David Yoo et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 29, 201913334633 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2019) 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. 13/334,633 12/22/2011 David YOO BOKU-P053 8756 17169 7590 10/29/2019 Stephen M. De Klerk MatterLight IP 2033 Gateway Place 5th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 EXAMINER BRANDENBURG, WILLIAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/29/2019 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): ariana@matterlightip.com stephen@matterlightip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID YOO and ADAM LEE ____________ Appeal 2018-0013771 Application 13/334,633 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BRADLEY B. BAYAT, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22, which constitute all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We reference herein the Specification (“Spec.,” filed Dec. 22, 2011), Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Oct. 26, 2016), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed April 27, 2017), and Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 7, 2017). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Boku, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to a transactions network and to a method and system for managing electronic transactions.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 12, reproduced below with bracketed annotations added, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 12. A computer-based method of managing electronic transactions comprising: [(a)] storing, with a processor, a plurality of consumer accounts in a data store, each consumer account having a first consumer account identifier; [(b)] storing, with the processor, a plurality of merchant accounts in the data store, each merchant account having a merchant account identifier; [(c)] transmitting, with the processor, an interface for the merchant account over the network interface device to a merchant computer system, the interface for the merchant account allowing for entry of a merchant offer including a discount into the merchant interface and transmission of the merchant offer; [(d)] receiving, with the processor, the merchant offer from the merchant computer system over the network interface device; [(e)] storing, with the processor, the merchant offer including the discount in the data store in association with the merchant account having the respective merchant account identifier; [(f)] receiving, with the processor, payment for the discount associated with the merchant offer entered using the interface and stored in the data store; [(g)] receiving, with the processor, a charge request over the network interface device from a computer system in a point- of-sale network, the charge request including a merchant account ID, a first amount and a second consumer account identifier; Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 3 [(h)] identifying, with the processor, a selected one of the consumer accounts by associating one of the first consumer account identifiers with the second consumer account identifier; [(i)] identifying, with the processor, a selected one of the merchant offers based on the merchant account ID in the charge request; [(j)] adjusting, with the processor, the first amount to a second amount that is less than the first amount by deducting the payment received the selected merchant offer from the first amount; [(k)] processing, with the processor, the second amount based on the account detail of the selected consumer account, the processing of the second amount including determining whether the second amount is less than a stored value and charging the second amount if the second amount is less than the stored value and not charging the second amount if the second amount is more than the stored value; and [(l)] transmitting, with the processor, a confirmation over the network interface device to the computer system in the point-of-sale network, the confirmation including the first amount and the confirmation being transmitted after adjusting the first amount to the second amount and only if the determination is made that the second amount is less than the stored value. App. Br. 33–35 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as judicially excepted from statutory subject matter. Claims 1–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bemmel (US 2008/0097851 A1, pub. Apr. 24, 2008) and Zukerman (US 2006/0064380 A1, pub. Mar. 23, 2006). Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 4 ANALYSIS Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. App. Br. 9–25. We select independent claim 12 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. (citation omitted). If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 5 ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original). In rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determined that the claims are directed to “managing electronic transactions and voucher redemption, particularly processing charge requests and redeeming merchant voucher offers resulting in discounted charge amounts.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner characterized this concept as a fundamental economic practice (i.e., a method of organizing human activity) and, thus, an abstract idea. Id. The Examiner also characterized the concept as pertaining to mathematical formulas and relationships (i.e., mathematical concepts), which is an abstract idea. Id. The Examiner further cited to judicial precedent in determining that the claims recite an abstract idea. See id. at 5. The Examiner determined that the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).3 That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework such that a claim will generally be considered directed to an abstract idea if (1) the claim recites subject matter falling within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, e.g., a 3 The Revised Guidance is effective as of January 7, 2019, and applies to all applications, and to all patents resulting from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 6 fundamental economic principle or practice, a commercial or legal interaction; and (c) mental processes (“Step 2A, Prong One”), and (2) the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, i.e., apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the clam is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (“Step 2A, Prong Two”). See Revised Guidance 54–55. The Revised Guidance references MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h) in describing the considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements integrates the judicial exception, e.g., the abstract idea, into a practical application. Id. at 55. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as determined under one or more of these MPEP sections, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception. Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application do we then look to whether the claim “[a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations” that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or simply “appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception” (“Step 2B”). Id. at 56. Judicial Exception: Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework; Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance Appellant’s Specification is titled “VOUCHER REDEMPTION,” and states that the invention relates to “managing electronic transactions.” Spec. ¶ 2. The Specification describes in the Discussion of Related Art section known methods of conducting an electronic transaction. See id. ¶ 4. Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 7 In particular, the Specification provides that electronic transactions are conducted in a similar manner to transactions by a customer using a point of sale instrument, such as a credit card, at a store. Id. However, in the latter transaction, a point-of-sale device, such as a credit card reader, communicates a charge request to a merchant acquirer computer system, which routes the charges to an issuer computer system. Id. ¶ 3. The issuer computer system returns a confirmation through the merchant acquirer computer system to the point-of-sale device indicating that the transaction is good if a credit card account has sufficient funds or available credit to charge an amount recorded on the point-of-sale device. Id. In an electronic transaction, however, a user enters details of a point-of-sale instrument into an interface, which is transmitted to a merchant acquirer computer system. Id. ¶ 4. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 8–9), that the Discussion of Related Art section of the Specification does not identify any technological problem or problem rooted in technology that the invention seeks to solve. Appellant’s claim 12 recites a method of “managing electronic transactions.” App. Br. 33, Claims Appendix. Limitation (a) recites “storing . . . a plurality of consumer accounts . . . , each consumer account having a first consumer account identifier.” Limitation (b) recites “storing . . . a plurality of merchant accounts . . . , each merchant account having a merchant account identifier.” Limitation (d) recites “receiving . . . the merchant offer . . . .” Limitation (e) recites “storing . . . the merchant offer including the discount . . . in association with the merchant account having the respective merchant account identifier.” Limitation (f) recites “receiving . . . payment for the discount associated with the merchant offer . . . .” Limitation (g) recites “receiving . . . a charge Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 8 request . . . , the charge request including a merchant account ID, a first amount and a second consumer account identifier.” Limitation (h) recites “identifying . . . a selected one of the consumer accounts by associating one of the first consumer account identifiers with the second consumer account identifier.” Limitation (i) recites “identifying . . . a selected one of the merchant offers based on the merchant account ID in the charge request.” Limitation (j) recites “adjusting . . . the first amount to a second amount that is less than the first amount by deducting the payment received the selected merchant offer from the first amount.” Limitation (k) recites processing . . . the second amount based on the account detail of the selected consumer account, the processing of the second amount including determining whether the second amount is less than a stored value and charging the second amount if the second amount is less than the stored value and not charging the second amount if the second amount is more than the stored value. Limitation (l) recites transmitting . . . a confirmation over the network interface device to the computer system in the point-of-sale network, the confirmation including the first amount and the confirmation being transmitted after adjusting the first amount to the second amount and only if the determination is made that the second amount is less than the stored value. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations recite steps for managing an electronic transaction involving a merchant offer including a discount, i.e., a commercial interaction, which is a certain method of organizing human activity, and, therefore, an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance 52 (commercial interactions include “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors”). Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 9 Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error at Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance. See Appeal Br. 12 (asserting that the Examiner describes claim 12 at a high level of abstraction that is untethered from the language of the claim). Practical Application: Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework; Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance Having concluded that claim 12 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, we next consider whether the claim recites additional elements, considered individually and in combination, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance 54–55. Here, the additional elements recited in claim 12, beyond the abstract idea, include limitation (c). Limitation (c) recites “transmitting, with the processor, an interface for the merchant account over the network interface device to a merchant computer system, the interface for the merchant account allowing for entry of a merchant offer including a discount into the merchant interface and transmission of the merchant offer.” Paragraphs 68 through 74 and Figures 5A through 5G of the Specification are relied upon for disclosing limitation (c). Appeal Br. 6–7. These portions of the Specification describe at a high level an interface that allows a merchant to enter details of an offer, such as a discount amount, a start date, and an end date. See Spec. ¶¶ 68–69, Figs. 5A, 5B. The interface allows the merchant to upload an image associated with the offer, and limit the offer to certain locations. Id. ¶¶ 70–71, Figs. 5C, 5D. The interface enables a merchant to preview the offer, and approve it, causing a “success” message to be displayed. Id. ¶¶ 72–73, Fig. 5F. The interface displays all of the offers scheduled, completed or running on the merchant account. Id. ¶ 74, Fig. 5G. We are not persuaded that limitation (c), considered Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 10 individually or as an ordered combination, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, we find no indication that transmitting an interface, as recited in limitation (c), reflects an improvement to the functionality of a computer or an improvement to technology. At best, the limitation generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment involving an interface for the merchant account. Claim 12 also additionally recites a “processor” for performing limitations (a) through (l), a “data store” (e.g., limitations (a), (b), (e), (f)), a “network interface device” (e.g., limitations (c), (d), (g)), an “interface” (e.g., limitations (c), (f)), a “merchant computer system” (limitations (c), (d)), a “point-of-sale network” (limitations (g), (l)), and a “computer system in the point of sale network” (limitation (l)) — all of which are disclosed in the Specification at a high degree of generality, i.e., as generic computer components. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 122 (describing that a “machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client machine in a server-client network environment,” and “may be a personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that machine”). “[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appellant argues that the focus of claim 12 “is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Appeal Br. 15. Specifically, Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 11 Appellant asserts that claim 12 is directed to server-side redemption of offers, as reflected in limitations (a) through (d). Id. at 17–18 (citing Spec. ¶ 102 (“No actions are required by a consumer in possession of the consumer mobile phone 24B in order to register the consumer account 28 and no username or password are created or stored in order to register the consumer account 28.”)). We are not persuaded that server-side redemption of offers, as required by limitations (a) through (d), reflect an improvement to the way computers operate. As an initial matter, paragraph 102 of the Specification does not recite that “[n]o actions are required by a consumer in possession of the consumer mobile phone 24B in order to register the consumer account 28 and no username or password are created or stored . . . .,” as Appellant contends. Instead, paragraph 102 states: Only if the transaction is validated at 342 at the account lookup and debit module 310 does the account lookup and debit module 310 proceed at 344. At 344, the account lookup and debit module 310 utilizes the MSISDN received at 308 to identify the respective consumer account 28 having a MSISDN 66 matching the MSISDN received at 308. We do not find the language Appellant purports to quote from the Specification. To the contrary, we find that the Specification describes that a consumer provides a password and phone number to establish a consumer account server-side. See Spec. ¶¶ 45, 46, 76, 115, Figs. 2A–2B. To the extent Appellant argues that the server-side redemption as required by claim 12’s limitations (a) through (d) reflects an improvement in registering a consumer account, such improvement is not reflected in the claim language. Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 12 Instead, limitations (a) and (b) of claim 12 recite storing a plurality of consumer accounts and a plurality of merchant accounts in a data store; limitation (c) recites transmitting to a merchant computer system an interface for the merchant account allowing for entry of a merchant offer; and limitation (d) recites receiving the merchant offer from the merchant computer system over the network interface. We are not persuaded that limitations (a) through (d), considered individually and as an ordered combination, reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Instead, these limitations, at best, reflect an improvement in a process that is itself abstract (i.e., a commercial interaction) by performing the redemption of offers server-side. Pointing to paragraph 100 of the Specification, Appellant contends that the Specification “teaches that server-side redemption of offers functions differently than conventional database structures.” Appeal Br. 18. Yet, paragraph 100 describes totaling an amount of discounts and subtracting the discount total from the transaction total, which are part of the abstract idea. We find nothing in paragraph 100 of the Specification that distinguishes a database structure of the claimed invention over conventional database structure. Moreover, claim 12 does not recite any particular database structure indicative of an improvement over conventional database structures. Appellant also argues that claim 12 improves existing technology by not requiring presentation of vouchers at a POS device and applying an automated backend application of vouchers. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Spec. ¶ 4). Paragraph 4 of the Specification describes that for an electronic transaction “a user can enter details of a point-of-sale instrument [e.g., a Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 13 bank card or credit card (Spec. ¶ 3)] into an interface” and then the “charge request can be transmitted to a merchant acquirer computer system” for confirmation from the issuer that the transaction is good. Spec. ¶ 4; see also id. at 3. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, there is no mention of vouchers at paragraph 4 of the Specification, much less disparagement of a prior art method for presenting the vouchers at a POS device. However, even if paragraph 4 provided such description, we are not persuaded that not requiring a customer to present a voucher is an improvement to technology as opposed to a business process for conducting a transaction. Appellant asserts that claim 12 is “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” and, thus, not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 21. But for the reasons outlined above, we are not persuaded that the additional elements recited in claim 12 beyond the abstract idea are more than generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For example, we find no indication that one or more additional elements reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; requires any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine; or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred at Step 2A, Prong 2, in determining that the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Guidance). Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 14 Inventive Concept: Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance) Appellant does not present any argument under Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance that the additional elements recited in claim 12 provide an inventive concept. Instead, Appellant “submits it is clear . . . that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and so Appellant will stop at step one.” Appeal Br. 21. As set forth above, claim 12 additionally recites a “processor,” a “data store,” a “network interface device,” an “interface,” a “merchant computer system,” a “point-of-sale network,” a “computer system,” and “transmitting . . . an interface for the merchant account” (limitation (c)). However, we are not persuaded that any of these additional elements, considered alone and or individually, provide an inventive concept for reasons similar to those described above. For example, transmitting an interface to a merchant computer and performing the functions in a particular technological environment (e.g., performing certain claimed functions at a server) may well improve upon the abstract idea itself. But we are not persuaded that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. “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 Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12, and claims 1–11, and 13–22, which fall with claim 12. Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 15 Obviousness Over Bemmel and Zukerman We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Bemmel does not teach or suggest “adjusting, with the processor, the first amount to a second amount that is less than the first amount by deducting the payment received the selected merchant offer from the first amount” (limitation (j)), as recited in claim 12, and similarly recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Bemmel for the argued limitations. See Final Act. 15–17 (citing Bemmel ¶¶ 24–34, 36, 38, 42, 43, 54–59, 62, 63, 66–84). Bemmel pertains to a mobile incentive management service (“MIMS”) for delivering promotion data to an individual by a mobile device, and enabling use of this information at a point of transaction (“POT”). Bemmel ¶¶ 2, 24. To use a mobile incentive, a participant provides authentication information at POT 104, and is authenticated by MIMS 100. Id. ¶ 74. MIMS controller 130 retrieves mobile incentives associated with the participant, and transmits the participant identifier to POT 104 and the incentives to mobile incentive usage controller 920 located at the product provider. Id. ¶ 82. A product provider employee scans a product into POT 104 and transmits the participant’s identifier and product information to mobile incentive usage controller 920. Id. Mobile incentive usage controller 920 evaluates the product information to determine whether one of the participant’s mobile incentives applies to the scanned product and, if so, transmits the applicable mobile incentive “to POT 104 where it can be applied to the current transaction.” Id. ¶ 82 (emphasis omitted). For example, the mobile incentive can reduce a price charged to the participant at POT 104, and payment information received by POT 104 is transmitted for final payment authorization. Id. ¶¶ 82–83; see also id ¶ 84 (describing an Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 16 alternative embodiment in which mobile incentives are transmitted directly to POT 104, bypassing mobile incentive usage controller 920). MIMS 100 also can transmit financial account data from the participant’s electronic wallet to POT 104 so that the participant need not provide mobile incentive or payment information to complete the transaction. Id. ¶ 83. The Examiner interprets Bemmel’s MIMS as the claimed processor performing the step of adjusting, as recited in claim 12, limitation (j), and similarly recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 19 (“the MIMS . . . represents a server-side redemption implementation”) (emphasis omitted); see also Ans. 27 (finding the same). Yet, Bemmel describes adjusting the first amount to a second amount that is less than the first amount at the POT based on information received by the MIMS, not at the MIMS, as required by claim 12, limitation (j), and similarly required by claim 1. The Examiner takes the position that because Bemmel’s MIMS evaluates purchase information, notifies the POT whether a discount applies, and can provide financial account data from the participant’s electronic wallet, “the charge request sent from the POT to the MIMS includes the first amount (i.e., amount of purchase transaction)” (Ans. 27) (emphasis omitted). But the Examiner’s finding is not supported by Bemmel’s disclosure of “transmit[ting] the mobile incentive information to POT 104 where it can be applied to the current transaction.” Bemmel ¶ 82. In another embodiment, Bemmel describes that POT 104 processes the transaction as normal, not accounting for any applicable mobile incentives. Id. ¶ 84. In this embodiment, MIMS 100 accesses the participant’s financial account information and credits the participant’s account with an amount reflective of a mobile incentive. Id. ¶ 84. Thus, Appeal 2018-001377 Application 13/334,633 17 even in this embodiment, an adjustment of the first amount to a second amount does not occur at the MIMS, as required by claim (j). Instead, the MIMS applies a credit to the participant’s account reflecting a discount associated with the mobile incentive after the transaction is processed at the first amount. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, and dependent claims 2–11 and 13–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–22 101 Eligibility 1–22 1–22 103 Bemmel and Zukerman 1–22 Overall Outcome 1–22 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