Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 14, 20212021001164 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 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. 15/995,995 06/01/2018 Scott D. BLAKESLEY 122202-5453 (P34736US1) 5741 142248 7590 10/14/2021 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Apple) 600 Anton Boulevard Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 EXAMINER HSIEH, TIMOTHY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/14/2021 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): OCIPDocketing@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SCOTT D. BLAKESLEY, BENJAMIN D. CHESTER, CHRISTOPHER SHARP, GLEN W. STEELE, PRITESH M. DAVE, and YOUSUF H. VAID __________________ Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, 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 1–20. Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 5. 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 Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 recites: 1. A device comprising: at least one processor configured to: receive, from a server associated with a service provider, an indication of a card account of a user; determine whether the card account is eligible to be added to a first device for use in a wireless transaction system based on the indication of the card account received from the server associated with the service provider; responsive to a determination that the card account is eligible to be added to the first device for use in the wireless transaction system based on the indication of the card account received from the server associated with the service provider, transmit a notification to the first device for display, the notification indicating that the card account is eligible to be added to the first device for use in the wireless transaction system; and initiate provisioning, on a secure element of the first device, an applet corresponding to the card account when an approval for adding the card account to the first device for use in the wireless transaction system is received responsive to the notification. REJECTIONS Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1–6, 8–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Romagnoli.2 Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Romagnoli and Van Os.3 2 US 2012/0136786 A1, published May 31, 2012. 3 US 10,255,595 B2, issued April 9, 2019. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 3 ANALYSIS Eligibility of Claims 1–20 Appellant largely argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 23–28. We select claim 1 as representative and separately address Appellant’s other arguments regarding the dependent claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner determines receiving an indication of a card account of a user, determining whether the account has been added to an electronic payment application, transmitting a message of an indication that the card account is available to be added to the electronic payment application, and causing the card account to be added recite certain methods of organizing human activity of commercial or legal interactions to include contracts, legal obligations, and business relations. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner determines that the additional element of a processor is a generic, general purpose, commercially available computing element that is programmed to perform the limitations. Final Act. 5. The Examiner also determines that the processor performs generic computer functions as mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not provide a meaningful limit on practicing the exception. Id. The Examiner further determines that the device, service provider, and wireless transaction system are additional generic computing elements. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner also determines that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are used to perform steps that amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and, in combination, do not offer substantially more than when each is considered by itself. Id. at 6. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 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.4 Id. at 52–55. 4 “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 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 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. Step 1 Claim 1 recites a device, which is a statutory category of a machine. See Final Act. 6; 35 U.S.C. § 101. 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. See Final Act. 3–4. The Revised Guidance enumerates this concept as a fundamental economic practice or principle involving financial transactions, commercial or legal interactions in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The application title “NOTIFICATION BASED PROVISIONING OF CARD ACCOUNTS” indicates the claims relate to providing card accounts. According to the Specification, card accounts are provisioned on a mobile device as applets for a wireless or contactless transaction system. Spec. ¶ 2. The applets correspond to credentials of a card account and may be used to conduct wireless transactions with wireless transaction terminals in lieu of using physical cards that correspond to the card accounts. Id. ¶ 12. Claim 1 recites a device and a processor configured to perform the provisioning. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 6 As claimed, the limitations involve data processing steps that organize the activities of provisioning a user’s card account information on a device for use in financial transactions, commercial or legal interactions, and sales activities. First, wireless transaction server 110 receives an “indication” of a card account associated with a user. According to the Specification, service provider server 120 identifies a user’s card account and transmits indication 512 of the identified account to wireless transaction system server 110. See Spec. ¶¶ 41, 52, Figs. 4 (402), 5 (510). No technical details are claimed (or described) for this transmission of an “indication” of a user’s card account. Next, a determination is made whether the card account is eligible for use in a wireless transaction system based on the received indication from the first limitation. No technical details are claimed or described for this determination. According to the Specification, wireless transaction system server 110 may perform an eligibility check to determine whether the service provider of the card account supports wireless transactions, whether the card account is registered with the wireless transaction system, and/or whether the service provider can support provisioning of an applet on a device. Spec. ¶¶ 43, 55. If the card account is determined to be eligible to be added to the first device for use in the wireless transaction system, the processor “transmit[s] a notification to the first device for display, the notification indicating that the card account is eligible to be added to the first device for use in the wireless transaction system.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claim 1). Again, no technical details are recited or described. According to the Specification, wireless transaction system server 110 sends a notification message to a user’s device 102A (e.g., a text message) and may include a selectable link for the user to select to add the card account to the device. Spec. ¶¶ 45, 46, 56, 57. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 7 Similar claims to processing financial transaction data and financial instruments involve methods of organizing human activity. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tracking financial transactions to determine if they exceed a pre-set spending limit (budgeting) is similar to abstract ideas involving methods of organizing human activity); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (receiving credit applications from one source, selectively forwarding the data, and forwarding reply data to the first source involve the concept of processing information through a clearinghouse similar to claim 1 in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)). When recited at this level of generality without technical details, such data processing also can be performed as mental processes. 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.”); see also Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Controlling access to resources is exactly the sort of process that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,’ . . . . The idea long predates the ’510 patent and is pervasive in human activity . . . [e.g.] banks (offering or denying loans to applicants based on suitability or intended use).”) (citation omitted); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (people can read transactions from a database and determine whether different credit cards of different users are used from the same IP address to detect fraud); Ans. 43–44. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 8 Here, the claim receives “an indication,” determines whether the card account can be used in a wireless transaction system in some unspecified way based on the received indication data, and transmits a “notification” to a first device for display to indicate the card account’s eligibility for use in the wireless transaction system. The Specification’s generic description of these elements confirms that the claims cover the abstract idea identified above. Finally, the processor “initiate[s] provisioning, on a secure element of the first device, an applet correspond to the card account when an approval for adding the card account to the first device for use in the wireless transaction system is received responsive to the notification.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claim 1). This feature largely involves extra-solution activity of the data processing steps. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”); see Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1326 (where the bulk of the claim recites an abstract idea and the remaining limitations provide only necessary antecedent and subsequent components, the claims character as a whole is direct to that abstract idea). According to the Specification, wireless transaction system server 110 may initiate provisioning by instructing the service provider server 120 to generate commands to provision an applet corresponding to the card account on the secure element 208 of the electronic device 102A. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 60. Actual provisioning of the applet on a secure element of the first device is not claimed. Only initiation of the provisioning is claimed. At this level of generality, initiating provisioning a generic applet on a secure element of a generic device for use in a wireless transaction recites the same abstract idea. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 9 Provisioning card account data for use in a financial transaction is similar to other concepts our reviewing court has held to be a fundamental economic practice. See Western Express Bancshares, LLC v. Green Dot Corp., 816 F. App’x 485, 486 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (a method of funds transfer using a payment card is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce); In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (claims to allowing an individual to change a security code on a credit card using a web application recited an abstract idea of changeable personal-identification numbers); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1371–72 (acquiring identification data from a bankcard, granting access to a transit system if the bankcard is valid, funding a transit ride from multiple balances associated with the bankcard, and charging a different fare if the bankcard is associated with a time pass subway card involve the collection, storage, and recognition of data as an abstract idea). Appellant argues that the Examiner has not identified how the claims are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s identification of certain claim features as commercial or legal interactions is not supported by the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility. Id. at 23–24. The Examiner identified limitations that recited certain methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–4, 41–42. As discussed above, decisions of our reviewing court treat such claimed commercial or legal interactions and business relations as fundamental economic practices and principles and methods of organizing human activity, which fall within the enumerated categories of abstract ideas under the Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 10 The October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility lists commercial or legal interactions in business relations to include the processing of credit applications of a customer for a vehicle purchase and credit applications by a car dealer to funding sources via a clearinghouse. October 2019 Update at 6 (citing Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Dealertrack, 674 F.3d at 1331). Here, the claims similarly process an application for a card account to be used with a wireless transaction system. The wireless transaction system receives an indication of a card account of a user, determines its eligibility for use in a wireless transaction system, transmits a notification of eligibility to a first device, and initiates provisioning of an applet for the card account if approval is received to add the card account to the device. Appeal Br. 30 (Claim 1). The wireless transaction system is similar to a clearinghouse that facilitates this commercial business relationship and transaction to provision an applet for a card account on a first device for use in wireless transactions. Accordingly, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above. Because claims 2–20 are not argued by Appellant under Prong One, they fall with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 23–28; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 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 the additional elements of a processor, device, service provider, and wireless transaction system are claimed and described as general purpose, generic computing elements that perform the claimed functions at a high level of generality. Final Act. 5–6. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 11 As such, we agree with the Examiner that these elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components rather than providing a particular machine that is integral to the claim or that transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies the abstract idea in some other meaningful way to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The Specification’s description of these elements confirms their status as generic computer components used to perform generic functions as tools to implement the abstract idea. See Final Act. 5. The wireless transaction system, which is claimed as a “device,” includes one or more servers that facilitate providing a wireless transaction system such as a mobile payment system to electronic devices 102A, 102B. Spec. ¶ 16. The service provider server may be one or more server devices that facilitate a service provided for a card account of the user such as a credit card, debit card, loyalty card, or online content service. Id. ¶ 17. The first device is an electronic device such as a portable computing device (laptop, smartphone, peripheral device (digital camera, headphones)), a tablet device, a wearable device, or other appropriate devices with one or more wireless interfaces such as near field communication radios, WLAN radios, Bluetooth radios, Zigbee radios, cellular radios, or other wireless radios. Id. ¶ 18. The processor is described generically. Id. ¶¶ 62, 63. The secure element and applet are generic. See id. ¶¶ 25–30. Details of the provisioning of the applet are not claimed. See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1325 (details in the specification may be helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed to, but the specification must yield to the claim language when identifying the true focus of the claim). Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 12 Appellant argues that the Specification describes how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology by “utilizing [a] wireless transaction system.” Appeal Br. 27–28 (quoting Spec. ¶ 13). Appellant argues that the Specification expressly teaches how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology by facilitating utilizing a wireless transaction system, which is an indication that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer-related technology. Id. at 28 (citing Spec. ¶ 13). Using generic computer components to facilitate wireless transactions is part of the abstract idea recited in claim 1. As such, facilitating wireless transactions cannot provide an additional element to 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 recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim to an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea). “[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.” Mohapatra, 842 F .App’x at 638 (“The benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea do not render the abstract idea patentable subject matter if the benefits ‘flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database structure.”) (citation omitted). The Specification’s description of the additional elements confirms that they do not represent improvements to computers or other technology. Appellant does not purport to have improved service provider or wireless transaction servers, applets, or secured memories of devices. Appellant argues that these elements are used in a non-conventional and non-generic way. Appeal Br. 27. Yet, they are used to perform the abstract idea. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 13 “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, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 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, the device acts as an intermediary to provision a card account on a first device for use in wireless transactions. It receives an indication of card account, determines its eligibility to be used in a wireless transaction system, sends a notification to the first device indicating the eligibility, and initiates provisioning of an applet of the card account on a secure element of the first device. These data processing steps are recited at a high level of generality without improving computers or other technology. Thus, claim 1 lacks additional elements sufficient to integrate the recited 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 the claims recite 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 v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); 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 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 14 Individually, the additional elements are used as tools to implement the abstract idea without improving computers. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (the claims interpreted in light of the specification required off-the- shelf conventional computer, network, and display technology to process information without an inventive concept). As an ordered combination, these elements recite no more than when considered individually. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“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.”). Appellant argues that the rejection of the dependent claims as “further refinements of methods of organizing human activity” does not comply with the Berkheimer Memo by showing that the additional elements are well- understood, routine, or conventional. Appeal Br. 24–25. Appellant asserts that the absence of such support means that the additional elements of the independent and dependent claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, and the refinements of a judicial exception can be significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. We agree with the Examiner that the dependent claims recite further features of the abstract idea identified above and do not provide an inventive concept. Final Act. 6–12. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”); BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290 (“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.”). Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 15 The Examiner analyzed the limitations of each dependent claim. See Final Act. 6–12. We agree with that analysis and adopt it as our own. Claims 2 and 15 recite that the notification or message includes a selectable element that can be selected to approve adding an account. Appeal Br. 30, 33) (Claims App.). The Specification describes this feature in generic terms without any indication of innovation to computers, interfaces, or technology. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 46, 59. The selectable element may be virtual buttons used to approve or disapprove adding the card account. Id. ¶ 46. It provides a way to enter a user’s choice to add a card account or not. Even if we consider it as an additional element, such an interface feature that is used for data entry is well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“The claims apply the abstract idea on a computer by replacing the human intermediary with a GUI and API . . . claim 1 ‘merely recites generic and conventional computer components (i.e., “processor,” “GUI,” and “API”) and . . . the ‘communication of information by GUIs and APIs was ‘well-known in the prior art.’”). Claims 3 and 9 perform similar limitations as the independent claims but do so for a second device and determine whether the card account can be added to a second device for wireless transaction and initiate provisioning. Appeal Br. 30–32 (Claims App.). They recite the same abstract idea. Claims 4 determines the eligibility of the card account to be added to the first device based on whether one or more security factors are satisfied. Claim 5 does so based on whether a service provider supports provisioning of an applet on the first device. Claim 10 receives and transmits commands for provisioning the applet on the first device. Appeal Br. 31–32. These features recite further refinements of the abstract idea identified above. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 16 Apart from Appellant’s criticism of the Examiner’s findings and determination, Appellant does not provide argument or evidence to show that the features recited in the dependent claims are not well-understood, routine, and/or conventional technology. See Appeal Br. 24–27. The remaining dependent claims recite other abstract features of the indication and notification at a high level of generality. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea without reciting computer improvements were not eligible); Affinity Labs or Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (assuming the use of a downloadable application for presenting a graphical user interface on a cellular telephone capable of listing contents for streaming was novel, it does not avoid the problem of abstractness). The applet is used as a proxy or token for the card account credentials. See Spec. ¶¶ 19–22, 42, 47, 53, 59. No technical details for provisioning it on a device are claimed, however. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Even if ChargePoint’s specification had provided, for example, a technical explanation of how to enable communication over a network for device interaction . . ., the claim language here would not require those details. Instead, the broad claim language would cover any mechanism for implementing network communication.”); Accenture Global 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 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 17 Nor do we find an inventive concept in the sequence of steps even if we treat them as additional elements, which they are not. See Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (sequence of receiving and storing information, analyzing the information, and sending a notification upon completion of the analysis only recited a logical sequence of steps rather than an 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 was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing data, routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception with conventional technology did not provide an inventive step where complying with network communication protocol specifications and routing data in response to signals from a user were claimed without specifying the rules of the protocol or parameters for user signals); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (claiming the use of off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology to gather, send, and present desired information is not inventive); Versata, 793 F.3d at 1335 (claiming steps of arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, and determining were conventional, routine, and well-known basic functions of a computer); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715–716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (considered individually and as an ordered combination, eleven individual steps of receiving, selecting, providing media, restricting public access, offering a consumer access, receiving a request to view a message, allowing access to media, recording the transaction to a log, and receiving payment do not transform the claim into patent eligible subject matter). Thus, we determine that the claims lack an inventive concept. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 18 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1–20 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1–6, 8–18, and 20 Rejected Over Romagnoli Independent claim 1 recites three separate devices as Appellant points out. Appeal Br. 11. They are a “device comprising: at least one processor,” “a server associated with a service provider,” and “a first device for use in a wireless transaction system.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claim 1). A “device” recited in the preamble is the device that receives an indication of a card account of a user. According to the Specification, this device corresponds to a wireless transaction system server 110. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 41, 52. The Examiner’s findings treat the portable device of Romagnoli as the claimed “device.” Final Act. 13–19. The Examiner finds that middleware server 16 of account management system 7 provides an indication of a card account of a user by transmitting application data for a new product back to mobile device with a digital document with terms and conditions. Id. at 16. However, the Examiner also treats mobile device 3 as the first device onto which mobile payment account data 6 is provisioned. Id. at 17. In addition, the Examiner finds that account management system 7 determines whether the card account is eligible to be added to a first device for use in a wireless transaction system. Id. at 18–19. The Examiner treats account management system 7 as both a server associated with a service provider and the device comprising at least one processor that determines whether a card account is eligible to be added and transmits a notification to a first device for display. Id. at 19–20. These findings are inconsistent with the claim language and the Specification’s description of these elements. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 19 Regarding independent claims 13 and 17, the Examiner relies on the same findings. See Final Act. 12–26. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims is deficient for similar reasons as claim 1. Claim 13 recites a method in which a computing device receives an indication of a card account of a user, determines for each device of a plurality of devices associated with the user whether the card account has been added to an electronic payment application on each respective device, and transmits to each respective device for which the card account has not been added, a message comprising an indication that the card account is available. Appeal Br. 32 (Claim 13). The Examiner’s treatment of Romagnoli’s mobile device 3 as the computing device is not consistent with the claim language or Specification where the Examiner also treats mobile device 3 as a user’s device to which a card account is added. Final Act. 12–20. Nor has the Examiner explained how Romagnoli determines whether the same card account has been added to a plurality of user devices as claimed. Paragraph 31 upon which the Examiner relies for this teaching (Final Act. 18–20) provides a procedure for a user to receive card accounts on a single mobile device 3. In response to entry of user information and search criteria, a list of eligible products is determined for the user. Romagnoli ¶ 31. Paragraph 43 of Romagnoli indicates the application process can be performed on additional devices “other than the user’s mobile device.” Id. ¶ 43. However, there is no teaching cited by the Examiner where Romagnoli determines for each of a plurality of devices associated with the same user whether a particular card account has been added to an electronic payment application on a respective device of the plurality and then transmits a message indicating that the card account is available to add to other devices that still lack that card account. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 20 The fact that Romagnoli may add card accounts to a user’s mobile device 3 and further may do so to other mobile devices of the user does not address determining whether that particular card account has been added to an electronic payment application on each respective device of a plurality of devices associated with the user as recited in claim 13. Nor does Romagnoli disclose transmitting to each respective device for which the card account has not been added to the electronic payment application on the respective device (based on the foregoing determination) a message/indication that the card account is available to be added to the electronic payment application. Romagnoli suggests eligible payment applications to users based on criteria and user search queries. However, we find no indication in the Examiner’s findings that one of the criteria used to provide card accounts is whether the account has been added to other devices of the user as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13 or claims 14– 16, which depend therefrom. Independent claim 17 also recites three separate devices. They are “a computing device” that performs the method of receiving from “a server that is separate from a device associated with a user” an identifier of a card account associated with the user. As discussed for claim 1, the Examiner treats the user’s mobile device 3 as both the computing device that receives from a separate server an identifier of a card account associated with the user and the device associated with the user to which the card account can be provisioned. Final Act. 12–26. These findings are inconsistent with the claim language’s recitation of three separate devices that perform different functions interpreted in light of the Specification, which also describes three different devices as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17 or its dependent claims 18 and 20. Appeal 2021-001164 Application 15/995,995 21 Claims 7 and 19 Rejected Over Romagnoli and Van Os The Examiner’s reliance on Van Os to teach features of claims 7 and 19 does not cure the deficiencies of Romagnoli as to claims 1 and 17 from which claims 7 and 19 depend, respectively. See Final Act. 41–44. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 19. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20 1–6, 8–18, 20 102(a)(1) Romagnoli 1–6, 8–18, 20 7, 19 103 Romagnoli, Van Os 7, 19 Overall Outcome 1–20 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