Intercontinental Exchange Holdings, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 24, 20212021001120 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation