Mastercard International Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 17, 2021

2021000426 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/374,751 12/09/2016 Christopher John Merz 21652-00812 9795
75564 7590 08/17/2021
DANIEL M. FITZGERALD (21652)
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
EXAMINER
SEIBERT, CHRISTOPHER B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2021 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):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER JOHN MERZ,
WALTER F. LO FARO, and PENG YANG

____________

Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20. 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
Mastercard International Incorporated. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for
recommending a merchant. (Spec., Abstract.)
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A computer-based method for recommending a merchant,
the method implemented using a recommender computer device
coupled to a memory device, the method comprising:
receiving financial transaction data documenting financial
transactions between a plurality of account holders and a
plurality of merchants;
extracting a list of merchants from the plurality of
merchants in the financial transaction data;
generating a merchant correspondence matrix having
dimensions (i, j), wherein the dimension i is associated with the
list of merchants and the dimension j is also associated with the
list of merchants;
populating each cell (i, j) of the merchant correspondence
matrix based on a number of co-visits of merchant i and merchant
j, wherein each co-visit is defined as a respective one of the
account holders having at least one of the documented financial
transactions at merchant i and at least one of the documented
financial transactions at merchant j;
receiving a query for a recommendation of a merchant
from an account holder or other user; and
generating a ranked list of merchants using a
recommender module, wherein the recommender module applies
at least one iteration of a user preference vector to the merchant
correspondence matrix to obtain the ranked list.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

3
Claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of Kim (US 2014/0372338 A1, pub. Dec. 18, 2014)
and Chang (US 2013/0246120 A1, pub. Sept. 19, 2013).

ANALYSIS
The § 101 rejection
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101, however,
“contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if “the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. If the
claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an
abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine
if “the elements of the claim . . . contain[] an ‘ “inventive concept” ’
sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. at 221 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 79).
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

4
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a “directed
to” two-prong test to: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether
the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”).
The Examiner determines that the steps of claim 1 “set forth a
procedure for organizing human activity, such as by performing commercial
interactions including marketing activity and business relations. This is
because the claim recites the steps performed in order to recommend a
merchant.” (Final Action 3.) The Examiner determines that claim 1
“recite[s] receiving financial transaction data between account holders and
merchants, receiving a query for a recommendation of a merchant, and
generating a list of merchants for recommendation. All of the steps recited
by the claim[] are directed to marketing activity for recommending a
merchant.” (Advisory Action dated Feb. 28, 2020.)
Appellant argues that
[c]laim 1 recites extracting a list of merchants from financial
transaction data (for transactions that previously occurred),
building and populating a specific matrix data structure based on
the list of merchants and detected visits of a given cardholder to
multiple merchants in the list, and using the specifically designed
matrix to create an ordered ranking of merchants.
Importantly, the Office Action fails to identify any claim
step above in which a commercial transaction is conducted or a
merchant is advertised or marketed to a consumer.
(Appeal Br. 5–6.)
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

5
Under step one of the Alice framework, we “look at the ‘focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a
whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tx., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The “directed to” inquiry . . . cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products
and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon
. . . . Rather, the “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on
whether “their character as a whole is directed to excluded
subject matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In
other words, the first step of the Alice framework “asks whether the focus of
the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant
technology] or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36; see also
2019 Guidance at 54–55.
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the invention relates
to “[a] method and system for recommending a merchant.” (Spec, Abstract.)
Claim 1 provides further evidence. Claim 1 recites “[a] computer-based
method for recommending a merchant . . . comprising: receiving financial
transaction data,” “extracting a list of merchants from . . . the financial
transaction data,” “generating a merchant correspondence matrix,”
“populating each cell (i, j) of the merchant correspondence matrix,”
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

6
“receiving a query for a recommendation of a merchant,” “and generating a
ranked list of merchants.”
In other words, claim 1 recites receiving data, analyzing/manipulating
data (extracting a list of merchants and generating a merchant
correspondence matrix), storing data (populating the matrix), receiving data
(receiving a query), and analyzing/manipulating data (generating a ranked
list). Receiving, analyzing, manipulating, and storing data have been
determined to be directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., Univ. of Fla.
Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed.
Cir. 2019) (claims “directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting, analyzing,
manipulating, and displaying data’”), FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys.,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm
of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting information, including when limited to
particular content’” as well as analyzing and presenting information),
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (treating as an abstract idea
“1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set,
and 3) storing that recognized data”), Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon
Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (obtaining
information, analyzing the information, and presenting customized
information based on the analyzed information determined to be directed to
an abstract idea), Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F.
App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to organizing, storing, and
transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea).
Claim 1 recites that the method is “computer-based,” and claim 1
generically recites “a recommender computer device coupled to a memory
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

7
device” and “a recommender module.”2 But claim 1 does not recite how
these computer components receive financial transaction data, how they
extract a list of merchants from the financial transaction data, how they
generate the matrix, how they receive a query, or how they generate the
ranked list.
The inquiry as to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea
“often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC, 822 F.3d at 1335–36). Here, the
computing devices, i.e., the generically recited processors, memory devices,
and computer system, are invoked merely as tools.
“As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and
analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular
‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than
abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). The “character of [the] information simply invokes a separate
category of abstract ideas.” Id. Moreover, “[a] claim does not cease to be
abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the

2 The Specification discloses that the recommender system comprises one or
more generically recited processors coupled to one or more generically
recited memory devices. (Spec. ¶ 6; see also id. ¶ 13 (disclosing that the
claimed system may be “executed on a single computer system, without
requiring a connection to a sever [sic] computer.”).) We note that the
Specification includes two sets of paragraphs numbered 1–15. Unless
otherwise stated, we refer to the second set of paragraph numbers.

Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

8
abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate
a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed.
Cir. 2021).
Nonetheless, Appellant argues that “the first prong analysis considers
whether the claim includes steps that expressly and actively recite the
underlying subcategory of organizing human activity.” (Appeal Br. 6.)
Appellant further argues that “[t]he decisive factor is here is [sic] simply that
no active steps reciting the conduct of a commercial transaction or a
recommendation of a merchant are included in Appellant’s Claim 1.” (Id.
at 6–7.)
As noted above, claim 1 recites a “method for recommending a
merchant . . . comprising: receiving financial transaction data,” “extracting a
list of merchants,” “generating a merchant correspondence matrix,”
“populating . . . the merchant correspondence matrix,” “receiving a query for
a recommendation of a merchant,” “and generating a ranked list of
merchants.” In other words, sales/merchant related data is stored in a two-
dimensional (i x j) matrix, and in response to a query for a recommendation
of a merchant, a ranked list of merchants is generated using the matrix data.
To the extent Appellant’s argument is that claim 1 does not recite the
additional step of providing the list to the querying party, i.e., there is “no
active step” of providing a recommendation of a merchant, we do not find
this argument persuasive. The lack of such an additional step does not
change our determination that claim 1 recites a method for recommending a
merchant. This is an example of marketing or sales activities or behaviors,
i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity. (See 2019 Guidance; see
also Final Action 3.)
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

9
Appellant argues that
the specification makes apparent to one of ordinary skill that the
particular structure of the merchant correspondence matrix, and
the algorithm used to construct it, render a method that was
computationally intractable (in a computer implementation)
when scaled up to a large number of data points into one that can
be applied to “hundreds of thousands or millions of transactions”
using computer hardware of the form shown in FIG. 5. (See
paragraphs [0021] and [0076].) An improvement to a predictive
model that transforms a problem previously intractable on a
computer into one that can be executed by a computer in a
relevant time frame qualifies as an improvement to the
functioning of the computer.
(Reply Br. 2.) We do not find this argument persuasive.
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim is not limited to
“hundreds of thousands or millions of transactions.” The claim includes,
e.g., just a few transactions. Nor do we find claim 1 to be an improvement
in the functioning of the computer. The computer is simply relied upon to
perform routine tasks, e.g., receiving, analyzing, and storing data, more
quickly. “But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly
or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Moreover, “[e]ven if we accept [Appellant’s] assertions, the claimed
invention merely improves the abstract concept . . . using a computer only as
a tool. This is not what the Supreme Court meant by improving the
functioning of the computer itself nor is it consistent with [the Federal
Circuit’s] precedent applying this concept.” Customedia Techs., LLC v.
Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

10
We do not find any indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record that attributes an
improvement in computer technology or functionality to the claimed
invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention “appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” (See 2019
Guidance at 54–55.)
Therefore, under prong one of the two prong test in the 2019
Guidance, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, i.e., certain methods of organizing
human activity; and, under prong two, additional elements in claim 1 do not
“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.” (See 2019
Guidance at 54.) As such, under step one of the Alice framework, claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea, and we move to step two.
Step two of the Alice framework has been described “as 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.’” Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in
claim 1 by the generic computer components are purely conventional.
Receiving, analyzing, manipulating, and storing data are well-understood,
routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

11
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not include any
requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing,
and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional,
generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive
concept . . . .”); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining receiving, processing, and
sending data to be well-known, generic computer-implemented steps),
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (determining claims requiring “arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting,
eliminating, determining” to “involve the normal, basic functions of a
computer” and to be “conventional, routine, and well-known”), In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’
‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming.”).
Nonetheless, Appellant argues that
there is no evidence that generating a merchant correspondence
matrix which includes the same list of merchants on each
dimension of the matrix, populating the cells of the matrix based
on the number of co-visits of a merchant i and a merchant j, and
applying at least one iteration of a user preference vector to the
matrix to obtain a ranked list of merchants, as recited in Claims
1, 12, and 16, is well understood, routine, or conventional.
(Appeal Br. 10.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant’s argument relies
on the ineligible concept itself to establish that the claim recites an inventive
concept. But “[i]t has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use
of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

12
concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible
concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). In other words, “[i]f a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the
application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
application of an abstract idea.” Id. at 1290–91. The claimed invention is,
at most, an improvement to the performance of the abstract idea; in this case,
an improvement to the marketing and business practice of recommending a
merchant, i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity, rather than to
an improvement in, e.g., computer technology itself. (See supra; see also
2019 Guidance at 52.)
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer
components of Appellant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already
present when the limitations are considered separately. For example,
claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer
components themselves. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing
significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic
computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not
enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue independent claims 12 and 16,
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

13
or dependent claims 3–11, 14, 15, and 17–20.3 These claims fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The § 103 rejection
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that Kim teaches “generating a merchant correspondence matrix
having dimensions (i, j), wherein the dimension i is associated with the list
of merchants and the dimension j is also associated with the list of merchants
(Figures 4-6, ¶¶0049-0059).” (Final Action 6.) The Examiner finds that
“Chang teaches a method for generating merchant recommendations for
consumers including the known technique [of] populating each cell (i, j) of
the merchant correspondence matrix based on a number of co-visits of
merchant i and merchant j.” (Id. at 6–7 (citing Chang Figs. 3B–5A, ¶¶ 41–
46).)

3 We treat Appellant’s reference to “independent Claims 42, 49, and 56” as a
typographical error. (See Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).)
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

14
Appellant argues that in claim 1, “both dimensions (i.e., both the rows
and the columns) of the matrix correspond[] to the list of merchants, such
that a value of each cell (i, j) corresponds to the number of account holders
that have co-visited both merchant i and merchant j.” (Appeal Br. 11
(emphasis omitted).) “In contrast, Kim describes storing data in tables
organized in rows and columns, but the rows correspond to particular
consumers, not to merchants.” (Id.)
Kim teaches “systems and methods for generating merchant
recommendations for a user.” (Kim, Abstract.) Figure 4 of Kim is
reproduced below.

Figure 4 includes two tables (tables 400A and 400B) “showing consumer
transactions data stored in a database.” (Id. ¶ 12.) Kim teaches that
tables 400A and 400B may each be organized with rows and
columns. In one embodiment, columns of tables 400A and 400B
may include, for example, consumer_id, category_id, feature,
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

15
visit frequency (e.g., transaction count), purchase volume (e.g.,
spend), merchant count, transaction percentage, spend
percentage, and/or merchant percentage. In another
embodiment, rows of tables 400A and 400B may include, for
example, the spending activities of a particular consumer at a
plurality of merchants who have certain features (e.g., food-pub-
food) and belong to a certain category (e.g., category_id.
1000201).
(Kim ¶ 50.) In other words, Figure 4 of Kim teaches a table having, in
relevant part, a column reflecting different consumers and each row,
showing, e.g., transactions for that consumer in terms of merchant category,
merchant features, transactions in those categories/features, etc. But we do
not find in Figure 4 a disclosure of a table/matrix having each dimension
(whether referred to as i and j, or more typically, x and y) wherein both
dimensions represent merchants and the intersection, i.e., each cell,
represents the number of co-visits by consumers/account holders. Figure 5
does not show a table, and Figure 6 shows a table having merchants on the
x-axis and households on the y-axis. We do not find in the relied-upon
portions of Kim a teaching of a table/matrix with merchants on both the x-
axis and the y-axis with each corresponding cell indicative of the number of
consumers who co-visited the two merchants.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kim teaches generating the merchant correspondence matrix recited in
claim 1.
With regard to Chang, and as noted above, the Examiner finds that
“Chang teaches a method for generating merchant recommendations for
consumers including the known technique [of] populating each cell (i, j) of
the merchant correspondence matrix based on a number of co-visits of
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

16
merchant i and merchant j.” (Final Action 6–7 (citing Chang Figs. 3B–5A,
¶¶ 41–46).)
Appellant argues that “none of the figures or written description in
Chang describe [sic] matrices. FIGs. 3B to 5A are merely output lists of
merchants accompanied by equation results for each merchant” and “none of
the figures or written description in Chang address [sic] counting co-visits at
different merchants by a particular consumer” as recited in claim 1. (Reply
Br. 3.)
Chang teaches “processing an analysis cycle to determine interest
merchants . . . includ[ing] selecting a seed merchant relevant to a topic
interest, identifying consumers that have completed a transaction with the
seed merchant to generate a list of identified consumers, [and] determining
merchants visited by the identified consumers . . . .” (Chang, Abstract.)
Chang describes an “interest merchant” as a merchant “sufficiently active
and/or related to the topic of interest.” (Id. ¶ 29.) Chang teaches, e.g.,
creating a list of interest merchants for a topic of interest, and cross-
referencing a database of consumer transactions to determine the merchants
having “at least one transaction with a consumer” from the sample. (Id.
¶ 42.) Chang also discloses determining “the average number of other
Interest Merchants shopped at by an interest merchant’s consumers.” (Id.
¶ 44.)
Figure 3B of Chang includes a chart showing merchant names and the
number of spending customers associated with each merchant, ranked by
number of spending customers. Figures 4 and 5A include charts showing
merchant names and statistics regarding the number of shoppers associated
with each merchant who also shopped at other stores/sites in the same
Appeal 2021-000426
Application 15/374,751

17
interest area as the merchant. (See Chang Figs. 4–5A; see also id. ¶¶ 44–
46.) We do not find in the cited portions of Chang a teaching of a
table/matrix identifying for each merchant, each other merchant where a
customer shopped, and the number of customers co-visiting each merchant-
merchant pair.
Therefore, we will reverse the § 103 rejection of claim 1. Independent
claims 12 and 16 contain similar language. We will also reverse the § 103
rejection of claim 12 and 16, and of dependent claims 3–11, 14, 15, and 17–
20.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–12,
14–20
101 Eligibility 1, 3–12,
14–20

1, 3–12,
14–20
103 Kim, Chang 1, 3–12,
14–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–12,
14–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED