Edward MarshallDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 20202020003759 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020) 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. 14/505,759 10/03/2014 Edward J. Marshall EJM01 1884 87457 7590 11/23/2020 Edward J. Marshall, Attorney at Law PO Box 127 Alto, TX 75925 EXAMINER CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2020 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): edmarshall@marshalliplaw.com tracymarshall@marshalliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EDWARD J. MARSHALL Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHN G. NEW, and RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 8, 15, 22–26, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 Edward J. Marshall. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejected claims 8, 15, 22–26, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Final Office Action “because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter[, and specifically,] because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” Final Act. 3. Claim 8 is representative and reproduced below (with bracketed numbering added to the claim to reference the recited limitations): 8. A device configured to validate payment requests associated with a payment account of a user, the device comprising: a network interface coupled to a wide area network, the network interface configured to: [1] receive user check-in information transmitted from a user mobile device, the user check-in information including [1a] a current location of the user and [1b] a first merchant identifier identifying a merchant; [2] receiving, from a merchant system, an indication that approval has been requested for a payment transaction associated with the payment account of the user, wherein the indication that approval has been requested includes [2a] a location associated with the payment transaction, and [2b] a second merchant identifier; a processor and associated memory configured to: [3] make a determination regarding [3a] whether the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location of the user, and [3b] whether the first merchant identifier is associated with the same merchant as the second merchant identifier; [4] in response to the determination indicating [4a] a match between the location associated with the payment transaction and the current location of the user, and [4b] a match between the first and second merchant identifiers, transmitting a payment transaction approval message to the merchant system, subject to other automated payment approval requirements associated with the payment account; and Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 3 [5] in response to the determination indicating no-match between [5a] at least one of the location associated with the payment transaction and the current location of the user, or [5b] the first and second merchant identifiers, transmitting a transaction declined message to the merchant system, pending second level authentication, even if the other automated payment approval requirements associated with the payment account are satisfied. CLAIMS There are two independent claims on appeal, claims 8 and 15. We select claim 8 as representative and describe the steps in the claim below. Claim 8 is directed to a device configured to perform a method to validate payment requests. The device comprises a network interface coupled to network, and a processor and associated memory which are configured to perform a method. The device validates payment requests associated with the payment account of a user. The user can be a customer of a merchant who seeks to buy an item from the merchant. The claim involves validating a payment transaction by determining that the customer (“user”) is at the same location where the customer wants to make the payment transaction, and, that a “merchant identifier” supplied by the customer and merchant match. The claim does not describe what entity is validating the payment transaction, but as explained below, it would be reasonably understood in the context of the Specification to be, for example, bank or credit/debit card issuer. Spec. ¶ 14. In the first step [1] of the claim, the customer checks-in. The claim does not identify the check-in entity, but the Specification states that the check-in can be “a function or feature of a bank’s website mobile application, or a feature of a check-in or pre-verification service.” Spec. ¶ 9. Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 4 The check-in has [1a] the customer’s current location, and [1b] a first merchant identifier. The Specification explains that the merchant identifier can be information about the location and store of the merchant. Spec. ¶¶ 14, 15. The customer is therefore, in one embodiment covered by the claim, checking-in to identify his location and the location of the store where he seeks to make a payment transaction with the merchant, such as paying for an item being sold by the merchant. The second step [2] involves the merchant making a request to approve the payment transaction from the customer. The purchase can be made by the customer with a credit or debit card (Spec. ¶ 9), although this is not explicitly recited in the claim. The merchant is therefore requesting that the debit or credit card company, or bank, etc., approve the payment transaction for the customer using the customer’s card to make a purchase with the merchant. The request to the credit/debit card company, bank, etc., involves receiving information from the merchant system which parallels the information in step [1], namely, [2a] the location where the customer is requesting that the payment transaction be approved, and [2b] a second merchant identifier. In step [3], it is determined whether there is a match in location ([1a] and [2a]) and merchant identifiers ([1b] and [2b]). Steps [1] and [2] therefore gather the information used in step [3] of the claim. If a match is identified between the locations and merchant identifiers, a payment approval message is sent to the merchant. Thus, when it is determined that (a) there is a match between the location of the customer and the location where the customer wants to make the payment transaction, and (b) a match between the location of the store received from the customer and from the merchant, the payment Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 5 is approved in step [4], providing an additional validation to the payment transaction. If a match is not identified — “no-match” as recited in the claim — the transaction is declined by the credit/debit card company or bank in step [5]. Claim 15 is directed to a payment validation system that is configured to perform substantially the same method recited in claim 8. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 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.” However, not every discovery is eligible for patent protection. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “Excluded from such patent protection are laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Id. The Supreme Court articulated a two-step analysis to determine whether a claim falls within an excluded category of invention. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012). In the first step, it is determined “whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If it is determined that the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, then the second step of the two-part analysis is applied in which it is asked “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Id. (alteration in original). The Court explained that this step involves a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 6 Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (citing from Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). Alice, relying on the analysis in Mayo of a claim directed to a law of nature, stated that in the second part of the analysis, “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” must be considered “to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The PTO published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Eligibility Guidance”). This guidance provides additional direction on how to implement the two-part analysis of Mayo and Alice. Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, looks at the specific limitations in the claim to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception to patent eligibility. In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are examined to identify whether there are additional elements in the claims that integrate the exception in a practical application, namely, is there a “meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Prong Two). If the claim recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, then as in the Mayo/Alice framework, Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidance instructs us to determine whether there is a claimed “inventive concept” to ensure that the claims define an invention that is significantly more than the ineligible concept itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56. Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 7 With these guiding principles in mind, we proceed to determine whether the claimed subject matter in this appeal is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DISCUSSION Claim 8 is directed to a device configured to validate payment requests associated with a payment account of a user. A device is a “manufacture,” one of the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the claim falls into one of the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter, following the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance. Step 2A, Prong One In Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, the specific limitations in the claim are examined to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception to patent eligibility, namely whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. The Examiner determined that the steps in the claim are directed to the concept of “‘minimizing risk and fraud detection’” which the Examiner found is a fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity, one of the categories of abstract ideas listed in the Eligibility Guidance. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner also found that the steps are analyzing information that “people go through in their minds” and therefore are “essentially mental processes,” another category of abstract ideas. Final Act. 8–9. Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 8 Appellant contends that the Examiner mischaracterized the claim as “‘directed to the abstract idea of minimizing risk and fraud detection.’” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant states that the claims are “directed to an improved payment validation system (or device) that solves a technical problem with conventional payment systems in a technical manner” which is not an abstract idea. Id. Appellant also argues that the claim does not recite one of the judicial exceptions to patent eligibility. Appellant states that the Examiner has not provided a reason or explanation as to why the claims are one of the examples described in the Eligibility Guidance of a method of organizing human activity. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner did not mischaracterize the claim as minimizing risk and fraud detection. The Specification explains that the invention is a system “used for preventing fraudulent use of payment instruments.” Spec. ¶ 3. See also Spec. ¶ 1 (“This invention relates generally to preventing fraudulent credit and debit card purchases, and more particularly to checking in at a merchant’s location to pre-validate purchases made at that location.”). The Specification explains that the claimed method “prevent[s] fraudulently obtained payment card or account information from being used to make a purchase” by determining matches between the user and merchant locations, and the merchant identifiers received from the user and merchant (step [3] of claim 8). Spec. ¶ 9. See also Spec. ¶¶ 1, 10. Once the matches are determined, the claim “transmit[s] a payment transaction approval message to the merchant system” (step [4] of claim 8). The claim therefore minimizes the risk of a fraudulent payment transaction by using the location and merchant identifier information. The Specification gives an example of a payment transaction as a transaction that takes place at a “point of sale” Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 9 system at a merchant. Spec. ¶¶ 5, 26. The claim therefore involves “sales activities” at a merchant, which is listed as an example of organizing human activity in the Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Consistently, in Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017), a method of processing a payment for purchases of goods from a seller was determined to be a patent-ineligible fundamental business practice. Business transactions accomplished on a computer do not transform an abstract idea into one that is patent-eligible. Alice, 573 U.S. at 212–13; Inventor Holdings, 876 F.3d at 139. Consequently, we do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in characterizing the claim as reciting a method of organizing human activity. The Examiner also found that the claim recites a mental process. The Examiner explained in the Answer that, while the steps of the claim of determining the user location and merchant and then determining whether they match (steps [1]–[3] of claim 8) are performed using a network interface, a processor, and memory, the matching between locations and merchant identifiers could be performed in the human mind “but for the recitation of generic computer components.” Ans. 12–13. In other words, step [3] of the claim could be accomplished when a customer confirms by phone or email with the bank that it is him at the merchant location desiring to make a payment transaction, and the merchant does the same, for example, by recognizing/confirming that the customer is at its location, and informing the bank by phone. Appellant argues that a human could not perform the claimed steps because it would require “that a human being’s mind interfaces with both a mobile device and a merchant system.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant also states Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 10 that the Eligibility Guidance explicitly states that claims do not recite mental process when certain limitations cannot be practically “performed in the human mind.” Id. (citing PEG Update2 7). Appellant has misunderstood how the abstract idea of a mental process is applied when the steps of the claim are performed on a computer. Specifically, the question is whether the claimed process, which is accomplished on a computer, is automating a process that could also be performed in the human mind. The human mind does not have to connect to a computer, a mobile device, or network interface as asserted by Appellant. The issue is whether a human mind could perform the steps of the claim without using the technology recited in the claim. “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 Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, while claim 8 may recite steps which are accomplished using a network interface and computer processor, the computer-implementation does not confer patent-eligibility because the steps could still be performed by a human without the technology (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Furthermore, with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”)). For this reason, while a network interface, a processor associated 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p df (last accessed July 3, 2020) (“PEG Update”). Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 11 with memory, a mobile device, and a merchant system are used in the claim to accomplish the claimed payment validation process, the location and merchant identifier matching recited in step [3] could be accomplished in the human mind, for example, using a phone to confirm that the user is at the merchant’s location, and that the locations are the same. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in determining that claim 8 recites mental processes. Because we find that the Examiner correctly found that claim 8 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the analysis. Step 2A, Prong Two Prong Two of Step 2A under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance asks whether there are additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. “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.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by identifying whether there are additional elements individually, and in combination, which go beyond the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. The PEG Update further explains that “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” PEG Update 12. According to Appellant, the Specification states that there is a technical shortcoming in current payment systems. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 12 Spec. ¶ 2: (“These breaches of security illustrate the shortcomings of currently available payment and fraud prevention systems.”). Appellant explains that the Specification describes “[o]ne of the ways to overcome the shortcoming of current systems is to use a pre-purchase check-in procedure to prevent anyone from making an unauthorized purchase, even if that person has all of the information conventionally needed to make a purchase.” Appeal Br. 14); Spec. ¶ 9 (“At least one embodiment of the present disclosure uses a pre-purchase check-in procedure via a separate communication path to prevent fraudulently obtained payment card or account information from being used to make a purchase, even if the thief is in possession of all of the information conventionally needed to make a purchase.”). Appellant argues that the “technical improvement is using check-in information received from a user, and merchant information received separately from a merchant, to determine whether the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location of the user.” Appeal Br. 18. The technical improvement identified by Appellant is determining in step [3] whether there is a match between [3a] “the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location of the user” and [3b] “the first merchant identifier is associated with the same merchant as the second merchant identifier.” If a match between both [3a] and [3b] are found, step [4] of the claim transmits the payment approval message to the merchant. The receipt of the information (location, merchant identifier) used to determine whether there is a match is recited in steps [1] and [2]. These steps of the claim are insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 13 insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As explained in the Eligibility Guidance, “a mere data gathering such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 n.31 (citing CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Step [3] of claim 8 “make[s] a determination regarding [3a] whether the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location of the user, and [3b] whether the first merchant identifier is associated with the same merchant as the second merchant identifier.” As discussed above, the determination that the information collected from the user and merchant matches each other could be done by phone and verbal affirmation, for example, the user informing the credit card company verbally that it is him at the merchant location requesting to make the payment transaction with the merchant and the merchant confirming this by phone and visual recognition (such as requiring an identification card to complete the transaction). Thus, like the fraud detection of claim 3 in CyberSource, a “simple observation” could be employed to verify that the user is at the same location as the merchant. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373. The claim does not recite how the determination is made other than it is done on “a processor and associated memory.” The Appeal Brief references “paras. 0015, 0019 0024, 0025; 0029; Fig. 4, item 413)” of the Specification as written descriptive support for this claim limitation (Appeal Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 14 Br. 3), but none of these disclosures explain how that matching is accomplished, such as using a specific technique or method to accomplish it. As discussed in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the “abstract idea exception has been applied to prevent patenting of claims that abstractly cover results where ‘it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.’ [O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113,]; see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. McRO stated that therefore, a court must “look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Further, as discussed in Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., 815 F. App’x 529, 533 (Fed. Cir. 2020): The patent has to describe how to solve the problem in a manner that encompasses something more than the “principle in the abstract.” See [ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019)] (explaining that an invention may not be patent eligible if the “claims ‘were drafted in such a result-oriented way that they amounted to encompassing the ‘principle in the abstract’ no matter how implemented’” (quoting Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018))); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A] result, even an innovative result, is not itself patentable.”). Step [3] of claim does not recite how the match determination is made. The steps are recited in a “result-oriented way” in which the result is described in the claim, but not how the result is accomplished. The step is therefore the “principle in the abstract” and it has not been salvaged from ineligibility by limiting how the determination is made. We contrast this to Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 15 McRO where the claim recited a series of steps that “produce[d] lip synchronization and facial expression control of said animated characters.” McRO at 1308. McRO found that the recited steps “are limiting in that they define morph weight sets as a function of the timing of phoneme sub- sequences.” Id. at 1313. The court found that the “claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.” Id. at 1315. For this reason, the claimed process was found to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In contrast, neither the claim nor the Specification describes how the determination in step [3] of claim is made. The step, itself, is abstract and therefore cannot serve as the additional element which goes beyond the judicial exception. 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the technical improvement integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B Because we determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this Step 2B determination, we must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 16 indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56. We must also consider whether the combination of steps performs “in an unconventional way and therefore include[s] an ‘inventive concept,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B.” Id. In this part of the analysis, we consider “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Appellant contends that the “inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant states: [C]urrent payment systems do not verify that the user is in the same location as the payment transaction in the same way that the claimed invention does. Conventionally, location verification can be performed by requiring the physical presence of a card, by entry of a pin number, or the like. There are no known systems that employ the claimed technique of verifying that a user is in the same location as the merchant by matching merchant identifiers from the user and from the merchant. Id. Novelty and non-obviousness are not the test of eligibility under Section 101. A claim can be new and unobvious and still be ineligible for a patent because it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The eligibility question is not whether anyone has ever used tabs to organize information. That question is re-served for §§ 102 and 103”). While Appellant’s statement about the prior art may be correct, Appellant does not provide evidence that the steps recited in the claim are accomplished in an Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 17 inventive, unconventional way, rather than being a product of well- understood and routine activity. We have not been directed to anything in the Specification that explains how the data gathering of steps [1] and [2] and the match determination in step [3] are done. Thus, even when these limitations are considered in combination, we have not been directed to an inventive concept. Claims 23 and 25 Claims 23 and 25 recite “determine that the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location of the user if a physical distance between the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location of the user to within less than a threshold distance.” Appellant contends that these claims are separately patentable because “no conventional systems known to the appellant that use a distance threshold as a factor in determining whether or not to authorize a payment transaction” and therefore the functioning of the automated payment system is improved. Appeal Br. 20. The issue under Section 101 is not the novelty or obviousness of specific limitation, but whether that limitation is abstract or integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. In this case, the same defect for claim 8 with respect to its eligibility is present in claims 23 and 25. The threshold determination can be accomplished by the human mind, for example, by using visual recognition that the user is actually at the merchant site and presenting a user identification card. The claim does not explain how the threshold determination is implemented nor even where the determination is made and by what device. Thus, as for claim 8, the abstract Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 18 idea embodied in the claim limitation is not rescued by a specific implementation such that claim no longer recites the bare abstract principle. Claims 24 and 26 Claims 24 and 26 recite, “obtain user input specifying a location threshold granularity; and apply the location threshold granularity to determine whether the physical distance between the location associated with the payment transaction matches the current location.” Appellant argues that no conventional systems use “a distance threshold granularity” which “provides improved functioning of automated payment systems.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant cites the following Specification disclosure to support their eligibility: “For example, if a user checks-in at a Discounts 4 All store, at address A, but the payment request comes from the Discounts 4 All store fourteen blocks away from the user at location B, the payment request could be denied if the location threshold were set to ‘exact,’ but could be approved if the location threshold were set to ‘City.’” Spec. ¶ 18. As explained, eligibility under § 101 is not determined by compliance with § 102 or § 103. This step of the claim could be accomplished by a mental process if a user is at location B, such as hotel, and the hotel confirms to the banks or credit/debit card company that the user has checked in and therefore is at the “City” location, or alternatively or in addition, by the user confirming by phone or email that the user is the “City” location. The claim does not specify how the threshold granularity is accomplished and therefore the claim recites the step as an abstract principle. Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 19 Claims 31 and 32 Claims 31 and 32 recite, “set a temporary check-in flag on the payment account associated with the user, the temporary check-in flag indicating that payment transaction requests from the merchant at the current location are allowed.” Appellant states that the “temporary check-in flag is significantly more than minimizing risk and fraud detection, because it provides automated payment systems the ability to temporarily allow payment requests that might come from a particular merchant to be processed” which is an improvement over conventional systems. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant identifies support for the limitation in the Specification (Spec. ¶ 16), but the cited disclosure does not provide a description of how the stated flag is implemented. The flag could be implement by making a written note on the account and thus could be accomplished with paper and pen. Thus, for the reasons articulated for the other claims, we do not find that the limitations in claims 31 and 32 are stated with sufficient particularity to confer patent eligibility on the claim. Summary For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 8. Independent clam 15 has the same limitations as claim 8 and falls for the same reasons. Claims 22 was not argued separately and therefore falls with claims 8 and 15. Appeal 2020-003759 Application 14/505,759 20 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8, 15, 22– 26, 31, 32 101 Eligibility 8, 15, 22– 26, 31, 32 TIME PERIOD 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation