MasterCard International Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

13958951 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2020)

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.
13/958,951 08/05/2013 Peter J. Groarke P01086-US-
UTIL (M01.239)
6153
125619 7590 08/11/2020
Mastercard International Incorporated
c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
50 Locust Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
EXAMINER
QAYYUM, ZESHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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 PETER J. GROARKE, MARK WIESMAN,
JOHN DELTON CHISHOLM, THEUNIS JOHANNES GERBER,
ISHFAQ A. LONE, and GREGORY WILLIAMSON

Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES A. WORTH, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, and 10, which are all pending claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Mastercard International Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July
1, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 4, 2019), the Examiner’s
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Feb. 5, 2019), and Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 19, 2019).
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

2
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 11–18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
Appellant’s application relates “to techniques for conducting secure
online purchase transactions, and more particularly to techniques for
providing 3-D Secure transactions on-behalf-of (OBO) merchants.” Spec.
1:2–4.
The Claims
Claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with added notations, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A 3-D Secure on-behalf-of merchant authentication
method, comprising:
[(a)] receiving, by a 3-D secure on-behalf-of (OBO)
merchant service computer from an access control server (ACS)
computer, a payer authentication response (PARes) message
associated with a remote purchase transaction which includes
PARes data, a time and date of the remote purchase transaction,
and a universal cardholder authentication field (UCAF);
[(b)] storing, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant service
computer, the PARes message in a database;
[(c)] receiving, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant service
computer from a payment network, a purchase transaction
authorization request message comprising PARes data;
[(d)] comparing, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant
service computer, the PARes data of the purchase transaction
authorization request message to the stored PARes data;
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

3
[(e)] determining, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant
service computer, that the PARes data of the purchase
transaction authorization request message received from the
payment network matches stored PARes data;
[(f)] comparing, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant
service computer, the time and date associated with the stored
PARes message to a time and date of receipt of the purchase
transaction authorization request;
[(g)] determining, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant
service computer, that the result of the comparison is one of
equal to or less than a time period indicating timely receipt by
the OBO merchant service computer of the purchase transaction
authorization request message from the payment network;
[(h)] generating, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant
service computer, an updated purchase transaction authorization
request message by adding the UCAF associated with the stored
PARes data to the purchase transaction authorization request
message received from the payment network; and
[(i)] transmitting, by the 3-D secure OBO merchant
service computer to the payment network, the updated purchase
transaction request message for forwarding to an issuer
financial institution for 3-D Secure purchase transaction
authorization processing.

Appeal Br. 27–28, Claims App.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
DISCUSSION
Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

4
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice,
573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the
concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
(“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”).
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

5
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to whether
the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

6
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, then we consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Analysis
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, and 10 as a
group. See Appeal Br. 9–26. We select claim 1 as representative such that
claims 3–5, 7, 9, and 10 stand or fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Step 1
Applying Step 1 of the Guidance (which is unchanged from the prior
guidance) to the present case, we determine: independent claim 1 recites a
“method,” which is a “process” falling within one of the categories
enumerated under § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites concepts relating to
certain methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 3 (citing
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50, 52, 54). In reaching this determination, the
Examiner states that the claims involve a series of steps for receiving and
storing a PARes message; receiving a purchase transaction authorization
request; determining by comparing data from the purchase transaction
authorization request with the stored payer authorization response message;
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

7
generating an update purchase authorization request and the updated
purchase authorization request message, which are performing the
transaction and organizing the data, and more specifically involves
comparing previously stored PARes message with the data in purchase
authorization request and update the request and forward the request. Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of unpatentability because the Examiner failed to identify specific
limitations and how they compare to the claims at issue in Alice. See Appeal
Br. 20. Appellant particularly highlights the following claim language in
arguing that the claims do not fall within the enumerated categories of the
guidance: “a time and date of the remote purchase transaction,” “matches”
stored PARes data, “compares the time and date associated with the stored
PARes message to a time and date of receipt of the purchase transaction
authorization request,” and “determines that the result of the comparison is
one of equal to or less than a time period indicating timely receipt of the
purchase transaction authorization request message.” Appeal Br. 18–19.
We analyze the claim language, including that emphasized by Appellant,
anew in view of the Guidance and applicable case law as follows.
The Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial
exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Guidance
identifies three judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts,
(2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such as fundamental
economic practices, and (3) mental processes.
In context, claim 1 recites the idea of verifying a purchase transaction
authorization request using PARes data and time information. In particular,
the claim is a method in which the following steps are performed: (c)
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

8
“receiving . . . a purchase transaction authorization request message
comprising PARes data”; (d) “comparing . . . the PARes data of the purchase
transaction authorization request message to the stored PARes data;” (e)
“determining . . . that the PARes data of the purchase transaction
authorization request message received from the payment network matches
stored PARes data”; (f) “comparing . . . the time and date associated with the
stored PARes message to a time and date of receipt of the purchase
transaction authorization request”; (g) “determining . . . that the result of the
comparison is one of equal to or less than a time period”; (h) “generating . . .
an updated purchase transaction authorization request message by adding the
UCAF associated with the stored PARes data to the purchase transaction
authorization request message received from the payment network”; and (i)
“transmitting . . . the updated purchase transaction request message for
forwarding to an issuer financial institution for 3-D Secure purchase
transaction authorization processing.”
In other words, the claimed method recites the steps as follows.
Limitation (c) receives a purchase transaction authorization request
including PARes data. Limitation (d) compares PARes data. Limitation (e)
determines whether the PARes data from limitation (d) is a match.
Limitation (f) compares time and date information from two sources.
Limitation (g) determines whether the time and date information in
limitation (f) is a match. Limitation (h) generates an updated purchase
transaction authorization request with added information. Limitation (i)
transmits the updated purchase transaction authorization request for
authorization processing.
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

9
In this manner, claim 1 recites the idea of verifying a purchase
transaction authorization request using payer authentication response data
and time information. Similar to Bozeman where a set of claims was
directed a method of verifying financial documents (i.e., a method of
reducing check fraud by receiving financial transaction data from two
sources including the point of sale and comparing that data to verify a
transaction), we determine that the idea of verifying a purchase authorization
request using payer authentication response data and time information is a
longstanding commercial practice. See Bozeman Financial LLC v. Federal
Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Appellant
argues that the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity”
does not cover human operation of machines. Reply Br. 3. However, we
determine that the category applies regardless of whether it is being
performed by computers. See also Bozeman, 955 F.3d at 978. Accordingly,
we determine that the recited idea is a fundamental economic practice,
which is one of a certain methods of organizing human activity, and an
abstract idea recognized in the Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (Certain
methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic
practices and commercial interactions involving sales activities).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, we also determine that
steps (d)–(g) recite mental processes, which is an abstract idea, as in
Bozeman, where the claim involved the steps of comparing data from two
different financial records in order to verify the transaction and was
understood to be an abstract idea. See id., at 979–80 (collecting and
analyzing information). In particular, we determine that the steps of
comparing the payer authentication response data and associated time
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

10
information, and determining whether there is a match, can be performed in
the human mind or with pen and paper, and is therefore a mental process,
which is a form of abstract idea recognized in the Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52 (“Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.)”).
Step 2A, Prong Two
Having determined that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, our
analysis under the Guidance turns now to determining whether there are
“additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We use the term
“additional elements” for “claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are
recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.” See Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails
to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed
to” the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. A claim may
integrate the judicial exception when, for example, it reflects an
improvement to a technology or technical field. Id. at 55.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of an “on-behalf-of (OBO)
merchant service computer” and an “access control server (ACS) computer.”
The Specification indicates that the on-behalf-of (OBO) merchant service
computer is a generic computer. For example, the Specification states:
“The 3-D Secure OBO merchant service computer may be conventional in
its hardware aspects but may be controlled by software to cause it to operate
in accordance with aspects of the methods presented herein.” Spec. 12:9–
11. The Specification does not describe the access control server (ACS)
computer with any greater specificity.
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

11
According to the Specification, the embodiments of the authentication
process pertain to “card not present (CNP) transactions wherein a novel on-
behalf-of (OBO) merchant service process operates to carry out a universal
cardholder authentication field (UCAF) or a MasterCard advance
registration program (MARP) (i.e., a 3-D Secure-type process) injection into
a cardholder’s purchase transaction authorization request en-route to the
issuer financial institution (FI), which operation would otherwise be carried
out by the merchant and/or by the acquirer FI.” Spec. 6:29–7:6. The
Specification describes a registration process to accomplish its goal. See id.
at 7:21–8:19; 13:14–24. In a particular example, a merchant may decide that
all consumers who purchase goods and/or services online with payment card
accounts, including store accounts, will have their purchases processed in
accordance with the 3-D Secure OBO merchants authentication service. Id.
at 7:23–28. The store may therefore may enroll in the 3-D Secure on behalf-
of (“OBO”) merchants authentication service by providing required
merchant identification information to the entity providing the 3-D Secure
OBO merchants authentication service (which may be, for example, a
payments processing company). Id. at 7:28–8:1. The cardholders (and their
financial institutions) may be unaware of the 3-D Secure OBO merchant
service processing. Id. at 8:9–12.
Appellant argues claim 1 is directed to improvements in computer
functionality or other technology that are not abstract. Appeal Br. 21 (citing
MPEP 2106.04(a)). Appellant argues that the method of claim 1 reduces
merchant costs, improves the speed of online purchase transaction
authorization processing, and provides an improved consumer shopping
experience without sacrificing the security of the transaction. Appeal Br. 21.
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

12
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires a specific structure (which includes a
3-D Secure OBO merchant service computer, an access control server
computer, a database, and a payment network) paired with a prescribed
functionality (generating and then transmitting an updated purchase
transaction request message to an issuer financial institution for transaction
authorization processing) that is directly related to the structure, which
results in a method that is patent-eligible. Id. at 21–22. Appellant argues
that claim 1 recites an improvement to the functionality of a 3-D secure
OBO merchant service computer by requiring interactions between the 3-D
secure OBO merchant service computer and an ACS computer, a payment
network, and a database to generate an updated purchase transaction
authorization request message (by adding a UCAF associated with stored
PARes data to the purchase transaction authorization request message) and
transmitting it to the payment network to forward to an issuer FI (financial
institution) for 3-D secure purchase transaction authorization processing. Id.
at 23.
As to the recited computers, we determine that these computers each
serve as a generic processor. See Spec. 6:22–29, 7:17–20, 8:20–9:5. The
mere presence of a processor does not necessarily indicate a technical
solution. “[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic
computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-
eligible.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256. “Courts have examined claims
that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying,
patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a
person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335
(Fed. Cir. 2015), quoted in Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

13
Claim 1 also recites the following additional limitations: (a)
“receiving . . . a payer authentication response (PARes) message associated
with a remote purchase transaction which includes PARes data, a time and
date of the remote purchase transaction, and a universal cardholder
authentication field (UCAF)” and limitation (b) “storing . . . the PARes
message in a database”.
Consistent with prior decisions of the Federal Circuit, we determine
that these steps represent insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g.,
CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit
card transactions is mere data gathering); Versata, 793 F.3d at 1334 (storing
and retrieving information in memory did not impose meaningful limits on
the scope of the claims); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (receiving or sending data over a network using
was considered generic); see also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84 (discussing post-
solution components). Indeed, in Bozeman, the claim at issue also included
the steps of receiving, storing, and displaying the data and were analyzed
together with the other steps of verifying the financial transaction. See 955
F.3d at 979.
To the extent that Appellant is relying on a network of computers to
provide secure access, we determine that this use of networked computers is
similar to the claim at issue in Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
Inc., in which the use of an authentication server, an access server, and an
Internet Protocol network combined with identity data did not to rise to the
level of an inventive concept where the elements were indisputably generic.
See 696 F. App’x 1014, 1017–1018. Nor does Appellant claim or describe
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

14
an advance in networking technology, as in BASCOM, where the court
determined that there was an ordered combination of conventional
components that provided for filtering of internet content based on the
location of a filtering component in a network. BASCOM Global Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Having determined under step 2A of the Guidance that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance
whether claim 1 includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception
that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field, or merely
appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, specified at a
high level of generality to the judicial exception. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The
relevant inquiry is whether the claim includes additional elements, i.e.,
elements other than the abstract idea itself, that “‘transform the nature of the
claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
We find that the additional elements, taken individually or as an
ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, or conventional. The
Examiner determines that the combination of elements recited in the claims
merely recite the concept of performing the transaction and organizing the
data, and the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the
computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. Final
Act. 9. We agree. The Specification indicates that “a remote authentication
process may include a process where a consumer is making a purchase or
other transaction with a remote website or merchant server (e.g., over the
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

15
Internet) using a browser on a mobile device (such as a mobile telephone,
smartphone, tablet computer, and/or laptop computer and the like).” Spec.
6:22–26. The Specification further states that “[a] remote authentication
process may also include a process where a consumer is making a purchase
or other transaction with a remote website or server using a browser on a
personal computer or any other type of Internet-connected device (such as a
television, household appliance, office device, or the like).” Id. at 6:26–29;
id. at 12:22–23 (“data communications over conventional computer-to-
computer data networks”). As described above, the 3-D Secure OBO
merchant service computer and the access control server are described
generically or referred to as “conventional” hardware or processors. See id.
at 12:9–21.
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Using a computer for receiving, storing,
and analyzing data amounts to basic functions of a computer. See Elec.
Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). All
of these computer functions are well-known or routine activities that are
performed only for their conventional uses. See In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a
possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and
‘storing,’ ... those functions can be achieved by any general purpose
computer without special programming”). Accordingly, we determine that
the Examiner’s findings are supported by the Specification and are
consistent with other cases in which the courts have found such additional
elements to be conventional. See, e.g., Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

16
& Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Taken individually,
and as an ordered combination, the claim does not provide significantly
more than the recited abstract idea. See id.
Appellant contends that the claims apply additional elements in a
manner beyond what has been recognized by the courts as well-understood,
routine, and conventional for computers and computing devices, resulting in
claims that recite patent-eligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 22; Reply Br. 6.
Appellant argues that the method of claim 1 provides a specific 3-D Secure
OBO merchant authentication process that not only reduces fraud and risk,
but that also permits merchants to avoid utilizing a merchant plug-in (MPI)
application (thus saving costs) without sacrificing security. Appeal Br. 25;
Reply 6. We are unpersuaded by this argument because Appellant is not
relying on the additional elements for the inventive concept but is rather
relying on the claimed idea itself for an inventive concept, which we have
already found abstract, as addressed above in Step 2A, Prong One. See BSG
Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (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.”).
Appellant also argues that the claim is patentably distinct over the
prior art because the Examiner withdrew previous obviousness rejections.
Appeal Br. 25. However, non-obviousness under § 103, as argued, would be
insufficient for proving non-abstractness. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 89–90;
SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself
Appeal 2020-000620
Application 13/958,951

17
satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under § 101, and claims 3–5, 7, 9, and 10, which fall therewith.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 9, and
10
§ 101 1, 3–5, 7, 9,
and 10

Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 7, 9,
and 10

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