MasterCard International Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2022

2021003024 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2022)

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. 14/543,442 11/17/2014 Justin X. Howe P01809-US- UTIL (M01.321) 8577 125619 7590 02/11/2022 Mastercard International Incorporated c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC 50 Locust Avenue New Canaan, CT 06840 EXAMINER SHERR, MARIA CRISTI OWEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2022 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): colabella@bmtpatent.com martin@bmtpatent.com szpara@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUSTIN X. HOWE and ANDREW REISKIND __________________ Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES P. CALVE, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, 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 1-5, 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 MasterCard International Incorporated as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 6-23 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed methods anonymizes consumer transaction data so third parties cannot de-anonymize the consumer information to reveal personally identifiable information (PII) or non-public information (NPI) of consumers. See Spec. 1:4-7. Thus, third party marketers and retailers can receive and analyze consumer spending data without violating privacy laws. See id. at Spec. 1:4-2:32. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, recites a method. 1. A method of anonymizing personal information of consumers in a manner which protects against de- anonymization and ensures privacy and identity of individual consumers, comprising: receiving, by a transaction data anonymization subsystem from a transaction system, consumer transaction data comprising personal information of a plurality of consumers and item identifiers, wherein each item identifier identifies an item having at least one attribute; anonymizing, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, the consumer transaction data by: grouping, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, consumers associated with the consumer transaction data into a plurality of consumer groups based on item criteria; quantifying, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, a similarity between the plurality of consumer groups; combining, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, the plurality of consumer groups; and discarding, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, all the consumer groups that contain less than a threshold number of consumers resulting in anonymized consumer transaction data, wherein the anonymized consumer transaction data cannot be de-anonymized; and transmitting, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, the anonymized consumer transaction data to a third party device for consumer transaction analysis. Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chen,3 Oddo,4 and Hays.5 ANALYSIS Eligibility of Claims 1-5 Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 15-24. We select claim 1 as representative. Thus, claims 2-5 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites steps of analyzing consumer transaction data by grouping the data, determining a similarity between the groups, discarding groups with less than a threshold number of consumers, and selecting one of the remaining groups to provide to a third party for further analysis. Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines that these steps organize and filter information to determine a subset of the information within the mental processing grouping of abstract ideas. Id. The Examiner determines that the additional elements of a transaction data anonymizer system, a data preparation engine comprising a processor and storage device, and an anonymizing engine comprising a processor and storage device are generic computers used as tools to automate and perform the abstract idea. Id. The Examiner further determines that these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 5-6. 3 US 2014/0130071 A1, published May 8, 2014. 4 US 2007/0011039 A1, published January 11, 2007. 5 US 2003/0050928 A1, published March 13, 2003. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 4 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.6 Id. at 52-55. 6 “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 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 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. Statutory Subject Matter / Revised Guidance Step 1 We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method, which is a statutory category of a “process.” See 35 U.S.C. § 101; Final Act. 5. Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One We agree with the Examiner that the focus of claim is on analyzing consumer transaction data, grouping the data, filtering the data by similarity between groups, and discarding groups less than a threshold to organize and filter information and determine a subset for analysis by steps that can be performed as mental processes. Final Act. 5. Because claim 1 organizes and filters data relating to consumer transactions, it also recites a method of organizing the commercial interactions and sales activities and behaviors. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. . . . The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.”). The application title, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR EFFECTIVELY ANONYMIZING CONSUMER TRANSACTION DATA, reflects this focus as does claim 1’s preamble, “[a] method of anonymizing personal information of consumers.” Appeal Br. 35 (claim 1). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 6 According to the Specification, payment processors, networks, and other entities create and process large amounts of consumer spending and payment-related data each day. Spec. 1:14-15. The data is collected and processed to support transaction processing, but can be used to identify and analyze consumer spending patterns and behaviors. Id. at 1:15-19. Before this consumer commercial transaction activity data can be disclosed to non- affiliated parties for marketing analysis, it must be “de-identified” to remove the consumer PII and NPI in compliance with applicable consumer financial privacy laws thereby to “anonymize” the consumer data. Id. at 1:19-2:3. Claim 1 recites a method of “anonymizing” consumer transaction data by steps that are performable as mental processes, but for a transaction data anonymization subsystem, namely, by receiving consumer transaction data of a plurality of consumers and item identifiers, anonymizing the data by grouping consumers associated with the data into a plurality of consumer groups based on item criteria, quantifying a similarity between the plurality of consumer groups, combining the plural consumer groups, and discarding all consumer groups that contain less than a threshold number of consumers to produce anonymized consumer transaction data that cannot be de- anonymized and that can be transmitted to a third party device for consumer transaction analysis. See Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.). No technical implementation details are recited. Thus, the steps can be performed by any and all means to include as mental processes. A person can receive and organize consumer transaction data into groups, quantify similarity between groups by item (e.g., by stock keeping unit) identifiers, and combine groups. See Spec. 6:5-13, 9:29-10:14. A person can discard groups that do not meet a desired threshold size. See id. at 9:18-28. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 7 Data anonymizing subsystem 102 is described as including data preparation engine 104, anonymization engine 106, and reporting engine 108 (Spec. 5:23-25, Fig. 1) configured to receive and anonymize consumer transaction data from various data sources including payment transaction subsystem 110 for consumer payment card transactions and stock keeping unit (SKU) level transactions (id. at 7:7-29). Such a generic description confirms the abstract nature of the claimed method. Id. at 6:5-25. None of the engines are claimed. Nor are technical details of their operation claimed. The “anonymizing” steps group consumers by item criteria to quantify a similarity between consumer groups so they can be combined into larger groups that exceed a desired threshold number of consumers and transmitted to a third party device for consumer transaction analysis. Data preparation engine 104 can create a dictionary of purchase transaction data items and generate groups of consumers. Id. at 8:17-29. For media entertainment purchases, consumers can be grouped into categories such as entertainment genre, frequency watched, medium purchased, and transactions occurring within a predetermined time frame. Id. After each consumer is matched to groups, each group is analyzed to determine if it contains a threshold number of consumers required by law or regulation. Id. at 8:30-9:28. This generic description confirms the abstract nature of the anonymizing steps, which lack even these generic data processing details. A person can perform steps of receiving data, grouping consumers into groups by various criteria, and determining if a group exceeds a particular threshold as mental processes to include discarding groups that do not exceed a threshold and transmitting the groups that do exceed a threshold. This method also organizes the consumer commercial and sales activities by classifying/filtering them into categories. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 8 Steps of data collection, analysis, and reporting of results recited at this level of generality can be performed as mental processes to organize and process data. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing data in an organized manner based on classification data is a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing and extracting data in the collected data, and storing the recognized data in an organized manner are functions humans always have performed to organize and store data); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (parsing and extracting components of a document and reassembling the components into composite output files is an abstract idea of storing and editing data in which parsing and comparing are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction and to the classifying in an organized manner of TLI); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[S]electing 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.”); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering content retrieved from a network is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtaining credit card transactions from a database, making a map of credit card numbers used at an IP address, and identifying transactions that use different credit cards of different users at the same IP address to identify fraud are mental steps). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 9 Here, claim 1 similarly obtains consumer credit card transaction data from a payment network transaction database, organizes, filters, groups, and classifies the collected consumer transaction data into consumer groups, discards groups that contain less than a threshold number of consumers, and transmits anonymized consumer transaction data to a third part device. As claimed, the anonymizing merely involves basic data processing steps. Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide the claim analysis required by the Revised Guidance but instead paraphrased elements without analyzing why the claims are grouped as mental processes. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner identified specific limitations that recited the identified abstract idea as required by the Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. There is no requirement to recite limitations verbatim in their entirety. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.7 The Examiner essentially determined that every limitation of claim 1 recite mental steps. Apart from criticizing the level of detail in the Examiner’s analysis, Appellant has not explained persuasively why the limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, do not recite mental processes. See Appeal Br. 17-18. The decisions discussed above indicate otherwise. See also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims for detecting fraud or misuse in a computer environment by collecting and analyzing log files to detect improper accesses to a patient’s personal health information recited mental processes) (citing Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). 7 Indeed, even assuming the Examiner’s analysis did not meet the Revised Guidance in some manner, “[f]ailure of USPTO personnel to follow the guidance, however, is not, in itself, a proper basis for either an appeal or a petition.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 10 Appellant also argues that the steps cannot be performed in the human mind because hundreds of thousands of consumer transactions occur every second nationwide and worldwide, and it would be impossible for a human to process this transaction data mentally. Id. at 3-4; Appeal Br. 19-20. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not process a particular amount of data or recite any technical details that enable such processing to occur or require more than a generic computer implementation. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (“While the claimed system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general- purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson[, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)].”). Nor is claim 1 similar to the speech recognition claims in Ex Parte Hunan, Appeal 2018-003323 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2019) (Informative). Claim 1 does not normalize input audio to make total power consistent with training samples or generate a jitter set of audio files by translating the normalized input audio by time values, generate spectrogram frames, obtain predicted character probabilities, and decode a transcription of the input audio. Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 11 Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two: 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 the transaction data anonymization subsystem is a generic computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea without improving computers. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. Data anonymizing subsystem 102 includes data preparation engine 104, anonymization engine 106, and reporting engine 108. Spec. 5:22-25, Fig. 1. Data anonymizing subsystem 102 receives consumer transaction data from payment transaction subsystem 110. Id. at 7:7-8. These modules are generic components that can represent any number of processors, modules, computers, or computer systems that are configured for processing or communicating information via any communication network in a secured or unsecured manner. Id. at 7:30-34. A module of executable code can be a single instruction or many instructions. Id. at 8:6-16. Even if technical details were described for the data anonymization subsystem, no details are claimed. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’” (citation omitted)); Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[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.”). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 12 “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.” Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328 (citation omitted); see SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (to avoid ineligibility, claims must have specificity to transform them from claiming only a result to ones that claim a way of achieving the result); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (because content data update instructions that enable updating of displayed information are recited only at the broadest, functional level, without any explanation of how that is accomplished, let alone providing a technical means for performing that function, they are not directed to a technological improvement for performing those functions and consist only of generic and conventional information acquisition and organization steps that do not convert the abstract idea into a particular conception of how to carry out that concept); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (noting that the essentially result-focused, functional character of the claim language at issue is a frequent feature of claims that are held to be ineligible under § 101). Appellant asserts that the claim is a specific novel process that solves a technological problem of generating anonymized consumer transaction data that cannot be de-anonymized to comply with consumer privacy laws but still be useful to a third party for analysis. Appeal Br. 20-21. “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.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 13 The features cited by Appellant as a technological improvement are part of the abstract idea identified under Prong One. They are not additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“additional elements” are claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features so it does not monopolize the abstract idea). These features do not use the abstract idea with particular machines that are integral to the claims. Nor do they effect a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Even if technical improvements were described in the Specification, they are not claimed. Anonymizing consumer transaction data so it cannot be de-anonymized merely requires generic steps of grouping, quantifying, combining, and discarding. Such steps would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application even if they were additional elements. Nor does combining abstract ideas suffice for integration. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple, 842 F.3d at 1240 (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”). Thus, we determine that claim 1 lacks any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 14 Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B: 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 limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that are known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Individually, the transaction data anonymization subsystem is recited as a generic/conventional computing device used to perform conventional functions. It receives consumer transaction data, groups the data, quantifies a similarity between groups (i.e., analyzes and organizes the data in abstract terms), combines groups, and discards groups with less than a threshold number of consumers. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (“The claims in this case specify what information in the power-grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in ‘real time’; but they do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information- based abstract ideas.”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive.”). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 15 As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more than when they are considered individually. “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.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “It has been clear since Alice that 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.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290; see Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atl., 955 F.3d 971, 980-81 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (using well-known computer components to collect and analyze data, present data, and send notifications recites a logical sequence with no inventive concept); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display and transmission is not inventive and amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technology). Even if the techniques are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, that is not enough for eligibility when the techniques are abstract ideas. SAP, 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.”). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-5 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 16 Claims 1-5 Rejected Over Chen, Oddo, and Hays Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 25-33. We select claim 1 as representative with claims 2-5 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner finds that Chen teaches a method of anonymizing personal information of consumers by receiving and anonymizing consumer transaction data and transmitting the anonymized consumer action data to a third party device for consumer transaction analysis. Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner relies on Oddo to teach the grouping of consumers associated with the consumer transaction data into groups based on item criteria, quantifying a similarity between the consumer groups, and combining the groups. Id. at 8. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to combine these features of Oddo with Chen “thereby allowing for custom determination on what data is used.” Id. The Examiner cites Hays to teach discarding by the transaction data anonymization subsystem all consumer groups containing less than a threshold number of consumers from the anonymized consumer transaction data. Id. at 9. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to add this feature of Hays to Chen “thereby allowing for custom determination on what data is used.” Id. Appellant argues that Chen teaches away from the claimed process where the anonymized consumer transaction data cannot be de-anonymized by teaching that the ratings provider can de-anonymize and decrypt sampled household information but the ratings provider cannot de-anonymize and decrypt information associated with non-sampled households. Appeal Br. 26-28. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 17 “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the [claimed] solution.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Chen teaches to anonymize and encrypt consumer transaction data in alternate ways such that data either can or cannot be de-anonymized. See Chen ¶ 17 (method transfers identify and video information in a manner that allows the ratings provider to de-anonymize and decrypt the information associated with sampled households and which prevents the ratings provider from de-anonymizing and decrypting the information associated with the non-sampled households); see also Final Act. 7 (citing Chen ¶ 17); Appeal Br. 27 n.99 (citing Chen ¶ 17). The receiving party must have identification information to be able to de-anonymize and decrypt consumer transaction data. Chen ¶ 20. Absent receipt of such information, the receiving party cannot de-anonymize the anonymized information. Id. A skilled artisan thus can determine the appropriate manner in which to anonymize consumer transaction data such that it can or cannot be de-anonymized, as desired. Appellant also argues that the Examiner failed to provide a reason supported by rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness but instead provided a rationale that is “obtuse and/or unclear.” Appeal Br. 28-29. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 18 Notably, Appellant acknowledges the Examiner’s rationale articulated in the Final Office Action of combining Oddo’s features with Chen “thereby allowing for custom determination on what data is used.” Id. at 29 (citing Final Act. at 8). Oddo analyzes user input and clickstream data to generate audience analytics as Appellant acknowledges. Oddo ¶ 6; see Appeal Br. 25 (citing Oddo ¶ 6). Oddo does so by grouping consumers associated with consumer transaction data into consumer groups, quantifying similarities between the groups and combining the groups as set forth in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 8. The Examiner proposes to combine these features with Chen’s method for a benefit of “allowing for custom determination on what data is used.” Id. at 9. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2143 Section I (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, last revised June 2020) (rationales that can support a conclusion of obviousness include “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”) (cited in Appeal Br. 28); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”). Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 19 Appellant also contends that Hays does not teach “discarding, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, all the consumer groups that contain less than a threshold number of consumers resulting in anonymized consumer transaction data” as claimed. Appeal Br. 30-31. Appellant argues that Hays teaches that if the sample groups are too small, the analysts will eliminate a pair of banner points, which are columns in the data tables rather than “consumer groups” as claimed. Id. at 32 (discussing Hays ¶¶ 30, 145); see also Final Act. 9 (citing Hays ¶¶ 30, 145); Ans. 5 (citing Hays ¶¶ 30, 145, 146); Reply Br. 6-7 (arguing that paragraph 146’s discussion of determining a minimum sample size required to have three equally sized sub-groups does not teach the claimed discarding step). The Examiner has not established that Hays teaches “discarding, by the transaction data anonymization subsystem, all the consumer groups that contain less than a threshold number of consumers resulting in anonymized consumer transaction data” as claimed. Ans. 5; Final Act. 9. This claimed step is described as involving a determination of whether a group or cluster of consumer data contains a threshold number of consumers as required by law or regulation. Spec. 9:18-23, Fig. 3A (steps 304, 306). “If not, then that particular group and/or cluster and/or class of consumer transaction data is discarded 306 and not used.” Id. at 9:23-25. In contrast to the claimed step of discarding consumer groups that contain less than a threshold number, Hays expands groups that are too small by replacing their banner points with a user-specified pair of banner points that expands the size of the group when it is too small to provide statistically significant findings. See Hays ¶¶ 30, 96, 145, 146, 163. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5. Appeal 2021-003024 Application 14/543,442 20 DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5 101 Eligibility 1-5 1-5 103 Chen, Oddo, Hays 1-5 Overall Outcome 1-5 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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