Ex Parte Plastina et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 201913047287 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/047,287 03/14/2011 25297 7590 06/18/2019 Jenkins, Wilson, Taylor & Hunt, P.A. 3015 Carrington Mill Boulevard Suite 550 Morrisville, NC 27560 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Franco Plastina 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1322/401/2 6550 EXAMINER POLLOCK, GREGORY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3695 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/18/2019 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): usptomail@jwth.com datcheson@jwth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANCO PLASTINA, ROBERT J. TINSLEY, and PETER J. MARSICO Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047,287 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention detects fraudulent or potentially fraudulent activity associated with geographically unconstrained transactions, namely those that may be readily performed at different geographic locations. Spec. 1. In one aspect, a mobile device's location is compared to that of a 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Tekelec Global, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 transaction to determine a likelihood of fraud regarding the transaction. Spec. 6. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for facilitating detection of transactional fraud, the method comprising: receiving mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node including at least one processor, the mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router, and the mobility management signaling messages being associated with managing mobile communications device mobility in a mobile communications network; for a credit or debit card transaction associated with a first transaction location and an account holder of the credit or debit card, receiving at the mobile communications network node a request for mobile location information associated with the account holder; identifying a mobile communications device that is also associated with the account holder of the credit or debit card; obtaining, by the mobile communications network node, mobile location information associated with the account holder, the mobile location information being derived from one or more of the mobility management signaling messages that are associated with mobility of a mobile communications device that is associated with the account holder; comparing the transaction location information and the mobile location information and determining whether a location of the mobile communications device coincides with a location associated with the credit or debit card transaction; and responding to the request for mobile location information, based on results of the comparison, with an indication of a likelihood of fraud to the requestor. 2 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 THE REJECTIONS 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5,3 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3-8.4 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Singh (US 2007/0174082 Al; published July 26, 2007) and Cai (US 9,240,946 B2; issued Jan. 19, 2016). Final Act. 9-11. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 10, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Singh, Cai, and Eden (US 2008/022203 8 Al; published Sept. 11, 2008). Final Act. 12-15. THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely detecting transactional fraud, which is said to be a fundamental economic practice. Final Act. 3---6. The Examiner adds that the claims do not include elements that add significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely recite, among other things, generic computer components. Id. at 6-8. Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea. App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2-5. According to Appellants, not 2 Because the Examiner withdrew the rejection under§ 112 (Ans. 3--4), that rejection is not before us. 3 Although claim 5 depends from cancelled claim 4, we, nevertheless, presume that claim 5 was intended to depend from claim 1. 4 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed March 10, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 14, 2017 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed February 26, 2018 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 26, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 only does the claimed invention use a particular machine, namely a Diameter router, but this router is also said to be used in a "non-standard" way, namely (1) deriving mobile location information associated with a credit or debit card holder from mobility management signaling messages, and (2) using the location information to determine a likelihood of credit or debit card transactional fraud. App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2-5. This technique is said to (1) provide for interplay between two separate data networks, and (2) improve a transaction processing system's ability to detect fraud regarding geographically unconstrained transactions. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants add that the claimed invention adds significantly more to the purported abstract idea by reciting, among other things, a mobile communications device and Diameter router that are not commonly associated with processing credit or debit card transactions or detecting fraud with respect to those transactions-an unconventional use of these devices that is said to improve the ability of a credit or debit card transaction processing network to detect fraud. App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 5-8. ISSUE Under§ 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether 4 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered combination-transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. PRINCIPLES OF LAW An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk."). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts 5 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). That said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection."). If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( citation omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to 6 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: ( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)). Only if a 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: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. 7 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22: Alice/Mayo Step One Representative independent claim 1 recites [ a] method for facilitating detection of transactional fraud, the method comprising: receiving mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node including at least one processor, the mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router, and the mobility management signaling messages being associated with managing mobile communications device mobility in a mobile communications network; for a credit or debit card transaction associated with a first transaction location and an account holder of the credit or debit card, receiving at the mobile communications network node a request for mobile location information associated with the account holder; identifying a mobile communications device that is also associated with the account holder of the credit or debit card; obtaining, by the mobile communications network node, mobile location information associated with the account holder, the mobile location information being derived from one or more of the mobility management signaling messages that are associated with mobility of a mobile communications device that is associated with the account holder; comparing the transaction location information and the mobile location information and determining whether a location of the mobile communications device coincides with a location associated with the credit or debit card transaction; and responding to the request for mobile location information, based on results of the comparison, with an indication of a likelihood of fraud to the requestor. [5J 5 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote text associated with various recited limitations for emphasis and clarity. 8 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 As the disclosure explains, Appellants' invention detects fraudulent or potentially fraudulent activity associated with geographically unconstrained transactions, namely those that may be readily performed at different geographic locations. Spec. 1. As shown in the embodiment of Appellants' Figure 9, the invention uses a Diameter relay node or router 220 that receives a query from a requester 100, such as a bank, to obtain location information for a mobile device that is believed to be associated with a transaction of interest. Spec. 11. In response to this request, the Diameter router then generates a query requesting the location information from a home subscriber server ("HSS") 320. See Spec. 11; Fig. 9. The HSS then provides this information, such as the user's geo-location coordinates, to the Diameter router that then relays this location information to the requestor. See Spec. 11; Fig. 9. This location is then compared to that of the transaction to determine a likelihood of fraud regarding the transaction. Spec. 6. Turning to claim 1, we first note that the claim recites a method and, therefore, falls within the process category of§ 101. But despite falling within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. To this end, we must determine whether the claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id. In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 29 is directed to an abstract idea, namely detecting transactional fraud, which is said to be a 9 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 fundamental economic practice. Final Act. 3---6. To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim's specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts6; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity7; or ( c) mental processes. 8 Here, apart from the recited (1) receiving mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node including at least one processor, the mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router; (2) receiving a request for mobile location information at the mobile communications network node; and (3) obtaining mobile location information by the mobile communications network node, all of claim 1 's recited limitations, which collectively are directed to determining the likelihood of a fraudulent transaction based on the relative locations of the transaction and a party to that transaction, fit squarely within at least one of the above categories of the US PTO' s guidelines. 6 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 7 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 8 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 10 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 First, receiving mobility management signaling messages ... being associated with managing mobile communications device mobility in a mobile communications network involve at least personal interactions, including following rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could receive these messages either entirely mentally by merely reading pertinent records or other associated information, or alternatively receive that information via face-to-face or written communication with another person with such knowledge, such as a colleague. Cf CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information about transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database); In re Salwan, 681 F. App'x 938, 939--41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, receiving medical records information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that a nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as illustrating the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity); LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App'x 991, 993-94, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, (1) receiving selection criteria from lending institutions and credit data from a computer user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as directed to an abstract idea). 11 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 Therefore, the recited signaling message receiving limitation falls squarely within the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary (1) mental processes including observation and evaluation, and (2) methods of organizing human activity, including personal interactions and following rules or instructions). Second, the limitations reciting ( 1) for a credit or debit card transaction associated with a first transaction location and an account holder of the credit or debit card, receiving ... a request for mobile location information associated with the account holder; (2) identifying a mobile communications device that is also associated with the account holder of the credit or debit card; and (3) obtaining . .. mobile location information associated with the account holder, the mobile location information being derived from one or more of the mobility management signaling messages that are associated with mobility of a mobile communications device that is associated with the account holder also involve at least personal interactions, including following rules or instructions, at least to the extent that a person could receive these messages either entirely mentally by merely reading pertinent records or other associated information, or alternatively receive that information via face-to-face or written communication with another person with such knowledge, such as a colleague. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information about transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database); Salwan, 681 F. App 'x at 939--41 (holding ineligible claims 12 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 reciting, among other things, receiving medical records information and transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective was to enable electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using paper, phone, and facsimile machine); Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344 (noting that a nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in a meeting or conversation as illustrating the invention's focus, namely providing information to a person without interfering with the person's primary activity); LendingTree, 656 F. App'x at 993-94 (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims reciting, among other things, ( 1) receiving selection criteria from lending institutions and credit data from a computer user, and (2) forwarding the credit data to selected lending institutions as directed to an abstract idea). In addition, identifying the mobile communications device and obtaining the mobile location information by deriving this information from signaling messages can be performed entirely mentally by merely thinking about this information or writing it down-both involving mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address). Therefore, the recited identifying and obtaining limitations fall squarely within the mental processes category of the US PTO' s guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation). 13 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 The recited comparing the transaction location information and the mobile location information and determining whether a location of the mobile communications device coincides with a location associated with the credit or debit card transaction not only could be performed entirely mentally, but this comparison also involves organizing human activity, at least to the extent that it involves a fundamental economic practice including ensuring integrity of commercial and financial transactions by comparing indicia associated with transacting parties. Cf CyberSource, 654 F .3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address); Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 696 F. App'x 1014, 1016-18 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims directed to the abstract process of ( 1) receiving identity data from a device with a request for access to resources; (2) confirming authenticity of the identity data associated with that device; (3) determining whether the identified device is authorized to access the requested resources; and (4) if authorized, permitting access to the requested resources). Therefore, the recited location information comparison falls squarely within the mental processes and methods of organizing human activity categories of the agency's guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary (1) mental processes including observation and evaluation, and (2) methods of organizing human activity, including personal interactions and following rules or instructions and fundamental economic practices). 14 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 Lastly, responding to the request for mobile location information, based on results of the comparison, with an indication of a likelihood of fraud to the requestor also involves organizing human activity, at least to the extent that it involves a fundamental economic practice including ensuring integrity of commercial and financial transactions by comparing indicia associated with transacting parties or entities. Cf CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP address); Zuili v. Google LLC, 722 F. App'x 1027, 1029--31 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims directed to abstract idea of collecting, transmitting, analyzing, and storing data to detect fraudulent and/or invalid clicks based on the time between two requests by the same device or client); See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1092-98 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information ("PHI") in a computer environment by (1) applying a rule with at least one criterion related to accesses (a) exceeding a specific volume; (b) during a predetermined time interval; and ( c) by a specific user indicating improper access of a patient's PHI; (2) storing a hit in memory if an event occurs meeting at least one criterion; and (3) providing notification if the event occurs); Prism Techs., 696 F. App'x at 1016-18 (holding ineligible claims directed to the abstract process of ( 1) receiving identity data from a device with a request for access to resources; (2) confirming authenticity of the identity data associated with that device; 15 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 (3) determining whether the identified device is authorized to access the requested resources; and ( 4) if authorized, permitting access to the requested resources). Although the claim recites an abstract idea based on these methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, we nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. To this end, we (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id. Here, the recited (1) receiving mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node including at least one processor, the mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router; (2) receiving a request for mobile location information at the mobile communications network node; and (3) obtaining mobile location information by the mobile communications network node, are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 1 as a whole. First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves the computer or its components' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), despite Appellants' arguments to the 16 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 contrary (App. Br. 14--15). The claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellants contend that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to improve a computer's functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. To the extent Appellants contend that the claimed invention is rooted in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution (see App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 2-5), we disagree. Even assuming, without deciding, that the claimed invention can determine ( 1) mobile and transaction location information, and (2) the likelihood of fraud associated with that transaction based on that information faster than doing so manually, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components-not the recited process itself. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (citing Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F. App'x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) ("Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer do not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.") ( quotation marks, bracketed alteration, and citation omitted). Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an 17 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 improvement in computer processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (quotation marks and citations omitted). As with the ineligible claimed invention in BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1284--91 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claimed invention does not improve a computer's functionality or that of its associated components, but rather the benefits flow from performing the abstract idea in conjunction with those generic computer components. See BSG, 899 F .3d at 1288 ("While the presentation of summary comparison usage information to users improves the quality of the information added to the database, an improvement [in] ... the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality."). Nor is this a case involving eligible subject matter as in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 17-18). There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal, expected manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website apparently connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented ( 1) product information from the third party, and (2) visual "look and feel" elements from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given this particular Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention did not merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from the pre-Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257. 18 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellants' claimed invention, in essence, is directed to determining the likelihood of a fraudulent transaction based on the relative locations of the transaction and a party to that transaction-albeit using computer-based components to achieve that end. The claimed invention here is not necessarily rooted in computer technology in the sense contemplated by DDR where the claimed invention solved a challenge particular to the Internet. Although Appellants' invention uses various computer-based components noted previously, the claimed invention does not solve a challenge particular to the computing components used to implement this functionality. This case is also not analogous to SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 918 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). There, the court held eligible claims reciting hierarchical event monitoring and analysis within an enterprise network where network monitors ( 1) detected suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data selected from specific network-specific categories, and (2) generated reports of the suspicious activity. SRI Int'!, 918 F.3d at 1373. The claim added that the reports were automatically received and integrated by one or more hierarchical monitors. Id. In reaching its eligibility conclusion, the court noted that the claims were not directed to using a computer as a tool-that is, automating a conventional idea on a computer. Id. at 1376. Rather, the claimed invention in SRI improved the computer's technical functioning as well as that of the associated network by reciting a specific technique for improving computer network security. Id. That is not the case here. Although Appellants' claimed invention uses computer and associated network components, including a Diameter 19 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 router, the claimed invention does not improve their technical functioning as was the case with the computer- and network-based improvements in SRI. Rather, Appellants' claimed invention merely uses computer- and network-based components to, among other things, obtain location information that is used as a basis for comparison to detect the likelihood of fraud in connection with a debit or credit card transaction-functions that could otherwise be done manually as noted above. We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claimed invention is eligible because it is tied to particular machines, namely a mobile communications device and Diameter router. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. To be sure, the machine-or-transformation test, although not the only test, can nevertheless provide a "useful clue" in the second step of the Alice/Mayo framework. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 594 (2010)). Under the machine-or-transformation test, a claimed process is patent-eligible if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff'd sub nom. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 593. It is well settled, however, that whether a recited device is a tangible system or, in§ 101 terms, a "machine," is not dispositive. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re TL! Commc 'ns, 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry."). For a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the claimed invention, it must play a significant part in permitting a claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for 20 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly. Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP § 2106.05(b)(II) (citing Versata). The latter role is the case here, for the recited Diameter router is merely an obvious mechanism that achieves the recited solution more quickly, namely obtaining location information faster than by manual data gathering methods. We reach a similar conclusion regarding the recited mobile communications device, for the focus of the claim is directed to solving a business problem-not a technical problem-by detecting transactional fraud. Cf ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 772-73 (holding ineligible claim reciting a network-controlled charge transfer system for electric vehicles comprising, among other things, a communication device configured to connect a controller to a mobile wireless communication device for communication between the electric vehicle operator and the controller); see also id. at 772 (noting that the lack of an indication that the disclosed invention intended to improve the recited components, including the communications devices, or that the inventors viewed the combination of those components as their invention). As was the case with the Internet in CyberSource, the recited Diameter router cannot detect fraud, but rather is merely used as a data source to achieve that end. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370 (noting that mere data gathering steps cannot make an otherwise ineligible claim eligible). In fact, using communications network nodes to obtain mobile location information for comparison purposes to detect the likelihood of criminal behavior was the very issue in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2211-12 (2018) (noting that a time-stamped record, namely 21 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 cell-site location information ("CSLI"), is generated each time a cell phone connects to a cell site); see also id. at 2212-13 (noting that CSLI was used to produce maps confirming that the defendant's phone was located at the time and place where crimes were committed). As was the case with the Internet in CyberSource, the mobile communications network node in Carpenter did not itself detect the likelihood of its user committing crimes at the locations specified by the associated mobile location information, but was rather used merely as a data source to achieve that end, namely by providing the mobile location data that was later analyzed and compared to draw conclusions from that data. See id. at 2218 ("From the 12 7 days of location data it received, the Government could, in combination with other information, deduce a detailed log of Carpenter's movements, including when he was at the site of the robberies."). This use of a mobile communications network node as a data source, like the Internet in CyberSource, is analogous to the recited function of the Diameter router that is used merely to provide location data for later analysis and comparison to determine whether a likelihood of fraud exists based on that gathered data. Appellants' reliance on BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 3--4, 6) is likewise unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to a technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering solution-namely a "one-size-fits-all" filter at an Internet Service Provider (ISP}--more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution improved the computer system's performance and, 22 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 therefore, was patent-eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed invention here uses generic computing components to implement an abstract idea as noted previously. Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (Reply Br. 3--4). There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using particular information and techniques-an improvement over manual three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1316. But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed invention here merely uses generic computing components to determine the likelihood of a fraudulent transaction based on the relative locations of the transaction and a party to that transaction. This generic computer implementation is not only directed to organizing human activity and mental processes, but also does not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP Am. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ( distinguishing McRO). We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claimed invention does not preempt all ways of detecting fraud, but rather is directed to a particular method of identifying a potentially fraudulent transaction by 23 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 deriving relevant location data from mobility management signaling messages received by a Diameter router. App. Br. 16-17. Where, as here, the claims cover a patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are fully addressed and made moot" by an analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by determining the likelihood of a fraudulent transaction based on the relative locations of the transaction and a party to that transaction, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See id. at 1379--80. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22: Alice/Mayo Step Two Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim 1 's additional recited elements, namely the the recited (1) receiving mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node including at least one processor, the mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router; (2) receiving a request for mobile location information at the mobile communications network node; and (3) obtaining mobile location information by the mobile communications network node----considered individually and as an ordered combination----do not provide an inventive concept such that these additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted above, the claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to implement the recited abstract idea. 24 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 To the extent Appellants contend that the recited limitations, including those detailed above in connection with Alice step one, add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two (see App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 7-10), these limitations are not additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed to the abstract idea as noted previously. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited elements should be evaluated in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1) add specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Rather, the the recited (1) receiving mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node including at least one processor, the mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router; (2) receiving a request for mobile location information at the mobile communications network node; and (3) obtaining mobile location information by the mobile communications network node are additional recited elements whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that a recited user profile (i.e., a profile keyed to a user identity), database, and communication medium are generic computer elements); Mortgage Grader Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services, Inc., 811 F .3d 1314, 1324--25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that components such an "interface," "network," and "database" are generic computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 25 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("That a computer receives and sends the information over a network-with no further specification-is not even arguably inventive."); Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2212-18 (noting the use of mobile location information obtained from communications network nodes to determine whether the user was located near the time and place where a crime was committed). Accord Spec. 3 ( describing generic computer components used to implement the invention); Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 5, 8 ( concluding that the claims' generically recited computer components do not add significantly more than the abstract idea). In conclusion, the additional recited elements----considered individually and as an ordered combination----do not add significantly more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22 not argued separately with particularity. 9 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SINGH AND CAI Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Singh discloses, among other things, (1) receiving a request for mobile location 9 Although Appellants nominally argue independent claims 8 and 11 separately (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 9-10), Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those made for claim 1. We, therefore, group these claims accordingly. Accord Alice, 573 U.S. at 208 ("[T]he system claims are no different in substance from the method claims."); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1374 (noting that the underlying invention for both the method and computer-readable medium claims was a method for detecting credit card fraud-not a manufacture for storing computer-readable information). 26 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 information associated with an account holder of a credit or debit card; (2) comparing transaction location information and the mobile location information; and (3) determining whether a mobile communications device's location coincides with that of the transaction. Final Act. 9--10. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Singh does not receive mobility management signaling messages at a mobile communications network node comprising a Diameter router, the Examiner cites Cai for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 10-11. Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest (1) receiving a request for mobile location information associated with an account holder of a credit or debit card associated with a credit or debit card transaction, and (2) comparing transaction location information and the mobile location information and determining whether a mobile communications device's location coincides with that of the transaction. App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 11-13. According to Appellants, not only do Singh's "m-commerce" transactions use a mobile phone as a payment device instead of credit and debit card transactions, but Singh merely determines the likelihood that a person could have traveled from a previous transaction location to a present transaction location-a determination that is said to not identify a correspondence between the credit or debit card holder and the mobile subscriber. App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 11-13. ISSUE Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Singh and Cai collectively would have taught or suggested (1) receiving a request for 27 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 mobile location information associated with an account holder of a credit or debit card; (2) comparing transaction location information and the mobile location information; and (3) determining whether a mobile communications device's location coincides with that of the transaction as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 11, 20, and 22 We begin by noting, as does the Examiner, that independent claim 1 is replete with instances of the broad term "associated with," including, among other things, (1) a credit or debit card transaction associated with a first transaction location and an account holder of that card; (2) identifying a mobile communications device associated with that account holder; (3) obtaining mobile location information associated with the account holder; ( 4) determining whether the mobile communications device's location coincides with a location associated with the credit or debit card holder. Accord Ans. 11 ( articulating the undisputed broad construction of the term "associated" as "any association or relationship between [the] ... claimed elements"). Therefore, to the extent that Appellants contend that this "associated with" language requires two different accounts, namely a first credit or debit card account and a second mobile service subscription account (Reply Br. 11 ), such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not require both of those accounts. Given the scope and breadth of the claim language, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Singh and Cai for collectively at least suggesting the recited limitations. As shown in Singh's Figure 3A, a user 300 can interact with a base station 310 in one location, such as New York City. 28 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 Singh ,r 26. If a person purporting to be the user, however, makes a mobile payment in a different location, such as base station 315 in Los Angeles, the system compares the time difference between these interactions to the average travel time required to reach the radius of the second base station from the first base station. Id. If the average travel time is greater that this time difference, the payment transaction is identified as having a high probability of fraud, and can be flagged or rejected. Id. Singh's Figure 4 also shows the procedure where a location score is computed based on the user's pattern of use, and if an associated location score determined when the user attempts a mobile payment or transaction is higher than a certain threshold level, the transaction is identified as likely fraudulent. See Singh ,r,r 31-32. Given this functionality, Singh at least suggests receiving a request for mobile location information associated with an account holder of a credit or debit card associated with a credit or debit card transaction in light of the location-based determinations associated with the transactions in Figures 3A and 4. Even assuming, without deciding, that Singh's mobile commerce ("m-commerce") systems use only the phone as a payment device instead of a credit or debit card as Appellants contend (App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 12-13), we see no reason why Singh's fraud location-based identification techniques could not be used in connection with a credit or debit card transaction, particularly given Singh's teaching in paragraph 6 of using phones not only for payment akin to a debit or credit card, but also for communications and data access. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (Reply Br. 13), we do not find that Singh criticizes, discredits, or discourages using credit or debit cards as payment to teach away from those alternatives. See Norgren 29 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm'n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In short, despite Singh's "m-commerce" transactions, using Singh's phones to facilitate credit or debit card transactions would have been at least an obvious variation well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would yield predictable results. To the extent that Appellants contend otherwise, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. We also find unavailing Appellants' contention that Singh does not teach or suggest the recited comparison because Singh merely determines the likelihood that a person could have traveled from a previous transaction location to a present transaction location-a determination that is said to not identify a correspondence between the credit or debit card holder and the mobile subscriber. App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 11-12. Here again, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim that requires no such correspondence. Rather, the claim requires, in pertinent part, (1) comparing transaction location information and the mobile location information; and (2) determining whether a mobile communications device's location coincides with that of the transaction. By determining the average travel time required to reach the radius of the second base station from the first base station in Singh's paragraph 26, information associated with communications device's location at the first base station in New York and the location of the transaction in Los Angeles would be at least compared to determine the average time needed to travel the distance between those locations. This determination-based on comparing location information regarding both the transaction in Los Angeles and the communications device's location in New York-at least suggests the recited comparison. 30 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 We reach a similar conclusion regarding the location score-based functionality of Singh's Figure 4. See Singh ,r,r 31-32. Nor do we find error in the Examiner's reliance on Cai for the limited purpose for which it was cited, namely for at least suggesting receiving mobility management signaling messages at a node comprising a Diameter router as claimed. Final Act. 10. Appellants' arguments regarding Cai's individual shortcomings regarding the recited comparison (see App. Br. 22) are not only inapposite to the Examiner's reliance on Singh for teaching that feature, but these contentions do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 3, 5, 8, 11, 20, and 22 not argued separately with particularity. 10 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SINGH, CAI, AND EDEN We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, and 13-17 over Singh, Cai, and Eden. Final Act. 12-15; Ans. 13-15. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 27-28; Reply Br. 15-16), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art for at least suggesting the recited limitations for the reasons noted above and by the Examiner. Final Act. 12-15; Ans. 13-15. Appellants' arguments pertaining 10 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 8, 11, and 22 separately (App. Br. 22-26; Reply Br. 13-15), Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those made for claim 1. We, therefore, group these claims accordingly. We treat other nominally-argued claims similarly, and group those claims accordingly. 31 Appeal2018-005332 Application 13/047 ,287 to Eden's individual shortcomings regarding using a Diameter router to collect mobility management signaling messages from which subscriber location is derived (App. Br. 27-28; Reply Br. 15-16) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 9, 10, and 13-17. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 22 under§§ 101 and 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13-17, 20, and 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 32 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation