,r 6-13.
14
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
Such a solution is an improvement to the analysis model that is used to
characterize relationships between current transactions and historical
transactions, as opposed to an improvement to an underlying computer or
other type of technology. As correctly found by the Examiner, the technical
aspect recited in claim 1 is merely the usage of a general-purpose computer
(i.e., computer processor) to perform the process. See Ans. 5; see also Spec.
,r 21. As such, the articulated solution is a results-oriented solution that
utilizes a generic computer as opposed to a technical solution that improves
the underlying computer or another technology.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
claim 1 is similar to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014), BASCOM Global
Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC., 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 2016), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d
1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings,
BASCOM, and McRO, claim 1 fails to recite the technical details that
distinguishes the claimed process of detecting fraudulent transactions
through comparing current transactions with previous transactions from
prior processes of detecting fraudulent transactions.
Appellants also argue that "the claims are not simply implemented on
a general purpose microprocessor, but rather recite more than general
purpose functionality by providing a process not previously known in the
art." App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis added). Appellants' argument is not
persuasive because it conflates the novelty and non-obviousness tests under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 with the patent-eligibility test under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
15
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
In view of Appellants' Specification (see e.g., Spec. ,r,r 1, 6-13, 21 ),
and consistent with the Examiner's findings, we conclude that claim 1 does
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. We
determine claim 1 does not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
( v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See MPEP §§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
D.3. Step 2B
As noted above, the Examiner determined the additional elements of
"computer processor," "anomaly confidence generator component," and
"database" as recited in claim 1, are generic computer limitations ( e.g.,
functionally labeled components such as "XYZ component for performing
XYZ" where XYZ can be the result a mental step) similar to what the courts
have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Final
Act. 3. Further, the Examiner cited Appellants' Specification as evidence
that the claimed "computer processor," "anomaly confidence generator
component," and "database" are generic computer components that perform
functions that are routine, conventional, and well-understood to one of
16
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
ordinary skill in the relevant art. See Ans. 5-7 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 21, 62-64 );
see also Spec. ,r,r 22, 51, 57. Appellants arguments addressed supra do not
convince us that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 recites
generic computer limitations. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim
1 is not directed to something significantly more than the abstract idea.
E. Panel's§ 101 Analysis for Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 recites "wherein the current transaction is an Internet log-
in. "5 Thus, claim 4 limits the current transaction and all the steps of claim 1
to an Internet log-in that is a computer transaction. Accordingly, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 4 is not directed to financial
transactions. Thus, unlike claim 1, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 4 solely
recites a sequence of computer steps to improve a computer centric
operation (Internet log-in). The claimed embodiment does not recite either a
mental process or a fundamental economic practice. Accordingly, we
conclude that claim 4 is not directed to an abstract idea.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-22, 24--29
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
(3) Claims 1-3, 5-22, 24--29 and 31 are not patentable.
( 4) On this record, claims 4 and 23 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
5 Claim 23 recites an identical limitation.
17
Appeal 2017-011366
Application 12/626,061
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5-22, 24--29 and
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 4 and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18