BEST, JOHN et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2020

15404140 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 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.
15/404,140 01/11/2017 JOHN BEST BEST_I.00008 4101
101225 7590 08/12/2020
Law Office of John F. Rollins
210 N. Ellis Avenue
Wheaton, IL 60187
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2020 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):
docketing@rollinsip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
jfr@rollinsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN BEST, EDWIN GONZALEZ, THOMAS STACY and
ELLIOT COTTO
____________

Appeal 2019-003964
Application 15/404,140
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2019-003964
Application 15/404,140

2
Appellant filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)
(“Request”) on May 6, 2020, for reconsideration of our Decision mailed
March 6, 2020 (“Decision”). The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20. We reconsider our Decision in light of
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the Decision.
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our
Decision. Appellant’s contentions are restatements of arguments presented
in Appellant’s briefing as to alleged errors by the Examiner. Appellant’s
arguments were previously addressed by us in our Decision and will be
addressed only briefly here.
Appellant contends that the claims define the use of tokenized
payment information for each payment method indicated in the payment
information that is associated with the user for each vendor. Request 3.
Appellant contends that, in our Decision, we abbreviated the claim language
as “receiving tokenized payment information” and overlooked further
limitations that each payment method indicated in the payment information
is associated with the user for each vendor. Request 3–4 (citing Decision 7).
On page 7 of the Decision, we wrote that claim 1 recites:
1. receiving instructions to push payment information associated
with a user, the payment information including credentials that
enable each respective vendor to access payment directly from the
user’s financial institution;
2. receiving instructions indicating two or more user accounts for
at least two vendor websites with which the payment information
is to be updated;
3. requesting tokenized payment information from a token service
provider (“TSP”) server for each payment method indicated in the
payment information that is associated with the user for each
vendor;
4. receiving the tokenized payment information from the TSP
server; and
Appeal 2019-003964
Application 15/404,140

3
5. automatically pushing the tokenized payment information
including credentials that enable each respective vendor to access
payment directly from the user's financial institution to the two or
more user accounts.
Decision 7. Then, we concluded that such steps are an abstract idea:
Thus, the claim recites steps for automatically updating a user’s
payment information across multiple vendor websites to enable
vendors to access payment directly from the user’s financial
institution. Such steps comprise fundamental economic practices,
as well as commercial interactions, both of which constitute the
abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Id. We did not overlook the limitations that each payment method indicated
in the payment information is associated with the user for each vendor, but
rather, explicitly listed them in the Decision, immediately before concluding
that such steps constitute the abstract idea of organizing human activity. To
the extent that Appellant is confused about whether we considered the claim
limitations listed in the first paragraph of page 7 of our Decision, we
explicitly conclude here that the following claimed steps comprise certain
methods of organizing human activity:
1. receiving instructions to push payment information associated
with a user, the payment information including credentials that
enable each respective vendor to access payment directly from the
user’s financial institution;
2. receiving instructions indicating two or more user accounts for
at least two vendor websites with which the payment information
is to be updated;
3. requesting tokenized payment information from a token service
provider (“TSP”) server for each payment method indicated in the
payment information that is associated with the user for each
vendor;
4. receiving the tokenized payment information from the TSP
server; and
5. automatically pushing corresponding tokenized payment
information including credentials that enable each respective
Appeal 2019-003964
Application 15/404,140

4
vendor to access payment directly from the user’s financial
institution to the two or more user accounts.
Appellant contends that the claimed “corresponding tokenized
payment information” improves online payment and network technology by
creating vendor specific security measures. Request 4. Appellant also
contends that the claimed “corresponding tokenized payment information” is
used, not in a conventional context, but in the context of providing unique
tokenized payment information pushed to each respective vendor website,
thus enhancing security. Request 5–8. In our Decision, we wrote:
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the claims
recite steps beyond the abstract idea, such as “increased
security.” See Reply Br. 5–6. Specifically, the claim: (1) does
not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology;
(2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for generic
hardware); (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular
article to a different state; and (4) is not applied in any
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that the
claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the exception.
Decision 9. Appellant’s contention does not show that we overlooked or
misapprehended Appellant’s argument from the Appeal Brief that the claims
recite increased security. Rather, Appellant disagrees with our conclusion
that the claims do not recite steps beyond the abstract idea.
Appellant has failed to show any matter that was misapprehended or
overlooked by the Board in rendering the Decision. We decline to change
our Decision.

Appeal 2019-003964
Application 15/404,140

5
DECISION
Accordingly, we have granted Appellant’s Request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the original Decision but we have denied Appellant’s
Request to change the Decision.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REHEARING DENIED