MasterCard International Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2020

2020003266 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/798,792 07/14/2015 Greg Saunders P01061-US-
CIP (M01.236X)
8934
125619 7590 12/18/2020
Mastercard International Incorporated
c/o Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
50 Locust Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
EXAMINER
FELTEN, DANIEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
colabella@bmtpatent.com
martin@bmtpatent.com
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREG SAUNDERS, THEUNIS JOHANNES GERBER, and
MARK WIESMAN
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16 and 25–36. See Final Act. 1. Claim
16 is independent; claims 1–15 and 17–24 are canceled. Appeal Br. 24–27,
Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed July 14, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed April 16, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed October
28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 27, 2020
(“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed March 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
2
The claims are directed to an analytics rules engine for a payment
processing system. Spec., Title. Claim 16, reproduced below with
bracketed labels added and limitations determined by the Examiner to recite
abstract concepts (Final Act. 3) emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
16. A computer system, comprising:
[(1)] a payment system authorization platform, including
[(1.1)] a first communication device to receive
authorization messages from an acquirer platform; and
[(1.2)] a payment system authorization platform computer
programmed to:
[(1.2.1)] (i) determine that a subset of the received
authorization messages meet a predetermined
condition, and
[(1.2.2)] (ii) transmit information about the subset of
authorization messages to a payment system
analytics rules engine, via a communication
network, without transmitting the authorization
messages not determined to be in the subset to the
payment system analytics rules engine; and
[(1.3)] the payment system analytics rules engine,
including:
[(1.3.1)] a second communication device to receive
the information about the subset of authorization
messages via the communication network
without receiving the authorization messages not
determined to be in the subset; and
[(1.3.2)] a payment system analytics rules engine
computer programmed to:
[(1.3.2.1)] (iii) automatically assign each of the
subset of the authorization messages to a
segmentation dimension category associated
with payment card presence,
[(1.3.2.2)] (iv) automatically assign each of the
subset of the authorization messages to a
spending dimension category, and
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
3
[(1.3.2.3)] (v) transmit information about the
segmentation dimension category and
spending dimension category assignments to
the payment system authorization platform
such that at least some of the subset of
authorization messages received by the
payment system authorization platform are
declined and not forwarded by the analytics
engine to an issuer platform based on the
segmentation dimension category and the
spending dimension category assignments
wherein authorization messages approved by
the payment system analytics rules engine are
forwarded to the issuer platform.
REJECTION
Claims 16 and 25–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea), without significantly more.
Final Act. 2–3.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
4
To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.

REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101

Principles of Law
A. SECTION 101
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. 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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (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 Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application
explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
5
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 (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
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.
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
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.”). Having said that, the 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. at 191 (citing
Benson and Flook); see also, 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 turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
6
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 (internal quotation marks
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 SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019
Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the
availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel
are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019
Guidance Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites
the following:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
7
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
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, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

The Examiner’s Determinations
Under Step 2A, prong 1, the Examiner determines the claims recite
concepts recognized as patent-ineligible abstract ideas:
The [identified] limitations are abstract because they can
be grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity
wherein the steps are provided for payment authorization or
processing of payment card transactions which relate to
fundamental economic practices including sales activities. The
claims can also be considered mental steps or mathematical
algorithms, presenting results of collected and analyzed
information which includes human attributes of observation,
evaluation, judgement and opinion which can be performed by
the human mind.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
8
Final Act. 3. Addressing prong 2, the Examiner determines “[the] judicial
exception is not integrated into a practical application because the element of
the first communication device and the computer individually and/or in
combination as a whole do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of
the computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field.”
Id. Addressing Step 2B, the Examiner determines
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the filtering and transmission functions found
in each of the elements, either individually or in combination as
a whole, provides computer functions similar to receiving,
processing and storing data and/or receiving and transmitting
data over a network, e.g., using Internet to gather data, which the
courts have determined to be un-patentable [see Alice Corp., 573
U.S. at 227; as well as Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 716–17; (Fed. Cir. 2014)]. Thus the claims remain patent
ineligible.
Id. (citations altered).
Appellant presents various arguments. Appeal Br. 5–16. We address
these arguments in the Analysis section, below.

Analysis
STEP 2A, PRONG 1
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that “the present
claims do not recite any of a mathematical concept, certain method(s) of
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
9
organizing human activity, or mental processes.” Appeal Br. 16. Although
the claims include elements in addition to concepts determined to be judicial
exceptions, we agree with the Examiner in determining the claims recite
(1) sales activities reasonably characterized as (a) fundamental economic
practices and/or (b) commercial or legal interactions under the category of
certain methods of organizing human activity, and (2) concepts that can be
performed in the human mind or with pen and paper recognized as mental
processes. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6.
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s contention that the rejection is
improper because, according to Appellant, the analysis required by the 2019
Guidance was not provided by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 16. As an initial
matter, we note the USPTO makes clear that any guidance issued “does not
constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of
law.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also May 2016
Subject Matter Eligibility Update, 81 Fed. Reg. 27381, 27382 (May 6,
2016). In particular, the 2019 Revised Guidance “does not create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the
USPTO,” and although USPTO personnel are “expected to follow the
guidance,” failure to do so “is not, in itself, a proper basis for either an
appeal or a petition.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51, 81 Fed. Reg. at 27382.
Furthermore, we find the Examiner’s determination that the claims
recite specific judicial exceptions is supported by sufficient factual findings
and explanations to support the rejection in compliance with the Guidelines.
See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4. The analysis below further fairly supports a
determination that the claims recite judicial exceptions including (i)
fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
10
interactions reasonably characterized as certain methods of organizing
human behavior, and (ii) observations, evaluations, or judgments that are
concepts performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper
reasonably characterized as mental processes.
Limitation (1.1) recites, in relevant part, “receive authorization
messages from an acquirer.” Appeal Br. 24, Claim App. Appellant’s
Specification indicates that the receiving step of limitation (1.1) entails data
gathering: “an acquirement platform 210 may request authorization of a
payment card transaction from an issuer platform 230 via a payment
authorization platform 220.” Spec. 1:19–21. Examples of message content
include “information about at least one of: (i) a cardholder associated with
the authorization message, (ii) an account associated with the authorization
message, (iii) a payment card associated with the authorization message, (iv)
a merchant associated with the authorization message, and (v) a merchant
terminal associated with the authorization message.” Spec. 7:15–19.
Receiving a message, i.e., collecting or gathering data identifying a
payment vehicle (e.g., credit card) that had been tendered to pay for a
purchase and related card holder and sales information reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a mental process, i.e., a mental observation.
Guidance Update 7 & n.48. For example, a salesperson may observe a
credit card number and other information useful or required to authorize a
payment and complete a purchase for a customer. Similarly, receiving
information needed to authorize a transaction is a sales activity reasonably
characterized as a fundamental economic practice and/or commercial or
legal interaction under the category of certain methods of organizing human
activity. The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes mental processes,
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
11
including observations that can be performed in the human mind, as well as
certain methods of organizing human activity, such as sales activities, as
patent-ineligible abstract ideas.3 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, limitation 1.1 reasonably can be characterized as reciting a
judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter, specifically, a mental
process.
Limitation 1.2 recites, a payment-system authorization platform
computer programmed to perform the steps of determining limitation 1.2.1
and transmitting limitation 1.2.2. Appeal Br. 24, Claim App. Appellant’s
Specification discloses the platform as follows:

3 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does
not, “impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241. Further, “[a]n abstract
idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction . . . . The
Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the
patentability analysis.” Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract
ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC
v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one
abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim
non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were
directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Thus, the patentability analysis
in this Appeal does not turn on exactly how various limitations are
characterized as being abstract, i.e., as either an abstract “mathematical
concepts,” “mental processes,” or “certain methods of organizing human
activity.” For example, in the alternative to being characterized as
commercial or legal interactions that are certain methods of organizing
human activities, the limitations of claim 16 also can be considered to be
observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind considered to be mental processes. However,
the end result remains the same in this Appeal--the claims as a whole still
recite an abstract idea.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
12
The embodiments described herein may be implemented
using any number of different hardware configurations. For
example, FIG. 8 illustrates a payment system authorization
platform 800 that may be, for example, associated with the
system 200 of FIG. 2. The payment system authorization
platform 800 comprises a processor 25 810, such as one or more
commercially available Central Processing Units (CPUs) in the
form of one-chip microprocessors, coupled to a communication
device 820 configured to communicate via a communication
network (not shown in FIG. 8). The payment system
authorization platform 800 further includes an input device 840
(e.g., a mouse and/or keyboard) and an output device 850 (e.g.,
a computer monitor).
Spec. 11:21–29. We address the platform itself under prong 2 and Step 2B
of our analysis infra and the functionalities provided by the platform as
follows.
Limitation 1.2.1 recites “determine that a subset of the received
authorization messages meet a predetermined condition.” The Specification
discloses
At S310, the payment system authorization platform may
receive an authorization message from an acquirer platform. At
S320 the payment system authorization platform may determine
that the authorization request meets a predetermined condition.
The determination might be based on, for example, a Bank
Identification Number (“BIN”) and/or 16-digit primary account
number associated with the authorization request.
Responsive to the determination, information about the
authorization message may be transmitted to an analytics rules
engine at S330. The transmitting might comprise, for example,
forwarding the authorization message to the analytics rules
engine.
Spec. 6:8–17.
Whether information that is part of a request satisfies a condition,
such recognizing, per Appellant’s examples, a particular or set of BIN or
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
13
account number(s), reasonably can be characterized as an observation,
evaluation, or judgment that can be performed in the human mind, i.e., a
mental process. Furthermore, identifying specific conditions as part of
processing a transaction is a sales activity reasonably characterized as a
fundamental economic practice and/or commercial or legal interaction under
the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The 2019
Guidance expressly recognizes mental processes, including observations that
can be performed in the human mind, as well as certain methods of
organizing human activity, such as sales activities, as patent-ineligible
abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitation
1.2.1 reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to
patent-eligible subject matter.
Limitation 1.2.2 recites “transmit information about the subset of
authorization messages to a payment system analytics rules engine, via a
communication network, without transmitting the authorization messages
not determined to be in the subset to the payment system analytics rules
engine.” Selecting whether to transmit certain information reasonably can
be characterized as an observation, evaluation, or judgment that can be
performed in the human mind, i.e., a mental process. In the context of this
application, transmitting information reasonably constitutes expressing an
opinion that is recognized as a mental process.4 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed.

4 We note that the Specification discloses that the information transmission
may be within a single physical device as between software modules, i.e.,
processes. “As used herein, information may be ‘received’ by or
‘transmitted’ to, for example: (i) the analytics rules engine 1000 from
another device; or (ii) a software application or module within the analytics
rules engine 1000 from another software application, module, or any other
source.” Spec. 13:28–31. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of transmitting
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
14
Reg. at 52. Furthermore, identifying specific conditions involved in
processing a transaction and transmitting the appropriate information to
process the transaction are sales activities reasonably characterized as
fundamental economic practices and/or commercial or legal interactions
under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity the
category of certain methods of organizing human activity. The 2019
Guidance expressly recognizes (i) mental processes, including observations
that can be performed in the human mind, as well as (ii) certain methods of
organizing human activity, such as sales activities, as patent-ineligible
abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitation
1.2.2 reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to
patent-eligible subject matter.
Limitation 1.3 recites that the payment system analytic rules engine
includes (i) a second communication device to receive the information
(limitation 1.3.1) and (ii) a payment system analytics rules engine computer
(limitation 1.3.2) programmed to perform the steps of limitations 1.3.2.1
through 1.3.2.3. The payment system analytics rules engine is described as a
commercially available processor, data storage, input, output, and
communication devices and program elements. Spec. 13:4–27. We address
the structure of the analytics rules engine computer below under prong 2 of
our analysis and the functionality recited in subordinate limitations 1.3.1,
1.3.2., and 1.3.2.1–1.3.2.3 as follows.

information includes subjecting the information to separate processes or
processing stages by or within a single processing element. Accordingly,
transmitting information need not occur between different processors but can
occur between processing stages of a single processing element and,
therefore, reasonably can be performed in the mind of an individual.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
15
Limitation 1.3.1 recites that the payment system analytics rules engine
includes a second communication device to receive the information about
the subset of authorization messages via the communication network without
receiving the authorization messages not determined to be in the subset.
Receiving a subset of information used to authorize a payment card
transaction is a fundamental economic practice, which is included in the
abstract idea grouping: “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.”
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Furthermore, gathering or receiving a
subset of data constitutes a mental process, e.g., a mental observation. The
2019 Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity and
mental as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. Accordingly,
limitation 1.3.1 recites an abstract idea.
Limitation 1.3.2 recites that the payment system analytics rules engine
includes a payment system analytics rules engine computer programmed to
perform the step of limitations 1.3.2.1 through 1.3.2.3. We address the
payment system analytics rules engine computer under prong 2 of our
analysis and the functionality as follows.
Limitation 1.3.2.1 recites that the payment system analytics rules
engine computer automatically assigns each of the subset of the
authorization messages to a segmentation dimension category associated
with payment card presence. The Specification discloses the assignment
process as follows:
At S1340, the processor of the payment system
authorization platform may receive information from the
analytics rules engine, including indications that each
authorization message is assigned to a “segmentation dimension
category.” The segmentation dimension category might be
associated with, for example, a high category, a medium
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
16
category, a low category, and/or a none category. Moreover, the
segmentation dimension category might be associated card
present transactions and/or card not present transactions in
connection with cross border transactions, domestic transactions,
retail shopper transactions, domestic Automated Teller Machine
(“ATM”) transactions, cross border ATM transactions, travel
spending transaction, signature at Personal Identification
Number (“PIN”) terminal transaction, automotive fuel dispenser
transactions, online transactions, game transactions, and/or
gambling transactions.
Spec. 18:17–28.
Categorizing information reasonably can be characterized as an
observation, evaluation, or judgment that can be performed in the human
mind, i.e., a mental process. Furthermore, evaluating an authorization
request by recognizing certain characteristics of the request so as to place the
request into a particular predefined category of transactions is a sales activity
reasonably characterized as a fundamental economic practice and/or
commercial or legal interaction under the category of certain methods of
organizing human activity. The 2019 Guidance recognizes mental
processes, including observations that can be performed in the human mind,
as well as certain methods of organizing human activity, such as sales
activities, as patent-ineligible abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52. Accordingly, limitation 1.3.2.1 reasonably can be characterized as
reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter.
Limitation 1.3.2.2 recites that the payment system analytics rules
engine computer automatically assigns each of the subset of the
authorization messages to a spending dimension category. The Specification
discloses:
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
17
According to some embodiments, the information from
the analytics rules engine further includes indications that each
authorization message is assigned to a spending dimension
category. For example, the spending dimension category might
be associated with a high category, a medium category, a low
category, and/or a none category. For each segmentation
dimension category and spending dimension category,
embodiments may calculate: (i) a percent of accounts, (ii) a gross
dollar amount, (iii) a decline rate, and (iv) a fraud rate.
Spec. 18:29–19:5.
For the same reasons discussed above in connection with limitation
1.3.2.1, the processing of limitation 1.3.2.2 likewise reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject
matter, including mental processes and certain methods of organizing human
activities. Furthermore, to the extent performed in categorizing the
authorization messages, the disclosed calculations may be performed in the
human mind. The 2019 Guidance recognizes mental processes and certain
methods of organizing human activity as constituting patent-ineligible
abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Limitation 1.3.2.3 recites that the payment system analytics rules
engine computer transmits information about the segmentation dimension
category and spending dimension category assignments to the payment
system authorization platform such that at least some of the subset of
authorization messages received by the payment system authorization
platform are declined and not forwarded by the analytics engine to an issuer
platform based on the segmentation dimension category and the spending
dimension category assignments wherein authorization messages approved
by the payment system analytics rules engine are forwarded to the issuer
platform. Selectively (i) declining certain transactions and, thereby, not
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
18
transmitting information for processing of disapproved transactions and (ii)
approving other transactions including selectively transmitting information
for processing the approved transaction are sales activities reasonably
characterized as fundamental economic practices and/or commercial or legal
interactions under the category of certain methods of organizing human
activity.
Furthermore, the transmission of information can be performed in the
human mind (e.g., an observation) or with the aid of pen and paper. The
2019 Revised Guidance recognizes certain methods of organizing human
activity (e.g., advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and
mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind) as
constituting abstract ideas. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. See
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (generalized routing of information is abstract).
Accordingly, limitation 1.3.2.3 reasonably can be characterized as reciting a
judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter, specifically, a mental
process.
We further note a determination that claim 16 recites a judicial
exception to patent eligibility is consistent with Office Guidance and case
law. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (concluding claims
directed to “detecting credit card fraud based on information relating to past
transactions” can be performed in the human mind and were drawn to a
patent-ineligible mental process); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1093–94
(concluding claims directed to “collecting and analyzing information to
detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected” to be mental
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
19
processes within the abstract-idea category); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed
Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (processing
of payments is a fundamental economic practice); Zuili v. Google LLC, 722
F. App’x 1027, 1029–31 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (holding ineligible
claims directed to abstract ideas 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); 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).
For the reasons discussed above, each of limitations 1.1 through 1.3,
including their subelements, recites one or more judicial exceptions to
patent-eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance.

STEP 2A, PRONG 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether independent claim 16 recites additional elements that individually
or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies
considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of
elements integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, such as
an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
20
computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at
55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Addressing the additional elements, the Examiner determines the
“judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
element of the first communication device and the computer individually
and/or in combination as a whole do not reflect an improvement in the
functioning of the computer or an improvement to another technology or
technical field.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner identifies the additional
elements as the “computer system comprising first and second
communication devices, analytics rules engine etc.” Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination under prong 2. As an
initial matter, the message receiving step of limitation 1.1, information
transmission step of limitation 1.2.2, information receiving of step 1.3.1, and
information transmission of step 1.3.2.3, even if interpreted narrowly such
that the information is communicated in an electronic format such that it is
received and transmitted by a computer on an electronic data network, still
would not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
Under such a narrow interpretation, the steps of these limitations merely
would constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., pre-solution and
post-solution activities.
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data
for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining
information about credit card transactions, which is recited as
part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the
gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect
whether the transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g). As such, even if we consider limitations 1.1 and 1.3.1
as reciting additional elements under prong 2 rather than an abstract idea
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
21
under prong 1, those limitations at most recite the insignificant extra-
solution activity of gathering data.
Similarly, transmission limitations 1.2.2 and 1.3.2.3 can be
characterized as merely being directed to the insignificant extra-solution
activity of transmitting data. In particular, communicating or transmitting
information is insignificant post-solution activity. 2019 Guidance 55 n.31;
see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a
network).
Addressing specific structures, claim 16 recites the additional
elements of (i) a first communication device (limitation 1.1); (ii) a payment
system authorization platform computer (limitation 1.2); (iii) a payment
system analytics rules engine and (iv) a communication network (limitation
1.2.2.). In addition, the payment system analytics rules engine includes (v) a
second communication device (limitation 1.3.1) and (vi) a payment system
analytics rules engine computer (limitation 1.3.2). The Specification
provides only high-level descriptions of these elements, disclosing that the
processors and, presumably, associated components, are commercially
available devices. See, e.g., Spec. 11:14–12, 13:4–23.
Appellant contends
[T]he claims are directed to a specific implementation of a
technological solution to the particular technological problems
of how to provide a computer system that functions to not only
reduce network traffic by improving and streamlining the process
for authorizing transactions, but that also functions in a manner
that reduces the processing load of an issuer platform. In
particular, Appellant submits that claim 16 recites a computer
system having a payment system authorization platform and a
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
22
payment system analytics rules engine that function in a manner
that achieves these goals.
Appeal Br. 16–17.
The Examiner responds:
It was determined that the elements of a first communication
device and second communication device along with the
payment system authorization platform and the analytics rules
engine did not provide a technical solution in receiving
authorization messages, determining of a subset of messages,
categorizing and transmitting those messages to be categorized,
but merely used the elements in combination of tools to apply
and/or implement the judicial exception within a technological
environment or technical field.
Ans. 7.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
As discussed above, the additional elements of the claim are described in the
Specification as conventional computer components, such as generic
processors, operating in a conventional manner. The additional elements
such as the communication devices, payment system analytics rules engine
and computer, and communication network recited in claim 16 do not
meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely link the use of the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation
via computers”), which are well-understood, routine, conventional activity
recited at a high level of generality. Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26; Bilski, 561
U.S. at 595; MPEP § 2106.05(e)5; see also Content Extraction &

5 Additional elements such as the data processing system and
communications controllers recited in the system claims did not
meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of
the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e.,
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
23
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (discussing that data collection, recognition, and storage is
well known); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that use of “conventional computer, network, and
display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired
information” does not add significantly more to the claimed abstract idea);
CyberSource Corp., 654 F.3d at 1375 (“[T]he incidental use of a computer
to perform the [claimed process] does not impose a sufficiently meaningful
limit on the claim’s scope.”).
We also are unpersuaded the system of claim 16 addresses a problem
of computer or network operations or “recites an improvement to the
functionality of a computer system . . . that not only reduces network traffic
but that also reduces the processing load of the issuer platform.” Appeal Br.
20. Even if, as Appellant contends, the system of claim 16 results in reduced
processing load of an issuer platform and/or reduced network traffic (Appeal
Br. 17), any reduction is the result of the underlying abstract concept of
selectively forwarding authorization messages. This concept is similar to a
manually implemented approval process in which a salesperson selectively
requires additional information about and approval for certain types of
transactions. For example, a salesperson may be authorized to decline
certain transactions and only approve transactions below a certain dollar
threshold. Other transactions may require supervisory approval including
the provision of transaction information necessary for a supervisor to
determine whether the transaction should be authorized. In both the

“implementation via computers”) or were well-understood, routine,
conventional activity.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
24
computer-implemented process of claim 16 and the manual process,
selectively obtaining approvals from an appropriate approval authority
reduces the need for personnel participation when a decision can be made
earlier in a chain of approvals just as platform and electronic communication
requirements may be reduced in a computer-implemented process as alleged
by Appellant.
In sum, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence, and we do not
ascertain support appearing in the Specification or otherwise conclude that
the claimed methodology addresses a technical problem or improves the
operation of the computer platform implementing the actions required by the
recited steps. Instead, the claims merely automate a manual method of
processing payment card transactions.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant does not persuade us that
claim 16 is directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or
to any other technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor does
Appellant persuasively demonstrate that these claims are directed to a
particular machine or transformation, or that the claims add any other
meaningful limitations for the purposes of the analysis under Section 101.
MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c), (e). Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us
that claim 16 integrates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application
within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52–55.
STEP 2B
Under the 2019 Guidance, only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial
exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
25
beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The Examiner finds “the payment system authorization platform and
analytics rules engine perform well-understood routine conventional
computer functions (e.g., ‘Black-listing’ see BASCOM[6,7]) to filter out the
number of ‘unwanted’ authorization messages as well as grouping or
categorizing information based upon certain criteria and/or ‘pre-determined
condition.’” Ans. 7.
Appellant contends:
[T]he elements recited by claim 16 provide meaningful
limitations that add more than generally linking use of an abstract
idea to generic computing devices. Specifically, the limitations
contained within the elements of claim 16 provide a specific
computer system comprising a payment system platform
including a first communication device and a payment system
authorization platform computer, and a payment system
analytics rules engine that includes a second communications
device and a payment system analytics rules engine computer,
and that functions to approve authorization messages for
transmitting to an issuer platform that not only reduces network
traffic but that also reduces the processing load of the issuer

6 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]iltering content is an abstract idea because
it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior.”).
7 Although determining that filtering content is an abstract idea, the court
found the claimed filtering steps in BASCOM satisfied Alice step 2 because
they were “claiming a technology-based solution (not an abstract-idea-based
solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional
way) to filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with
other Internet filtering systems.” For the reasons discussed herein, the facts
of the instant appeal do not warrant a similar finding.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
26
platform. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully maintains that the
pending claims include limitations other than what is well-
understood, routine and conventional in the field. Moreover, the
Office tacitly admits that the claimed process is patentably
distinct over the cited prior art of record because the Examiner
withdrew the previous Section 103 rejections during prosecution
of the application.
Appeal Br. 21–22.
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible error. As an
initial matter, other than allege the claims include limitations that are not
well understood, routine, and conventional by listing particular claim
elements, Appellant does not provide evidence or persuasive explanation in
support of the allegation. In contrast, the additional elements identified by
Appellant are described in the Specification at a high level of generality.
For example, communication device 820 is depicted as a single, functional
box in Figure 8 and merely described as being “configured to communicate
via a communication network.” Spec. 11:26–27. Communication device
1020 is similarly described in terms of being configured to communicate via
a network. Spec. 13:7–9. Likewise, analytics rules engine 550 is
functionally described as configured to “analyze the [authorization] message
[received from payment system authorization platform 520] in accordance
with one or more rules. For example, the analytics rules engine 550 may
determine that transaction is associated with unusual cardholder or terminal
activity.” Spec. 9:10–13. Additional functionality of the engine also is
described at a high level of generality including that “[i]nstead of
transmitting a supplemented authentication message to be used by the issuer
platform 530, the analytics rules engine 550 might instead make an initial
approval (or decline) decision.” Spec. 9:21–23.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
27
The hardware required to support the functionalities of the additional
elements likewise is described at a high level of generality consistent with
the structure of a general-purpose computer:
FIG. 10 illustrates an analytics rules engine 1000 that may
be, for example, associated with the system 200 of FIG. 2. The
analytics rules engine 1000 comprises a processor 1010, such as
one or more commercially available Central Processing Units
(CPUs) in the form of one-chip microprocessors, coupled to a
communication device 1020 configured to communicate via a
communication network (not shown in FIG. 10). The analytics
rules engine 1000 further includes an input device 1040 (e.g., a
mouse and/or keyboard) and an output device 1050 (e.g., a
computer monitor).
Spec. 13:4–10.
Appellant’s disclosure of a wide range of suitable processors8
combined with the lack of details describing any other additional elements
and the absence of implementation details of the recited functions (such as
might have been indicated by inclusion of a detailed flow chart depicting
unconventional computer operations and/or routines for performing each of
the claimed steps), persuades us that the omitted details are well-understood,
routine, and conventional. See Berkheimer Memorandum9 at 3 (explaining
that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that
indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the

8 See, e.g., Spec. 11:24–26 (“The payment system authorization platform
800 comprises a processor 810, such as one or more commercially available
Central Processing Units (CPUs) in the form of one-chip microprocessors.”).
9 Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP, Inc.) (Apr. 19, 2018) available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (“Berkheimer
Memorandum”).
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
28
specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional
elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well
understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile
interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a
generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the
performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific
resources.”).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum, the claims merely
recite generic computer components (e.g., computer devices having
processors, storage, and network interfaces) performing generic computing
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 225 (the “use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,
and issue automated instructions; all of these computer functions are ‘well-
understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the
industry”) (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71–73); see
also Benson, 409 U.S. at 65 (noting that a “computer operates then upon
both new and previously stored data. The general-purpose computer is
designed to perform operations under many different programs.”);
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (noting that using generic computing
components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an
otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v.
First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(indicating components such as an “interface” are generic computer
components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement); MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Alice and Mayo); accord Berkheimer Memo 3–4.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
29
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 16 is
patent eligible because, as alleged by Appellant, “the claimed process is
patentably distinct over the cited prior art of record because the Examiner
withdrew the previous Section 103 rejections during prosecution of the
application.” Appeal Br. 22. A novel and non-obvious claim directed to a
purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible under § 101. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89 ( “The
‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is
of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls
within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed, we find that the structure and
functioning of the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and
conventional.

ELIGIBILITY CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we determine that claim 16 does not
recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered
combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within
the meaning of the 2019 Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 together with the rejection of
dependent claims 25–36, which are not argued separately with particularity.
Appeal 2020-003266
Application 14/798,792
30
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16, 25–36 101 Eligibility 16, 25–36

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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