Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 24, 2021

2021001120 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021)

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.
15/377,227 12/13/2016 Richard J. O'Brien ICE-15-1123C-
C-C-C-CON
6045
35811 7590 08/24/2021
IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US)
ONE LIBERTY PLACE
1650 MARKET ST, SUITE 5000
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
MADAMBA, CLIFFORD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2021 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):
pto.phil@us.dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD J. O’BRIEN, ANDREW GALLANT,
FRANCO MODIGLIANI, and FRANCIS M. VITAGLIANO
__________________

Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20–30, 32, 33, 36, 37,
39, 41, 42, 44, and 45, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 12, 15, 16, 19, 31, 34, 35, 38, 40, and 43 are cancelled. See Final
Act. 2.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A system for electronic peer-to-peer (P2P) transactions
over a network, comprising:
one or more electronic servers connected to a
communication network, each electronic server comprising a
non-transitory memory storing computer-readable instructions
that, when executed by a processor, cause the one or more
electronic servers to:
register a first entity with the system using one or
more authentication factors;
create a publicly available linked credit account
(LCA) for the first entity in a central database that is
configured to be searchable using a public search engine;
associate the LCA with one or more unique
identifiers comprising public information about the first
entity;
link the publicly available LCA to a private
account of the first entity, wherein the LCA comprises a
one-way account configured to accept deposits of one or
more assets from any entity and permit withdrawal of the
one or more assets by only the first entity, the one or
more assets comprising a decentralized nonmonetary unit
of value;
receive, via a communication network, a request
from a second entity to initiate an anonymous transaction
with the LCA based on a unique identifier of the one or
more unique identifiers, wherein the second entity is not
registered with the system;
determine that the transaction is a deposit of an
asset of the one or more assets to the LCA;
receive, via the communication network, the asset
from an electronic payment account of the second entity;
anonymously deposit the asset into the LCA, such
that identifying information about the LCA is not
divulged to the second entity and identifying information
about the second entity is not divulged to the first entity
or an institution where the LCA resides;
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

3
send, via the communication network, a
confirmation of the deposit to the first entity and the
second entity based on respective notification
preferences; and
automatically transfer the asset from the LCA to
the private account of the first entity at a predetermined
time configured by the first entity.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1–11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20–30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, and
45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception
without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 5–20. We
select claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity––fundamental economic principles, practices, or
concepts, sales activities or behaviors, following instructions, commercial or
legal interactions, managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships
between people by facilitating Peer-to-Peer (“P2P”) transfer of assets. Final
Act. 2–3, 13–14. The Examiner determines the concept is not integrated into
a practical application because transferring asset data on a generic computer
is recited at a high level of generality without improving computers or other
technology. Id. at 3–6, 14. The Examiner determines that the additional
elements do not provide significantly more than the idea but instead perform
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Id. at 6–11, 14–15.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

4
Principles of Law
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 requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.3 Id. at 52–55.

3 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

5
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) 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.
Revised Guidance Step 1
Claim 1 recites a system, which is a statutory category, namely, a
machine. 35 U.S.C. § 101; see Final Act. 13.
Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity––fundamental economic practices or principles
including mitigating risk, commercial or legal interactions including legal
obligations, sales activities or behaviors, business relations, and managing
interactions between people by following instructions or rules. Final Act. 2–
3, 13. The data processing functions can be performed as mental processes.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The claimed system performs financial transactions such as deposits
and payments without security or encryption devices. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 5, 12. The
system creates a Linked Credit Account (“LCA”) for a payee so payments
can be deposited into the LCA. Id. ¶ 48. A payer uses a payee’s unique
identifier to identify the LCA and asks the system to make the deposit. The
system verifies the transaction is a deposit to the LCA based on the unique
identifier and deposits assets into the payee’s LCA. Id. ¶¶ 51–59, 67.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

6
Exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third-
party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk is a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. Alice, 573 U.S. at 219.
In Alice, the intermediary created and updated “shadow” records to reflect
the value of each party’s actual financial accounts at exchange institutions
and approved only those transactions for which the parties had sufficient
resources. Id. Here, the system similarly creates an LCA for a payee (“first
entity”) and links the LCA to a private account of the payee. Thus, the LCA
serves as a shadow account for the payee’s private account. The system also
associates a unique identifier(s) of the payee with the LCA and uses it to
approve a request of a payer (“second entity”) to transfer an asset into the
LCA based on the unique identifier corresponding to a particular LCA and
the transaction being a deposit of the asset into the LCA. The LCA acts as a
shadow account of a payee’s private account to protect a payee’s identifying
information and private account from being divulged to a payer. Spec. ¶¶ 5–
16, 56–59, 67. The LCA accepts only deposits to eliminate the risk of funds
being taken from the LCA or a payee’s private account. See id. ¶¶ 15, 59.
A method of funds transfer is a fundamental economic practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce. See W. Express Bancshares, LLC v.
Green Dot Corp., 816 F. App’x 485, 486 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also id. at 486
(explaining that intermediated settlement in Alice and anonymous loan
shopping in Mort. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d
1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) are fundamental economic practices). Here, a
system transfers an asset from a payer to a payee’s LCA to mitigate the risk
of the payee’s private account or identifying information being divulged to
the payer and assure that payment is completed. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 22, 26, 30, 76.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

7
Appellant argues that the claims recite a very specific arrangement of
features and functions to provide anonymous and secure P2P transactions
without requiring a payer to be a registered user or establish an account with
the system. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant asserts that the system receives and
transfers an asset to an LCA so identifying information about the LCA is not
divulged to the payer and identifying information about the payer is not
divulged to the payee. Id. at 9. Appellant also argues that these computer-
centric features cannot be deemed a human activity because they solve a
technical problem of data security and authentication. Id. at 9–10.
Facilitating financial transactions between parties while maintaining
the anonymity of a party is not a technological innovation, as claimed. See
Mort. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324 (a system for anonymous loan shopping
where a borrower applies for a loan, a third party calculates the borrower’s
credit grading, lenders offer loan pricing to the third party based on the
credit grading, and (at the election of the borrower) the borrower discloses
its identity to a lender can all be performed by humans without computers).
Here, the claimed system similarly registers a first entity, creates an LCA
with a unique identifier and a link to a payee’s private account, processes a
request to deposit an asset into the LCA without revealing any identifying
information, and confirms the deposit. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). No
technical details are claimed beyond generic computers. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 221 (claims that require generic computer implementation do not make an
abstract idea patent-eligible); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be
unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding . . . in Gottschalk v. Benson[, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”).
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

8
Furthermore, receiving a request to make a transaction with an asset,
determining the transaction is a deposit, receiving the asset, depositing the
asset in an LCA, and sending confirmation to the parties can be performed
as mental processes when claimed at this level of generality without any
technical implementation details beyond generic computers and components.
See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds
the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); In re TLI Commc’ns
LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims, as
noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing
digital images in an organized manner. . . . [W]e have applied the ‘abstract
idea’ exception to encompass inventions pertaining to methods of organizing
human activity.”); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that collecting
data, recognizing certain data in the collected data, and storing recognized
data recite mental steps that humans always have performed such as banks
reviewing checks, recognizing data in checks (e.g., an amount, an account
number, and account holder), and storing data); see also Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (a parser’s determination and
extraction of parts of standard documents and reassembly of the parts into
composite files was similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content
Extraction and the classifying and organizing of TLI).
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified
above.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

9
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that additional elements in
claim 1 do not improve computers or other technology or implement the
abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Nor does
claim 1 include elements that transform or reduce a particular article to a
different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond
linking it to a particular technological environment. Id. at 55; Final Act. 3–
6, 14; Ans. 4–10.
Appellant argues that the claims recite a specific manner of improving
computer security and authentication by creating a publicly available LCA
in a central database that is configured to accept deposits of assets from any
entity but only permit withdrawal by a first entity, associating the LCA with
a unique identifier(s) of public information about the first entity so that any
entity may search for the LCA using the unique identifier(s), receiving a
request from a second entity to initiate an anonymous transaction with the
LCA based on a unique identifier where the second entity is not registered
with the system, and anonymously depositing the asset in the LCA so the
identifying information about the LCA is not divulged to the second entity
and identifying information about the second entity is not divulged to the
first entity or an institution where the LCA resides. Appeal Br. 11–12.
Appellant asserts that these features provide a technological improvement
over conventional P2P payment systems that require users to register with
the system and set up an account to make a payment. Id. at 12–13.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

10
To the extent Appellant asserts the eligibility of claim 1 based on the
novelty or nonobviousness of its features, subject-matter eligibility is not
determined by novelty or nonobviousness over prior art. SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“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. An advance of that nature is ineligible
for patenting.”); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981)
(“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process
itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim
falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”);
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“But, 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.”).
Furthermore, the asserted technical improvement of an LCA linked to
a unique identifier to accept deposits from a non-registered user to initiate an
anonymous financial transaction is a feature of the abstract idea recited in
claim 1 as a fundamental economic concept of intermediated settlement used
to organize human activities involved in a financial transaction as discussed
under Prong One. As such, these features are not additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“additional elements” are claim features, limitations,
and/or steps recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see
also Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include
“additional features” to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

11
Here, the concept of intermediated settlement using an LCA shadow
account in claim 1 yields the asserted improvement to security by allowing
the parties to the payment transaction and their financial accounts to remain
anonymous. The second entity does not learn identifying information about
the first entity’s LCA (or the linked private account), and the first entity and
LCA institution do not learn identifying or financial information about the
second entity because the system handles transaction details for the parties
but without improving computers or other technology. Spec. ¶¶ 15, 51–59.
The system receives the asset from a payment account of the second
entity and deposits the asset into the LCA without divulging the identifying
information of the LCA to the second entity or identifying information of the
second entity to the first entity or the institution where the LCA resides. The
system’s role as an intermediary/clearinghouse reduces transactional and/or
settlement risks without using any apparent technical improvement to do so.
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–220 (a third-party settlement intermediary and/or
“clearing house” is a building block of the modern economy); LendingTree,
LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x 991, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same).
These features reflect user preferences and business/transaction rules
defined by the parties rather than improvements to computers or technology.
Spec. ¶¶ 18, 19, 38, 59, 75, 77, 79, Abstract. Payers may choose to remain
anonymous. Id. ¶¶ 30, 52, 57, 59. The parties may receive confirmation via
notification preferences. Id. Such features are part of the abstract idea. See
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (generating tasks based upon rules to be completed
upon the occurrence of an event recited an abstract idea similar to other
fundamental economic concepts). They also reflect users’ mental processes.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

12
Similar to the “shadow” records and accounts in Alice, the LCA is
created and updated by an intermediary system with assets received from a
second entity to reflect the financial transfer of the asset. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219. As a third party intermediary, the system ensures that the asset
received from the second entity payer is deposited into the LCA of the first
entity so the asset subsequently can be transferred from this LCA “shadow”
account to a private account of the first entity that is linked to the LCA at a
predetermined time set by the payee. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
The system’s operation is similar to the concept of payment escrow.
The intermediary system verifies that a unique identifier provided by a payer
corresponds to a particular LCA and the financial transaction is a deposit of
an asset into the LCA before depositing the asset into the LCA. See Boom!
Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc., 839 F. App’x 528, 532–33 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Boom! argued that the claims recited a technological improvement over the
prior art systems by confirming and processing online payments by using an
identification code known only to the buyer and the third party to verify the
consummation of the transaction. Id. at 532. The court held that the “use of
an identification code known only to the buyer and the third party to verify a
transaction could be performed just as readily without the use of computers
and cannot be said to be a ‘technological’ solution that improves the
functioning of a computer system.” Id. In response to arguments that the
use of the buyer identifier increased online payment security without making
payment flow burdensome by removing the need to use credit card numbers,
the court held, “the use of the buyer identifier to confirm consummation of
the transaction serves only to authenticate the transaction and is not rooted in
a technological problem or solution.” Id. at 533.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

13
As claimed, the “unique identifier” linked to an LCA of a first entity
does not represent an improvement to computers or other technology. It is
part of the abstract idea of an authenticated anonymous financial transaction.
A “unique identifier can be anything that associates a particular linked credit
account with the client, such as a nickname, address, e-mail address, license
plate number, title, or the like.” Spec. ¶ 56. “Once the payer has the unique
identifier, the next step is to contact the central directory/processor,” which
serves as the third party intermediary to facilitate the financial transaction.
Id. Once the proper LCA is located, the asset is deposited by the central
directory/processor translating the unique identifier into the client’s linked
credit account number and locating and transferring the asset into the LCA
without divulging the LCA account information to the payer. Id. ¶ 58.
Essentially, the system (central directory/processor) uses the unique
identifier to authenticate the transaction before depositing the asset into the
appropriate LCA associated with the unique identifier similar to the use of a
buyer identifier in Boom! Payments, 839 F. App’x at 532–33. See also
Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (after verifying the details of the transaction by using
shadow records, the intermediary allows the transactions to occur); Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1376–78 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (entering an order code received from a remote seller at a POS
terminal to allow a customer to pay for items ordered from the remote seller
at the third party’s local establishment is a fundamental business practice);
Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. CitiGroup Inc., 834 F. App’x 591, 593 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(intermediated settlement with a discount for early payment is a method of
exchanging financial obligations between two parties via a third-party
intermediary).
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

14
Appellant argues that the automatic transfer of assets from the LCA to
a private account of the first entity enables users to minimize the time that
assets remain in the LCA before being made available to a private account
via an instant transfer and to maximize the value of the assets in the LCA by
delaying the transfer of the assets until a currency exchange rate is favorable.
Appeal Br. 13. It is unclear how an instant transfer of an asset also delays
the transfer of the asset until an exchange rate is favorable. Nor is it clear
that either feature is actually claimed when the automatic transfer occurs “at
a predetermined time configured by the first entity.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims
App.). The Specification indicates that automatic transfers can be made
periodically or in real time (Spec. ¶ 55) or immediately (id. ¶ 67). It is not
clear that a transfer “at a predetermined time” occurs immediately after the
asset is received into the LCA. Even so, no technical details are claimed for
such a transfer to indicate improvements to computers or other technologies.
As a result, “the claims here do not ‘ha[ve] the specificity required to
transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of
achieving it.’” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955
F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167 (“Merely
claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to
technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance,’
does not make a claim eligible at step one.”)); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1356 (result-focused, functional claim language has been a frequent feature
of ineligible claims). The “one or more electronic servers,” “communication
network,” and “processor” are recited as generic components. Ans. 6–7.
The electronic servers, communication network, and processor are not
described in the Specification. They appear only in the original claims.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

15
The central processor can be a bank or other third party payment
processor entity that performs payee enrollment and payment processing
functions. Spec. ¶ 49. The central processor acts as a doorway to allow
funds to travel in only one direction to create a one-way account so that no
one but the client payee can withdraw funds from the LCA. Id. ¶ 50. The
central processor may process financial transactions by receiving funds from
a payer and transferring the funds to the LCA of the payee so that the payer
can send money to a payee while retaining total anonymity. Id. ¶ 52. This
high level generic description of the central processor as an intermediary that
performs a financial transaction between two parties confirms it does not
improve computers, networks, or other technology. It performs steps of the
abstract idea identified under Prong One to intermediate financial transfers.
The “linked credit account” is claimed (and described) as a generic
account that is associated with a unique identifier of a payee account holder
and linked to a private account of the payee. Spec. ¶ 48. It is established at
a financial institution to accept deposits. Id. ¶¶ 51, 53, 56. This generic
description of the LCA in the Specification confirms its generic nature as an
element that accepts financial transfers for a payee. It functions similarly to
shadow accounts in Alice in that it provides an account into which funds can
be deposited for transfer to a linked private account.
Even if we treat the other elements of claim 1 as additional elements
rather than features of the abstract idea, they still fail to integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application because they are recited at a high level of
generality in terms of desired results that they achieve without any technical
implementation details of how they achieve the results or any indication that
they improve computers or other technology. Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

16
Any improvement to security from registering a first entity with the
system by using authentication factors is recited as an abstraction rather than
a technical improvement. Appellant does not purport to have invented or to
have improved the use of authentication factors in the claimed system.
The Specification describes authentication factors as “data used to
verify an individual’s identity typically during the course of effecting the
transfer, storage and retrieval of informational and/or monetary assets.”
Spec. ¶ 39. Authentication factors include specific information known about
an individual, biometric information for an individual, digital credential or
token of an individual, device-specific or chip information, and operating
instructions for a transfer, storage, and/or retrieval transaction. Id. ¶ 40.
This generic description of authentication factors indicates it is an
abstraction rather than a technical improvement. See Elec. Commc’n Techs.,
LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181–82 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(purported security measures to increase security by enabling a first party to
input authentication information, storing the authentication information, and
providing the authentication information to a customer to authenticate a
delivery notice was an abstract idea where the “authentication information”
was described as any information recognizable to the party being contacted);
see also Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atl., 955 F.3d 971, 978
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (verifying financial documents to reduce transactional fraud
is a patent ineligible fundamental business practice implemented using basic
computer equipment for verification). Claim 1 recites the authentication on
generic computer equipment without claiming any technical improvements
or even technical details of the process. Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

17
Any increases in security resulting from receiving assets into an LCA
rather than a private account does not improve computers or technology. A
similar claim to securely processing a credit card transaction with a payment
server different from the server on which the item is listed for purchase was
an abstract idea. See Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 778 F.
App’x 859, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In response to arguments that switching
online communication between a buyer and a merchant to a secure channel
for transmitting payment information implemented a new technological
solution of using a novel dedicated payment server logically and physically
separated from a conventional merchant server to increase the security of
online transactions, the court explained that
[t]he claim recites, in merely functional, result-oriented terms,
receiving credit card payment information at a server different
from the server on which the item for purchase is listed,
sending the payment information “to an established financial
channel,” receiving a “processing decision” from that channel,
sending payment confirmation, and updating the server
supporting the website listing the item that the item was
purchased. See Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d
1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding a “broad, result-oriented”
construction of a term encompassed a patent-ineligible abstract
concept rather than a technical improvement because “[i]nstead
of claiming a solution for producing that result, the claim in
effect encompasses all solutions”).
Innovation Sciences, 778 F. App’x at 863.
Here, claim 1 recites a similar result-oriented step of depositing an
asset into a dedicated LCA that is separate from a private account of the first
entity to enhance security. Essentially, the system switches the transaction
between the first and second entity to the LCA from the first entity’s private
account without claiming any technical improvements to do so.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

18
Claiming generic computer processing to achieve desired results by
any and all possible means presents no more than conceptual advice. See
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is
directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.”).
As a result, the purported additional security resulting from the one-
way nature of the LCA that permits withdrawals of deposited assets by the
first entity and no other entity and the disclosure of only publicly available
information about the owner of the LCA represents conceptual advice of a
functional nature. No technical implementation details are claimed beyond
the concept of intermediated transactions using a publicly accessible LCA
similar to a shadow account in Alice. See Appeal Br. 14.
The holding in Enfish illustrates why claim 1 here is not integrated
into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. See Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the claims
recited a specific improvement to the way that computers operated by using
a self-referential table. Id. at 1336. The self-referential table improved
computer functionality via a “means for configuring” four-step algorithm
that created a logical table in a computer memory with rows corresponding
to records and columns corresponding to fields or attributes. Each row and
column was assigned an object identification number that acted as a pointer
to the associated row or column. Information for each column was stored in
one or more rows to render the table self-referential so new columns could
be added to the logical table for immediate use just by creating new column
definition records that are stored in the rows as an index or information to
define the columns. Id. at 1336–37; see Appeal Br. 14–15.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

19
“Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technol-
ogy just as hardware improvements can, and . . . the improvements can be
accomplished through either route.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. However,
“to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality,
the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the
computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish
Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1336–39).
Here, claim 1 does not improve the functionality of computers. As
claimed, the LCA is associated with a unique identifier of a first entity and
linked to a private account of the first entity, and it receives an asset via a
communication network from an electronic payment account of the second
entity. The asset is transferred automatically from the LCA to the private
account at a predetermined time configured by the first entity using generic
computer servers, a communication network, and a processor. The system
and LCA perform basic data processing using generic computer components
without improving the functioning of those computers. Even if the system
improves security and anonymity over conventional systems as Appellant
asserts (Appeal Br. 14–15), the improvements result from implementing the
abstract idea of intermediated settlement on generic computers. It does not
improve the way that computers operate to provide the security. The system
receives a request from a second entity to initiate an anonymous transaction
with the LCA based on a unique identifier of a first entity and matches the
unique identifier to the appropriate LCA to receive the transferred asset
without using a self-referential table or similar improved data structures to
reference the unique identifiers to the LCA or to process the transaction.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

20
The decision in BASCOM illustrates why claim 1 here is not patent
eligible. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In BASCOM, the court held that
The inventive concept described and claimed in the [patent] is
the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote
from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific
to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the
benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a
filter on the ISP server.
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. Here, the claimed system does not filter a
request to deposit funds into an LCA. It merely associates an LCA with a
unique identifier. Even if we read a filtering function into claim 1, “filtering
content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method
of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be
abstract.” Id. at 1348; see Appeal Br. 15.
The Specification indicates customers may register authentication
factors and identity attributes with a registry to allow the customer to make
assured, anonymous purchases from merchants while protecting their
privacy. Spec. ¶¶ 28–30. Such activity of organizing and accessing data
records by creating an index-searchable registry or database is longstanding
conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.
See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, using a unique identifier to locate a particular
LCA in a database does not improve computers, databases, networks, or
other technologies as claimed. See Appeal Br. 15.
Creating a publicly available LCA for the first entity in a central
database configured to be searchable using a public search engine suffers
from the same deficiency. See Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

21
No technical details are claimed for a searchable LCA beyond using a
generic public search engine. The Specification indicates that this feature
uses a prior art database of an Internet Domain Name Service (“DNS”) and a
public search engine to scan the public DNS to locate the relevant LCA.
Spec. ¶ 67. At best, such activity organizes and accesses records by creating
an index-searchable database to facilitate searches, which is longstanding
conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.
See Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1327 (“[T]he invention relates to
‘locating information in a database, and . . . using an index that includes tags
and metafiles to locate the desired information.’”); West View Research,
LLC v. Audi AG, 685 F. App’x 923, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (receiving and
analyzing data queries, retrieving/processing information as a response, and
generating a visual or audio response to the data query do not improve any
computer functions as implemented on generic components); I/P Engine,
Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982, 994–95 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer J,
concurring) (filtering information for relevance to a search query using
content and collaborative data was well-established and widely recognized at
the time of the invention and did not improve computers or technology).
McRO illustrates why claim 1 here is not patent eligible. McRO, Inc.
v. Namco Bandai Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
claims were directed to creating something physical as a display of ‘lip
synchronization and facial expressions’ of animated characters on screens.
The improvement was to how the physical display operated to produce better
quality images with the specificity required to transform a claim from one
claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.” SAP, 898 F.3d
at 1167 (citing McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313–14).
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

22
McRO claimed a specific process of automated lip-synchronization of
3-D characters that applied a specific order of rules as sub-sequences of
phonemes, timing, and the weight of visual expression at a particular timing
set by a morph weight set. Here, claim 1 uses electronic servers to register a
first entity and create an LCA with associated unique identifiers and a linked
private account to receive an asset from a second entity without technical
details. Even if the Specification described technical rules or improvements
to achieve this result, they are not claimed. See Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345
(“[T]he complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the
specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept
into a patent-eligible system or method.”).
Example 40 of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Examples describes a
method of adaptive of monitoring network traffic, which is not claimed here.
Claim 1 does not improve network traffic monitoring as in Example 40.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that
are known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers
if a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” activity).
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

23
Individually, the additional elements are generic computer elements
that implement the abstract idea as tools. The description of these elements
indicates they are well known enough that further description is not required
to understand their operation. See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 15, 38, 48–63, 67, 72–75.
Appellant argues that the limitations of claim 1 are significantly more
than the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 19–20. However, these limitations are
elements of the abstract idea and do not provide an inventive concept. See
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018
(“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly
more’ than that ineligible concept.”).
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the
limitations are considered individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”).
Even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, the
improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers or technology.
See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576,
591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“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. An advance of that nature is ineligible for
patenting.”).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–11, 13, 14, 17,
18, 20–30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 45, which fall therewith.
Appeal 2021-001120
Application 15/377,227

24
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13, 14,
17, 18, 20–
30, 32, 33,
36, 37, 39,
41, 42, 44, 45
101 Eligibility 1–11, 13, 14,
17, 18, 20–
30, 32, 33,
36, 37, 39,
41, 42, 44, 45

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