Ex Parte Parduhn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2018

12573627 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/573,627 10/05/2009
56056 7590 06/18/2018
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
C/0 CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hayo Parduhn
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.
0057-024001/2009P00165US 6539
EXAMINER
ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2018 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):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HA YO PARDUHN, MARK MICHAUD,
MARKUS BECKER, INGO BRAEUNINGER,
STEP AN LEONHARDT, JEAN BERBERIAN,
BERND LEHNERT, and BERND SIEREN
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
Technology Center 3600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 10-18 and 21-31, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is directed to "securely transferring sensitive
data across a system landscape." Spec. ,r 1. Appellants' systems or methods
combine "all sensitive information found in a transaction data log (TLOG)
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
... into one segment and the segment is encrypted once," allowing the target
system to extract all of the sensitive information while only performing a
single decryption operation. Id. ,r 16. Claims 10, 21, and 31 are
independent claims. Claim 10 is illustrative and reproduced below:
10. A computer system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the
instructions which, when executed, cause the computer system
to perform operations including:
receiving transaction data in a first computerized
system, the transaction data including a plurality of
sections, each section including a section reference,
wherein a first section contains first encrypted payment
data and a first section reference and a second section
contains second encrypted payment data, and a second
section reference,
decrypting the first encrypted payment data and the
second encrypted payment data;
generating a file having a first portion including the
first decrypted payment data and the first section reference
and a second portion including the second decrypted
payment data and the second section reference, the second
portion being appended to the first portion;
encrypting the file using a first encryption
algorithm;
generating an encrypted data segment, the
encrypted data segment including the encrypted file, and
unencrypted information about the first encryption
algorithm; and
sending the encrypted data segment with the
transaction data to a second computerized system, the
second computerized system accessing the first payment
data by decrypting the file using the first encryption
algorithm and matching the first section reference in the
decrypted data segment to the first section reference in the
transaction data.
2
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
REJECTIONS
Claims 10-18 and 21-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 10-18 and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious in view ofvon Mueller (US 2011/0211689 Al; Sept. 1, 2011) and
Ching (US 2005/0273440 Al; Dec. 8, 2005). Final Act. 3-7.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious in view
ofvon Mueller, Ching, Hogg (US 2012/0130783 Al; May 24, 2012), and
Ruano (US 2006/0224470 Al; Oct. 5, 2006). Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
in view of von Mueller, Ching, and Hogg. Final Act. 9-11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
THE§ 101 REJECTION
The Examiner concludes claims 10-18 and 21-31 are directed to
judicially excepted subject matter. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 3-9.
Alice/Mayo Framework
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
3
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. There is no dispute that claims
1-21 are directed to one of these categories.
In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012), and Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354, the Supreme Court
explained that 35 U.S.C. § 101 "contains an important implicit exception"
for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a
two-step analytical framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter:
(1) "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible
concept, such as an abstract idea; and, if so, (2) "consider the elements of
each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements" add enough to transform the "nature of the
claim" into "significantly more" than a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step one in the Mayo/Alice framework involves looking at the "focus"
of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead of using
a definition of an abstract idea, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply
is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature
can be seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were
decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); accord United States Patent and
Trademark Office, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (July 30,
2015), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
4
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
docmnents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf (instructing Examiners that "a claimed
concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one
concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea.").
Step two involves the search for an "inventive concept." Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. For an inventive concept,
"more is required than 'well-understood, routine, conventional activity
already engaged in"' by the relevant community. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79--80).
Step One of Alice Framework
Turning to step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner states "[t]he
claims are directed to a series of steps on encrypting/ decrypting transaction
data, which is a fundamental economic practice and thus an abstract idea."
Final Act. 2. The Examiner further concludes the claims are directed to an
abstract idea because "sending transaction data and an encrypted data
segment to a computer system, wherein the encrypted data segment
comprises both information on an algorithm used to encrypt a file and the
encrypted file itself ... is an idea of itself and a fundamental economic
practice." Ans. 3; see id. at 3-5.
Appellants argue "the claim is focused on generating a data container
that improves processing time of transactions in a transaction log at a target
computer" and that there is no evidence supporting the Examiner's
conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea or that encrypting
and decrypting transactions is a fundamental economic practice. App.
Br. 9--10. Appellants further assert the Examiner oversimplifies and
overgeneralizes the claims without taking into account the improvement
5
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
provided by the invention. Reply Br. 2-3 ( citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Appellants contend the claims recite specific technical features providing a
technological improvement to transaction processing and that the claims are
deeply rooted in computer networks. Reply Br. 3--4 (citing McRO, 837 F.3d
at 1316; DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 2014)).
Appellants' claims generally relate to decrypting secure data from a
plurality of encrypted transactions, repackaging the decrypted data from the
plurality of transactions into an aggregate file, and transmitting the aggregate
file with the original transactions so that a system receiving the transaction
data needs to perform only one decryption to access the secure data. In other
words, as the Examiner stated, the claims are directed to a series of steps on
encrypting/decrypting transaction data. Appellants' characterization of the
claims as being directed to generating a data container that improves the
time it may take a target computer to process the plurality of transactions is
also accurate. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of
abstraction.").
The Federal Circuit concluded "a process of organizing information
through mathematical correlations" was a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014 ); see also id. at 13 51 ("Without additional limitations, a
process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.");
6
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (concluding collecting, recognizing,
and storing information is an abstract idea).
Further, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., 855
F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to
another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ( determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of
abstract ideas).
Although not exactly the same, Appellants' claims are directed to
subject matter similar to that claimed in Digitech and Content Extraction. In
particular, Appellants' claims recite receiving data (i.e., transaction data
having a plurality of sections), manipulating, or organizing and storing, the
data (i.e., decrypting the payment data in the transaction data, organizing all
the payment data into a single file, and encrypting the file), and sending data
(i.e., sending the transaction data and the encrypted file to a target computer
system). See Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1344 (concluding "taking existing
information ... and organizing this information into a new form" is an
abstract idea); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; see also Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353-54 (concluding "collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," regardless of
particular content, is an abstract idea).
Even assuming Appellants' characterization of the claims is correct,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. Appellants' assertion that the claims are
directed to "generating a data container that improves processing time of
7
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
transactions in a transaction log at a target computer" is just another way of
stating that the claims relate to "taking existing information ... and
organizing this information into a new form," Digitech, 758 F.3d. at 1344) in
order to shift the majority of the processing time necessary to decrypt each
transaction in a transaction log from the target system to an intermediate
computer system.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Reply Br. 2--4, the alleged
improvement recited in Appellants' claims (i.e., the target system needing to
decrypt data only once for the aggregated transaction data rather than
decrypting each transaction separately) actually adds an encryption step and
a decryption step as compared to the prior art over which Appellants'
invention allegedly improves. In particular, the decryption of each
transaction still must occur, but Appellants' invention shifts the initial
decryption of each transaction to a platform other than the target system,
then the platform that decrypted each transaction encrypts a file that
aggregates the individual transactions, and the target system decrypts only
the aggregate file. Accordingly, although it is true that the target system
performs only a single decryption step, the process as a whole must still
decrypt each transaction in addition to encrypting and decrypting each
aggregate file generated. Merely shifting where the decryption of each
transaction is performed while adding additional encryption and decryption
steps does not alter the character of the claims.
For the above reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
concluding the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
8
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
Step Two of Alice Framework
Next, we tum to step two of Alice to determine whether the
limitations, when considered both "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the
claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355-58. We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations,
separately, or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful
limitations (i.e., do not add significantly more) sufficient to transform the
abstract idea into a patent eligible application. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 5-7.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the additional elements are merely
generic, routine computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to
the abstract idea and that "single decryption of sensitive information is old
and well known in the art (as shown in [the] 103 rejection below)." Final
Act. 2-3; see Ans. 5-7. More specifically, we agree with the Examiner that
reciting a "memory storing instructions," a "processor configured to execute
the instructions," and first and second computerized systems that manipulate
(i.e., receive, decrypt, generate, encrypt, and send) data represent well-
known, conventional, and routine use of memory, processors, and
computerized systems. Ans. 7. The Examiner further explains that "[ t ]he
computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform
the basic functions of a computer," and that "[g]enerically recited computer
elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea." Id.; see
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (concluding system claims that "recite a handful of
generic computer components configured to implement the" abstract idea
recited in the method "add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract
idea").
9
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
Appellants argue that, "[i]f the abstract idea is merely encrypting
business transactions as alleged by the Examiner, then the particular,
detailed steps in the remainder of the claim are certainly enough to escape
the ineligibility exception under Alice." App. Br. 12. Appellants contend
the claims recite "very particular steps [that] must be carried out," rendering
the claims more than the "abstract idea of encrypting business transactions"
because the claims are more than just "encrypting business transactions" or
"'receiving/ sending data."' J d. at 13. Appellants further assert the claims
are similar to the claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), contending Appellants' claims "'do not merely
recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-
Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet,' but
rather [are] rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks."' App. Br. 13-14
(quoting DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257).
Appellants, however do not provide persuasive evidence or argument
to support their position. See App. Br. 14--15. Instead of identifying
particular limitations, or an ordered combination of limitations, that
allegedly amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself
Appellants merely paraphrase the entirety of claim 1 and assert that
"[ c ]learly, these detailed requirements are enough to render the claim patent-
eligible." App. Br. 13. Further, we note the Specification discloses the use
of "an existing computer processor" for performing the claimed functions.
Spec. ,r 5 8, Fig. 1; see Spec. ,r,r 5 8---62 ( describing implementations of the
disclosed computer elements as systems using well-known, conventional,
10
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
and routine generic computing elements). Accordingly, we disagree with
Appellants that the claims recite significantly more under step two of Alice.
Appellants' claims merely recite using generic computing equipment
to receive transaction data including encrypted data and an identifier for
each section, decrypt portions of the received data, generate a file with the
decrypted information and an identifier for corresponding section, encrypt
the generated file, and send the received and generated data, along with
information about the encryption algorithm used, to another generic
computing system. Appellants' steps involve no more than the routine use
of a conventional computer. See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F .3d
1327, 1335-36 ("[T]he first step ... asks whether the focus of the claims is
on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or,
instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool."); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. Here,
the focus of the claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools or
upon an innovative way to use computers or other devices, but is focused on
an independently abstract idea that uses generic, well-understood,
conventional, and routine computer and networking elements as tools for
their intended purposes.
The fact that the recited process and systems allow the target system
to more efficiently decrypt the data it needs by performing the decryption of
each segment at an intermediate computer system does not improve a
computer or technology, but rather improves the process itself. See
Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 66 (1972) (explaining that the claimed
steps could easily "be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new
machinery being necessary."). Accordingly, the claimed limitations,
11
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
considered both individually and together, do not add significantly more to
the abstract idea and, therefore, do not render the subject matter patent
eligible.
Finally, Appellants argue the claims recite sufficient limitations "to
narrow the claim so as not to cover all encryption/decryption of
transactions." App. Br. 11-13. "'[W]hile preemption may signal patent
ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not
demonstrate patent eligibility."' FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1098 (quoting
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-
63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization
or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not
make them any less abstract."). Further, "[ w ]here a patent's claims are
deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo
framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed
and made moot." Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379.
Summary
For the above reasons, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10,
21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 11-18 and 22-3 0, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom
and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 7-14; 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016).
THE § 103 REJECTION
The Examiner finds the combination of von Mueller and Ching
teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in independent claims 10 and
12
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
21 and the combination of von Mueller, Ching, and Hogg teaches or
suggests the subject matter recited in independent claim 31. Final Act. 3-5;
8-10. 1 Of particular note, the Examiner finds von Mueller's paragraph 148
teaches or suggests "sending the encrypted data segment with the transaction
data to a second computerized system," as recited in independent claims 10,
21, and 31. Final Act. 4. The Examiner reiterates the finding in the Answer
and additionally cites paragraphs 270 and 271 of von Mueller, but provides
no explanation of the relevance of those paragraphs. Ans. 11.
Paragraph 148 of von Mueller describes different options for handling
the previously decrypted bank identification number (BIN) (i.e., either
encrypting the BIN or leaving the BIN unencrypted) and further explains
that certain embodiments may use separate encryption keys for different
parts of the sensitive information so that an encryption key distribution
method allows for controlling selective decryption of information at various
stages of the process or points in the transaction network. von Mueller
,r 148. Paragraphs 269 through 271 ofvon Mueller describe a portion of the
"operational flow diagram illustrating a process for processing batch
settlements where some or all of the account data has been encrypted, in
accordance with one embodiment of the invention." Id. ,r 264, Fig. 20; see
id. ,r,r 269-270.
1 The Examiner cumulatively cites Hogg for the third section. Final Act. 8-
10 (citing Hogg ,r,r 50, 56). Notably, the Examiner finds von Mueller's
disclosure of a plurality of transactions in a batch settlement file teaches or
suggest the recited "plurality of sections." Final Act. 4 ( citing von Mueller
,r 23). This paragraph does not limit the number of transactions to fewer
than three and, to the extent this paragraph teaches or suggests two sections
with encrypted payment data, the same disclosure also would at least suggest
a third section in the batch settlement file.
13
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
Specifically, paragraph 269 describes a portion of the process
involving decrypting encrypted data for a given data record in a batch
settlement file using the appropriate key that was previously retrieved and
returning the decrypted information. Id. ,r 269; see id. ,r 265. If an
expiration date field was modified to indelicate the given data record was
encrypted, the expiration date can be "returned to its original date and
reinserted into the data." Id. ,r 269. The decrypted transaction information
is then processed in embodiments where the transaction processor performs
the decryption step. Id. ,r 270. In embodiments where an interim server
decrypts the transaction information, the interim server forwards the
decrypted transaction information to the transaction processor. Id. In some
embodiments, the interim server may separate transactions from the batch
file and send the transactions "individually or in subsets to their respective
transaction processors," whereas in other embodiments "the batch file can be
reconstructed with the clear text information and sent for processing." Id.
In embodiments using an interim server to decrypt the transaction
information, von Mueller further discloses the interim server may re-encrypt
the data before sending it to the transaction processor and provides a non-
limiting example of how such encryption regimes can be implemented. Id.
Among other arguments, Appellants contend von Mueller does not
teach or suggest "sending the encrypted data segment with the transaction
data," as recited in the independent claims. App. Br. 21-22. Appellants
note the Examiner maps von Mueller's batch settlement file to the recited
"transaction data" and maps re-encrypting that data to the recited "encrypted
data segment." App. Br. 22 (citing Final Act. 4). Given the Examiner's
14
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
findings, Appellants argue von Mueller would need to teach or suggest
sending the transaction data twice (i.e., once as the original encrypted batch
settlement file and a second time with the re-encrypted batch settlement
file). Id. Appellants assert neither the additional citations to von Mueller's
paragraphs 269 through 271 nor any other aspect of the Answer address this
argument. Reply Br. 6.
We agree with Appellants that, based on the current record, the
Examiner fails to show that von Mueller teaches or suggests "sending the
encrypted data segment with the transaction data to a second" system. As
discussed above, the Examiner maps von Mueller's originally encrypted
batch settlement file to the recited transaction data and von Mueller's re-
encrypted transaction data, which subsequently is included in an encrypted
data segment, to the recited encrypted file. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner
further finds von Mueller's decryption and re-encryption of a subset of the
transaction items teaches or suggests the recited generating and encrypting a
file steps. Final Act. 4 ( citing von Mueller ,r,r 126-129, 133, 265). Even
assuming these findings are correct, the claim recites "sending the encrypted
data segment with the transaction data to a second computerized system,"
and the Examiner has not provided sufficient explanation or evidence
demonstrating that von Mueller's re-encrypted transaction data is sent to a
second system with the originally encrypted batch settlement file.
As pointed out by Appellants, the Examiner has not shown how von
Mueller's disclosure of decrypting and re-encrypting data teaches or
suggests sending the recited "encrypted data segment" that includes the
recited "file" "with the transaction data," as recited in the claims because
von Mueller discloses altering the batch settlement file to create the re-
15
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
encrypted file ( as part of the recited encrypted data segment) and, therefore,
does not suggest sending both the re-encrypted data and the originally
received batch settlement file. Nor does the Examiner sufficiently explain
why von Mueller's cited portions would have taught or suggested to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to send "the encrypted data segment with
the transaction data to a second computerized system," as recited in the
independent claims.
Without such explanations or evidence from the Examiner, we are
constrained by the record and do not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10
and 21 as obvious in view ofvon Mueller and Ching. For the same reasons
discussed above, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31
as obvious in view ofvon Mueller, Ching, and Hogg. Dependent claims 11-
18 and 22-30 ultimately depend from claims 10 and 21, respectively, and
incorporate the same limitation recited in claims 10 and 21. The Examiner
does not rely on any additional evidence or reasoning to cure the identified
deficiency in rejecting the dependent claims. Accordingly, we are persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejection dependent claims 11-18 and 22-30 for the
same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to rejection claims 10-18 and 21-
31 as directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 10-18 and 21-31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
16
Appeal2017-001472
Application 12/573,627
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(a)(l).
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
17