Ex Parte RAMSEY et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2019

13342269 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/342,269 01/03/2012 MARKS. RAMSEY
79230 7590 06/19/2019
Law Office of Jim Boice
3839 Bee Cave Road
Suite 201
West Lake Hills, TX 78746
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.
END920l10l89US1 5409
EXAMINER
KAZIMI, HAN! M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 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):
J ennifer@BoiceIP.com
Emily@BoiceIP.com
Jim@BoiceIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKS. RAMSEY and DAVID A. SELBY
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
"the use of computers in detecting money laundering activities in micro-
commerce transactions." Spec. ,r 1.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A processor-implemented method of detecting
money laundering, wherein the money laundering occurs
through a use of micro-commerce transactions, and wherein the
processor implemented method comprises:
a processor identifying an historic transaction pattern of
known legitimate past microcommerce transactions by a cohort,
wherein the micro-commerce transactions are transactions,
conducted via micro-payment computers connected via a
network, that each have a value of less than $0.01 USD, and
wherein the micro-commerce transactions exceed 1,000
transactions per hour;
the processor identifying a current transaction pattern for
a current set of multiple microcommerce transactions;
the processor comparing the current transaction pattern to
the historic transaction pattern;
the processor, in response to determining that the current
transaction pattern deviates from the historic transaction pattern
beyond a predetermined level, determining that the current set
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Sept. 20, 2017); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 9, 2018); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 14, 2018); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Feb. 23, 2017); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Jan. 3, 2012).
2
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
of multiple micro-commerce transactions are being used for
money laundering, wherein the money laundering uses micro-
payments to launder money; and
the processor further determining that the current set of
multiple micro-commerce transactions are being used for
money laundering based on an average length of time, between
a first computer receiving the micro-payments and the first
computer transferring the micropayments to a second computer,
exceeding a predetermined length of time.
Rejections on Appeal3
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-15; Reply Br. 2-11) and
our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we decide the appeal of
patent-ineligible subject matter Rejection RI of claims 1-20 on the basis of
representative claim 1.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 8-15; Reply Br. 2-11) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Under the USPTO's Revised Guidance, informed by our governing
case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, is claim 1 patent-ineligible under
§ 101?
3 We note the Examiner has withdrawn the§ 103 rejections. Ans. 3--4.
3
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
A. 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
"Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo." SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.4
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[L Jaws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014)
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). 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
4 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four
statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, is referred to as "Step 1" in the USPTO's patent-
eligibility analysis under§ 101. MPEP § 2106.
4
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
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
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191 ); "tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores"
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 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 "[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."). Having
said that, 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. ( citation omitted) ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is
now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical
5
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and
mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-21. Under
this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what
the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one
inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 ("[W]e tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.").
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 ensure 'that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (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.
B. USPTO Revised Guidance
The PTO recently published revised guidance in the Federal Register
concerning the application of§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter
"Revised Guidance") (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-
07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).
6
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
Under the Revised 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); 5 and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent
Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 6
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 are not "well-understood, routine, conventional"
in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 7
See Revised Guidance.
Step 2A(i) ~ Abstract Idea
Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and
synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain
5 Referred to as "Revised Step 2A, Prong 1" in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter "Step 2A(i)").
6 Referred to as "Revised Step 2A, Prong 2" in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter "Step 2A(ii)").
7 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as "Step 2B" of the
Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
7
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject
matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity -
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); and
( c) Mental processes----concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-
eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis,
except in situations identified in the Revised Guidance. 8
However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea
enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim
requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception
in Step 2A(ii).
8 In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation
that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in
of the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Revised
Guidance, Section III.C.
8
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
Step 2A(ii) ~ Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A (i), we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception( s ); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
The seven identified "practical application" sections of the MPEP, 9
cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of
a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical
Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05( c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(±) Mere Instructions To Apply An
Exception
( 6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological
Environment
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited
9 See MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer to
revision [R-08.2017]. Sections 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) are indicative of
integration into a practical application, while sections 2106.05(±), (g), and
(h) relate to limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application.
9
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-
eligibility inquiry ends. If not, then analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B - "Inventive Concept" or "Significantly More"
Under our precedent, it is possible that a claim that does not
"integrate" a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is nonetheless
patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that
render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in
a separate claim element. 10 The Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at
the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B) because the
additional elements recited in the claims provided "significantly more" than
the recited judicial exception ( e.g., because the additional elements were
unconventional in combination). 11 Therefore, if a claim has been
determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step 2A, we
must evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under
Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e.,
whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the
exception itself). 12
10 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187.
11 See, e.g., Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288,
1300, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR
Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
12 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, "[t]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
10
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an
additional element or combination of elements: (1) "Adds a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present;" or (2) "simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may not be present." See Revised Guidance,
III.B. 13
In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element ( or combination of
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in
writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the
specification or to a statement made by an applicant during
prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element( s ) ....
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions
discussed in MPEP § 2106.05( d)(II) as noting the well-
13 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner's finding that
an additional element ( or combination of elements) is well understood,
routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four
specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer
Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning evaluation
of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.0S(d),
as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (USPTO
Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018, "Changes in
Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)" (hereinafter
"Berkheimer Memo").
11
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element( s ).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element( s ) ....
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official
notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the additional element( s) ....
See Berkheimer Memo.
The analysis in Step 2B further determines whether an additional
element or combination of elements:
(a) Adds a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional
activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive
concept may be present; or
(b) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be
present.
Revised Guidance, and see Berkheimer Memo.
If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the
element ( or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the
exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility
analysis.
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination
of elements does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself,
the claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for
lack of subject matter eligibility.
12
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
ANALYSIS
Based upon our de nova review of the record in light of recent
Director Policy Guidance with respect to patent-eligible subject matter
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 for
the specific reasons discussed below. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Step 1 --Statutory Category
Claim 1, as a method claim, recites one of the enumerated categories
of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue before us
is whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined the exemplary claim 1 is directed to "the
abstract idea of a fundamental commercial or business practice of
identifying money laundering in micro-commerce as e-commerce." Final
Act. 19.
We find claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either
natural phenomena or laws of nature. We evaluate, de nova, whether
claim 1 recites an abstract idea based upon the Revised Guidance.
Claim 1 recites "[a] method of detecting money laundering," wherein
the method includes the steps of:
( 1) "[I] dentifying an historic transaction pattern of known
legitimate past microcommerce transactions by a cohort,
wherein the micro-commerce transactions are transactions ...
that each have a value of less than $0.01 USD, and wherein the
13
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
micro-commerce transactions exceed 1,000 transactions per
hour."
(2) "[I]dentifying a current transaction pattern for a
current set of multiple microcommerce transactions."
(3) "[C]omparing the current transaction pattern to the
historic transaction pattern."
Claims App'x.
The Specification provides context as to what the claimed invention is
directed to. In this case, the Specification characterizes the invention as
"detecting money laundering activities in micro-commerce transactions."
Spec. ,r 1.
Appellants' Abstract provides additional description of the invention:
A processor-implemented method, system, and/or
computer program product detects illicit activities in micro-
commerce transactions. An historic transaction pattern of
known legitimate past micro-commerce transactions by a cohort
is identified. A current transaction pattern for a current set of
multiple micro-commerce transactions is also identified. The
current transaction pattern and the historic transaction pattern
are compared. In response to determining that the current
transaction pattern deviates from the historic transaction pattern
beyond a predetermined level, a determination is made that the
current set of multiple micro-commerce transactions are being
used for money laundering.
Spec. 24.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, 14 we conclude
the claim's recited steps, taken as a whole, would ordinarily occur when
14 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
14
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
analyzing and comparing any type of transactions to identify trends or make
comparisons to historic patterns, regardless of the specific amounts or
frequency of occurrence of the transactions. See Final Act. 2-3. For
example, steps (1) - (3) would be steps in any effort to identify a large
number of micro transactions occurring in a short period of time in an effort
to detect money laundering in an effort to reduce the related risk.
Thus, under Step 2A(i), we generally agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 recites an abstract idea, and we particularly conclude claim 1 recites
certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, under our
Revised Guidance, we conclude claim 1, as a whole, recites a judicial
exception of a fundamental economic practice, and thus an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above,
we proceed to the "practical application" Step 2A(ii) in which we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
we interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
15
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
In addition to the abstract steps recited in limitations (1) through (3)
identified in Step 2A(i), supra, claim 1 further recites ( emphasis added):
( 4) "[I]n response to determining that the current
transaction pattern deviates from the historic transaction pattern
beyond a predetermined level, determining that the current set
of multiple micro-commerce transactions are being used for
money laundering, wherein the money laundering uses micro-
payments to launder money."
(5) "[F]urther determining that the current set of multiple
micro-commerce transactions are being used for money
laundering based on an average length of time, between a first
computer receiving the micro-payments and the first computer
transferring the micropayments to a second computer,
exceeding a predetermined length of time."
For the reasons discussed below, we conclude limitations (4) and (5)
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as determined under at
least one of the MPEP sections cited above. 15
Appellants' Specification discloses, in Fig. 2, a flow chart of steps
taken by a processor to detect money laundering. Applicants' Specification
discloses patterns to determine transactions being used for money laundering
and describe a variety of different embodiments for this purpose. Spec.
,r,r 26-44.
Appellants argue their claim "recites the new and useful features
unknown in the prior art" and determines "that the current set of multiple
micro-commerce transactions are being used for money laundering based on
an average length of time, between a first computer receiving the micro-
15 See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a
Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field," and
§ 2106.05(e) "Other Meaningful Limitations."
16
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
payments and the first computer transferring the micro-payments to a second
computer, exceeding a predetermined length of time." App. Br. 9-10 (citing
Spec. ,r 27). In support, Appellants further point out:
The invention claimed in Claim 1 is directed to detecting
money laundering that uses networked computers processing
more than 1,000 transactions per hour of micro-payments of
less than $0.01 USD. More significantly, the present invention
described in Claim 1 determines that micro-commerce
transactions are "being used for money laundering based on an
average length of time, between a first computer receiving the
micro-payments and the first computer transferring the micro-
payments to a second computer, exceeding a predetermined
length of time". That is, the present invention is not tied to
actions of humans, but rather actions of computers (i.e., the
amount of time that it takes a first computer to receive and then
forward a payment to another computer).
App. Br. 11 (bolding omitted).
We find Appellants' argument persuasive that carrying out steps "(4)"
and "(5)" provide improvements to the underlying technology or technical
field, namely, money-laundering detection systems. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)
or, alternatively,§ 2106.05(e) "Other Meaningful Limitations."
With respect to these other meaningful limitations, we find guidance
in MPEP § 2106.05( e ), which summarizes and relies upon the Supreme
Court's holding in Diehr, cited supra, and our reviewing court's holdings in
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ( decision on remand from the Supreme Court, which had vacated the
lower court's prior holding of ineligibility in view of Bilski v. Kappas).
In Classen, the Federal Circuit held that, although the analysis step
was an abstract mental process that collected and compared known
17
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
information, the (practical application) immunization step was meaningful
because it integrated the results of the analysis into a specific and tangible
method that resulted in the method "moving from abstract scientific
principle to specific application." MPEP § 2106.05( e) ( citing Classen, 659
F.3d at 1066-68).
For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 11 ),
we are persuaded the other meaningful limitations identified above provide a
technological improvement to money-laundering detection systems.
Accordingly, we conclude, when the claim is considered as a whole, the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as
determined under either MPEP sections 2106.06(a) or 2106.05(e) cited
above, such that the claim is patent-eligible.
Because the claims are directed to a patent-eligible concept, this
concludes the patent-eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, based upon the findings and legal conclusions above, on
this record and in consideration of the Revised Guidance, we are persuaded
the claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, such that we do not
sustain the § 101 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-20 which stand
therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSION
Under our Revised Guidance, governed by relevant case law, we
conclude claims 1-20 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we do
not sustain the rejection.
18
Appeal2018-004873
Application 13/342,269
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
19