MoneyDesktop, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2020005606 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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.
14/481,775 09/09/2014 John Ryan Caldwell 3552.2.17 1082
136265 7590 12/23/2020
Kunzler, PC. - MX
50 West Broadway
10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, MICHAEL W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@kunzlerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN RYAN CALDWELL

Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 23–31.1 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(a). Appellant identifies MX Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to computer-
implemented personal financial management tools, methods and systems,
and more particularly, but not necessarily entirely, to computer-implemented
personal financial management tools, methods and systems that provide
financial transaction data to a user.” (Spec., para. 3). Claim 23, reproduced
below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. A method of providing automatically categorized financial
transaction data to a user, the method comprising:
pulling image data records from a plurality of different
financial institutions over a computer network, the image data
records comprising one or more of check images, deposit images
and receipt images;
transmitting, over the computer network, the image data
records to a third party personal financial management provider
to convert the image data records into computer readable
characters comprising financial transaction data;
receiving, over the computer network, the converted
image data records from the third party personal financial
management provider;
receiving, in real-time and on an ongoing basis by an
online server from a financial institution device, a plurality of
financial transactions, including financial transaction data from
the converted image data records, involving a user and a
merchant from a plurality of different user accounts held at the
plurality of different financial institutions over the computer
network;
identifying, in real-time by the online server first financial
transaction data representing a first financial transaction
involving the user and the merchant and second financial
transaction data representing a second financial transaction
involving the user and the merchant from the plurality of
financial transactions by removing extraneous information from
clustered descriptions of the first and second financial
transaction data, the extraneous information comprising
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

3
extraneous alphanumeric characters that the user has previously
identified as extraneous alphanumeric characters in previous
financial transaction data;
determining, in real-time by the online server, a history of
the user's previous transactions at the merchant, the previous
transactions comprising amounts, dates, and categories of the
transactions;
automatically categorizing, in real-time by the online
server, the first financial transaction data by:
accessing a first amount of the first financial
transaction in the first financial transaction data;
determining whether the first amount is over a
threshold amount associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the first amount is
over a threshold amount associated with the merchant,
automatically categorizing the first financial transaction
in a first of two spending categories for the merchant; and
providing, in real-time from the online server over
the Internet to one or more of a website of and an
application of a financial institution accessed by the user,
the first of the two spending categories as the spending
category of the first financial transaction;
and
automatically categorizing, in real-time by the online
server, the second financial transaction data by:
accessing a second amount of the second financial
transaction in the second financial transaction data;
determining whether the second amount is under
the threshold amount associated with the merchant;
in response to determining that the second amount is
under a threshold amount associated with the merchant,
automatically categorizing the second financial transaction in
the second of the two spending categories for the merchant; and
providing, in real-time from the online server over the
Internet to one or more of the website of and the application of
the financial institution, the second of the two spending
categories as the spending category of the second financial
transaction accessed by the user.
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

4
Supp. Appeal Br. 2–4 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Name Reference Date
Venturo US 2010/0138328 A1 June 03, 2010
Rukonic US 7,966,329 B1 June 21, 2011
Blackhurst US 2015/0032602 A1 Jan. 29, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 23–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
judicially-excepted subject matter.
Claims 23–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Venturo, Blackhurst, and Rukonic.
OPINION
The rejection of claims 23–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
judicially-excepted subject matter.
Preliminary Comment
On page 9 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant states:
The claims in counterpart application 14/481,776 [now U.S.
10,510,113] were found to recite patent eligible subject matter
on Oct. 4, 2019. Appellant asserts that the instant claims recite
similar subject matter as the claims in the '776 application, and
therefore, for at least the same reasons as the '776 reference, the
instant claims recite patent eligible subject matter. See Notice of
Allowance for Application No. 14/481, 776, p. 5.
Notwithstanding we are not bound by an Examiner’s decision regarding
another patent application, the claims in said application and those before us
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

5
here are not identical. For one, the claims in that case include a “translating”
step. The two cases are factually different. Accordingly, the disposition of
U.S. 10,510,113 has no bearing on this case.
Representative claim
The Appellant argues these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 3–9.
We select claim 23 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 24–31 stand or fall with claim 23. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever 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.”
In that regard, claim 23 covers a “process” and is thus statutory
subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is not in dispute.
However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “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)).

2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, which
requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” 2019
Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. See also id. at 53–54
(“consider[] whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four
statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C.
101.”).
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

6
In that regard, notwithstanding claim 23 covers statutory subject
matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground
that claim 23 is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Alice step one — the “directed to” inquiry:
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S.
at 218 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determined, inter alia, that claim 1 is directed to
... pulling image data records from a plurality of different
financial institutions ... , ... transmitting ... the image data records
to a third party personal financial management provider .. , ...
receiving ... the converted image data records ... , .... receiving ...
a plurality of financial transactions ... , ... identifying ... first
financial transaction data ... , ... determining ... a history of the
user's previous transactions ... , categorizing ... the first financial
transaction data .. , ... accessing a first amount of the first
financial transaction ... , ... determining whether the first amount
is over a threshold amount associated with the merchant...,
categorizing the first financial transaction ... , ... providing ... the
first of the two spending categories .. , ... categorizing ... the
second financial transaction data .. , ... accessing a second
amount of the second financial transaction .. , ... determining
whether the second amount is under the threshold amount. .. , .. .
categorizing the second financial transaction in the second of the
two spending categories ... , and .. . providing the second of the
two spending categories as the spending categories ....
Final Act. 6–7.
That is, other than reciting "by an online server" and "over the
computer network"; the claimed computer components are
recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

7
tools to perform an existing process. Simply implementing the
abstract idea on a general computer is not a practical application
of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract
idea.
Id. at 7.
Appellant disagrees, arguing, inter alia, that:
the claimed solution is directed to an improvement in
conventional online financial management systems where the
user is provided with real-time financial transaction information
that is automatically cleansed, categorized, and classified prior
to presenting the data to the user on a graphical display.
Appeal Br. 4. See also id. at 5:
The claimed solution clearly recites various steps that are
performed using a computer system, e.g., computing devices and
computer networks to facilitate an online financial management
system for a user to automatically cleanse and categorize the
user's digital financial transaction data.
and id. at 6:
The claimed solution is directed to improving financial
management systems by automatically cleansing, categorizing,
and classifying financial transaction data. As part of the
cleansing steps recited in the claims at issue, extraneous data is
removed from a transaction's description to make the financial
transaction data more readable to the user on a graphical
display so that it is not visually challenging for the user to
identify and read/understand his/her financial transaction data.
Without the claimed solution, financial transactions may be
confusing to read, may be categorized in an incorrect category or
not at all due to the extraneous data that may be present in the
transaction's description. This goes beyond conventional online
financial management systems to provide an unconventional
solution that makes the user's financial transaction data easier to
read, and accurately categorizes and classifies financial
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

8
transactions that are not typically performed by conventional
online financial management systems.
Accordingly, a dispute over whether claim 23 is directed to an abstract
idea is present. Specifically, is claim 23 directed to “... pulling image data
records from a plurality of different financial institutions [etc..] (Final Act.
6–7) or “an improvement in conventional online financial management
systems” (Appeal Br. 4)?
Claim Construction3
We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable
construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the Specification at the time of filing.4,5,6

3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).
5 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. .
. . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is
important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), among others.
6 See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, n.14 (“If a claim,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation.”).
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

9
Claim 23 describes a “method” employing "a computer network," “a
third party personal financial management provider,” "an online server from
a financial institution device," "the Internet," and "one or more of a website".
According to the claim, these devices perform various steps. In the order as
claimed, they are:
1. "pulling [A] from a plurality of different financial institutions over a
computer network;"
2. "transmitting, over the computer network” A “to a third party personal
financial management provider to convert” A “into” B;
3. "receiving, over the computer network, [B] from the third party
personal financial management provider;"
4. “receiving, in real–time and on an ongoing basis by an online server
from a financial institution device, [C], from a plurality of different
user accounts held at the plurality of different financial institutions
over the computer network;”
5. "identifying in real-time by the online server [D] by removing [E];"
6. "determining, in real-time by the online server [F];"
7. "automatically categorizing, in real-time by the online server" [D1] by
"accessing [D1a]," "determining whether [D1a] is over [G]," “in
response to determining that [D1a] is over [G] "automatically
categorizing [D1] in [D1b]," and "providing, in real-time from the
online server over the Internet to one or more of a website of and an
application of a financial institution accessed by the user, [D1b] as the
spending category of [D1];" and
8. "automatically categorizing, in real-time by the online server" [D2] by
"accessing [D2a]," "determining whether [D2a] is under [G]," “in
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

10
response to determining that [D2a] is under [G] "automatically
categorizing [D2] in [D2b]," and "providing, in real-time from the
online server over the Internet to one or more of the website of and the
application of the financial institution, [D2b] as the spending category
of [D2] accessed by the user;"
Where,
A is “image data records” “comprising one or more of check
images, deposit images and receipt images are pulled from a
plurality of different financial institutions”;

B is “computer readable characters comprising financial
transaction data”;

C is “plurality of financial transactions, including financial
transaction data from [B], involving a user and a merchant”;

D is “[D1] and [D2] from the plurality of financial transactions”;

D1 is “a first financial transaction data representing a first
financial transaction involving the user and the merchant”;

[D1a] is “a first amount of the first financial
transaction in the first financial transaction data;”

[D1b] is “a first of two spending categories for the
merchant”;

D2 is “second financial transaction data representing a
second financial transaction involving the user and the
merchant”;

[D2a] is “a second amount of the second financial
transaction in the second financial transaction data;”

[D2b] is “a second of the two spending categories
for the merchant”;
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

11
E is “extraneous information from clustered descriptions of the
first and second financial transaction data, the extraneous
information comprising extraneous alphanumeric characters that
the user has previously identified as extraneous alphanumeric
characters in previous financial transaction data”;

F is “history of the user's previous transactions at the merchant,
the previous transactions comprising amounts, dates, and
categories of the transactions”; and,
G is “a threshold amount associated with the merchant”.
Claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a process
employing generic devices to perform a scheme for categorizing selected
financial data for spending purposes. This comports with the Specification.
According to the Specification, “[m]ost personal financial
management tools and software products track financial transactions that
have been posted to a user's bank account or other financial
account.” Id. at para 5. “These personal financial management
tools and software products, while containing some data regarding a
financial transaction that was completed using a check or a financial
transaction involving a deposit, fail to directly pull the image into the
personal financial management tools and software products.” Id. Regarding
the inventive process, the Specification discloses, inter alia, that “[t]he
categorization process may categorize spending over a certain amount at that
gas station as a gasoline expense, while the process may categorize spending
under a certain amount at that gas station as a fast food expense. In either
case, the automatic categorization process may be personalized and
customized based on a user's prior spending history.” Id. at 59.

Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

12
Given the method as claimed as reasonably broadly construed above
and in light of the Specification’s description of the objective of the
invention is, inter alia, to categorize spending, we reasonably broadly
construe claim 1 as being directed to a scheme for categorizing selected
financial data for spending purposes.
The Abstract Idea7
Above, where we reproduce claim 23, we identify in italics the
limitations we believe recite an abstract idea.8 Based on our claim
construction analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations
describe a scheme for categorizing selected financial data for spending
purposes. Processing financial data in accordance with the claimed scheme
for categorizing selected financial data for spending purposes is a
commercial interaction. It falls within the enumerated “[c]ertain methods of
organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019
Revised 101 Guidance.9 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.

7 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A
determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an
abstract idea. Step 2A is two prong inquiry.
8 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong
One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the
claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner
believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
9 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the
[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates
subject matter grouping “(b):” “(b) Certain methods of organizing human
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

13
Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant’s view that claim 23 is not
directed to subject matter falling within the “[c]ertain methods of organizing
human activity” grouping set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. See
App. Br. 4–5. Cf. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d
1044, 1054–1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017):
Indeed, the '807 patent specification itself demonstrates that
processing an application for financing a purchase is “a
fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of
commerce.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at
611, 130 S. Ct. 3218). … We have found particularly that data
processing to facilitate financing is a patent-ineligible abstract
concept. See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs.
Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims
are abstract where they “recite nothing more than the collection
of information to generate a ‘credit grading’ and to facilitate
anonymous loan shopping”); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674
F.3d 1315, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that a “computer-
aided” method for “processing information through a
clearinghouse” for car loan applications is patent ineligible).
Technical Improvement10 (Appellant’s Argument)

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).” Id. at 52.
10 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a
Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A
claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will
apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg.
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

14
Our characterization of what the claim is directed to is similar to that
of the Examiner’s, albeit the Examiner’s characterization is described at a
low level of abstraction in that practically all of claim 23 is relied upon in
characterizing the abstract idea to which claim 23 is directed to. See Final
Act. 6–7. Nevertheless, “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at
different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d
1229, 1240, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board’s slight revision of its
abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.”).
We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or
the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 23 is directed to.
The method as claimed describes, in very general terms, steps for
processing (via "pulling;" "transmitting;" "receiving;" "receiving;"
"identifying;" "determining;" "categorizing" by "accessing," "determining,"
"categorizing ," and "providing;" and "categorizing" by "accessing,"
"determining," "categorizing ," and "providing" steps) certain types of
financial information. The method as claimed is not focused on improving
technology but on a scheme for categorizing selected financial data for
spending purposes. Cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing
information to traders in a way that helps them process information more

at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an
additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the
exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects
an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to
other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55.

Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

15
quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26–39, not on improving computers or
technology.”).
We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim
construction analysis, claim 23 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a
scheme for categorizing selected financial data for spending purposes. We
see no specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities recited in the
claim. Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities, the claim supports the opposite view — that the
claimed subject matter is directed to a scheme for categorizing selected
financial data for spending purposes employing generic devices. See Spec.,
e.g., paras. 28–36.
The claim provides no additional structural details that would
distinguish any device required to be employed to practice the method as
claimed, such as the recited "a computer network," "a third party personal
financial management provider," "an online server from a financial
institution device," "the Internet," and "one or more of a website," from its
generic counterparts.11
With respect to the "pulling;" "transmitting;" "receiving;" "receiving;"
"identifying;" "determining;" "categorizing" by "accessing," "determining,"
"categorizing ," and "providing;" and "categorizing" by "accessing,"
"determining," "categorizing ," and "providing" steps, the Specification
attributes no special meaning to any of these operations, individually or in

11 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid
of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us
to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the
abstract idea identified by the district court.”).
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

16
the combination, as claimed. In our view, these are common computer
processing functions that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have known generic computers were capable of performing
and would have associated with generic computers. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the
claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional
activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities
or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, [573 U.S. at 225 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73)] . . . . For example, claim 1 recites
“sending a first set of electronic messages over a network to
devices,” the devices being “programmed to communicate,”
storing test results in a “machine-readable medium,” and “using
a computerized system . . . to automatically determine” an
estimated outcome and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of
these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine,
conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.”
Alice, [573 U.S. at 225 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73])
(alterations in original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.],
765 F.3d [1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer
receives and sends the information over a network—with no
further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance,
we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application.
Appellant contends, inter alia, that
• “the claimed solution is directed to an improvement in conventional
online financial management systems where the user is provided
with real-time financial transaction information that is automatically
cleansed, categorized, and classified prior to presenting the data to
the user on a graphical display” (Appeal Br. 4);
• “The claimed solution clearly recites various steps that are
performed using a computer system, e.g., computing devices and
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

17
computer networks to facilitate an online financial management
system for a user to automatically cleanse and categorize the user's
digital financial transaction data” (id. at 5);
• “The claimed solution is directed to improving financial
management systems by automatically cleansing, categorizing, and
classifying financial transaction data. As part of the cleansing steps
recited in the claims at issue, extraneous data is removed from a
transaction's description to make the financial transaction data
more readable to the user on a graphical display so that it is not
visually challenging for the user to identify and read/understand
his/her financial transaction data. Without the claimed solution,
financial transactions may be confusing to read, may be categorized
in an incorrect category or not at all due to the extraneous data that
may be present in the transaction's description. This goes beyond
conventional online financial management systems to provide an
unconventional solution that makes the user's financial transaction
data easier to read, and accurately categorizes and classifies
financial transactions that are not typically performed by
conventional online financial management systems” (id. at 6);
• “the claimed solution is directed to analyzing digital financial
transaction data to properly categorize the transaction data "by
removing extraneous information from clustered descriptions of the
first and second financial transaction data" where the extraneous
information comprises "extraneous alphanumeric characters that the
user has previously identified as extraneous alphanumeric
characters in previous financial transaction data" and dynamically
determining how to categorize the transaction data for a merchant
based on an amount of the financial transaction. In this manner, the
claimed solution ensures that a financial transaction is properly
categorized without manual input or direction from a use” (Reply
Br. 2–3);
• “Appellant respectfully asserts that the claimed solution is not
merely using a computer in a generalized fashion, but instead
requires complex and specific programming to arrive at the claimed
solution. For example, such a computer system requires specialized
image processing algorithms for analyzing financial record image
data, specialized programming to determine extraneous information
that the user has removed from a description in the past and using
that information to remove the same extraneous information from
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

18
instant financial transaction data, and specialized programming to
dynamically determine how to categorize the transaction data for a
particular merchant based on the amount of the financial transaction.
This goes beyond merely using a computer to apply an already well-
known algorithm or process because the instant process is not well-
known and was developed to solve a problem in the industry that
only arises with digital financial data” (id. at 3); and,
• “The problem that the claimed solution resolves only arises where
digital transactions are monitored, tracked, and provided to a user.
User's can then create categories that the claimed solution uses to
automatically categorize the digital transactions without manual
user interaction or input. Given the numerous digital transactions
that are processed hourly, daily, weekly, or the like, it would not be
practically possible for a user to perform the claimed solution
manually, e.g., using pen and paper, and still receive real-time
categorization of financial transactions right after the financial
transaction is completed” (id.).
We have carefully reviewed these contentions in the context of the
claim language. But many of these contentions are not commensurate in
scope with what is claimed. For example, claim 23 is not limited to “the
numerous digital transactions that are processed hourly, daily, weekly, or the
like” (id.).
Other contentions are insufficiently supported by the Specification
and/or not reflected in the claim. For example, apparently the claimed
process “requires complex and specific programming to arrive at the
claimed solution” (id. at 3, emphasis added). We are unsure what that
means. The Specification appears to suggest otherwise. See para. 14 (“It will
be appreciated that many existing personal financial management tools and
software programs or products utilize financial transaction data to provide a
user with the ability to track, budget or otherwise maintain the user's
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

19
finances.”) Nevertheless, we see nothing in the claim to suggest that
“complex and specific programming” is required to practice what is claimed.
Appellant emphasizes that “extraneous data is removed from a
transaction's description to make the financial transaction data more readable
to the user on a graphical display so that it is not visually challenging for the
user to identify and read/understand his/her financial transaction data.” App.
Br. 6. We have been unable to find any mention of this in the Specification.
We find the Appellant’s contentions that the claim presents a
technical-improvement solution unpersuasive as to error in the Examiner’s
or our characterization of what the claim is directed to because the method
as claimed fails to adequately support it. None of Appellant’s contentions
sufficiently explain in what way the claimed subject matter yields a technical
improvement. We are unable to point to any claim language suggestive of a
technical improvement, such as an improvement in computer performance.
Nor can we find any suggestion of such improvements in the Specification
so as to find that “the specification as a whole … makes clear …the
technological benefit.” Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942
F.3d 1143, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
A principal difficulty with the contentions is that they point to the
recited "pulling;" "transmitting;" "receiving;" "receiving;" "identifying;"
"determining;" "categorizing" by "accessing," "determining," "categorizing,"
and "providing;" and "categorizing" by "accessing," "determining,"
"categorizing ," and "providing" steps themselves, the very subject matter
that we, and the Examiner, have characterized as being an abstract idea.
Rather than showing that these steps yield a technical improvement in say
computer performance, the Appellant points to the result-based functional
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

20
language in the claim. See, e.g., App. Br. 6 (“the claimed solution
automatically categorizes the financial transactions for a particular user
based on the amount of the transaction and the spending thresholds that are
set for different categories associated with a merchant.”)
By so broadly defining the inventive method, that is, by setting out
what it is aspiring to accomplish without any technical details for achieving
it, let alone any purported computer improvement, the claim is in effect
presenting the invention in result-based functional language, strengthening
our determination under Alice step one that the claim is directed to an
abstract idea. Cf. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Claim 1 recites a method for routing
information using result-based functional language. The claim requires the
functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and
‘accumulating records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve
these results in a non-abstract way.”). See also Uniloc USA v. LG Elecs.
USA, 957 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020):
The claims we held ineligible in Two-Way Media similarly failed
to concretely capture any improvement in computer
functionality. In Two-Way Media, the claims recited a method
of transmitting packets of information over a communications
network comprising: converting information into streams of
digital packets; routing the streams to users; controlling the
routing; and monitoring the reception of packets by the users.
874 F.3d at 1334. Two-Way Media argued that the claims solved
data transmission problems, including load management and
bottlenecking, but the claimed method was not directed to those
improvements. Id. at 1336–37. We therefore held the claims
ineligible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps
(“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and
“accumulating records”) using “result-based functional
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

21
language” without the means for achieving any purported
technological improvement. Id. at 1337.
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments challenging the
Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find
them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.

Alice step two — Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?12
Step two is “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 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)).
In that regard, the Examiner determined, inter alia, that
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements
i.e.: "server" and "computer network"; are merely apply the
exception using generic computer elements. Mere instructions to
apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot
provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations when taken individually and in
combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more
that the judicial exception because the claims do not provide

12 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial
exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then 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).”
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

22
improvements to another technology or technical field,
improvements to the function of the computer itself, and do not
provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of
an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Final Act. 7. We agree.
We addressed the matter of whether the claim presented any purported
specific asserted technical improvements in our analysis above under
step one of the Alice framework. This is consistent with the case law. See
Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one
when sufficiently focused on such improvements.”). Such an argument, as
the Appellant has made here, can also challenge a determination under step
two of the Alice framework. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354–55. “[R]ecent
Federal Circuit jurisprudence has indicated that eligible subject matter can
often be identified either at the first or the second step of the Alice/Mayo
[framework].” See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53, n.17.
The Appellant argues, inter alia, that “the claims at issue recite patent
eligible subject matter because the claimed solution provides a specific and
unconventional combination of steps.” App. Br. 8.
But this does not explain in what way the claimed method provides a
technical improvement. The argument appears to rely on the claim’s result-
based functional language as the basis for contending that the claim provides
features are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
Rather than being based on any technical details, the argument
appears to look to the very scheme for categorizing selected financial data
for spending purposes that we have characterized as being an abstract idea.
In effect, the Appellant is arguing that the abstract idea is “not well-
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

23
understood, routine or conventional.” That may be but “[g]roundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101
inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology, 569 U.S. at 591. Cf. Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Indeed, “[t]he ‘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.” Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981) (emphasis added); see also
Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303–04 (rejecting “the Government’s
invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the
better established inquiry under § 101”). Here, the jury’s general
finding that Symantec did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence that three particular prior art references do not disclose
all the limitations of or render obvious the asserted claims does
not resolve the question of whether the claims embody an
inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice.
The arguably unconventional nature of the abstract idea does not affect the
determination that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea
itself cannot amount to “‘significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 73), whether or not it is conventional.
We are unpersuaded that claim 23 presents an element or combination
of elements indicative of a specific asserted technical improvement, thereby
rendering the claimed subject matter sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon a scheme for
categorizing selected financial data for spending purposes.
We have reviewed the claim in light of the Specification and, as
explained above, we find the claimed subject matter insufficiently expresses
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

24
a technical improvement as a result of performing the functions as broadly
as they are recited.
Here, the Specification is intrinsic evidence that the "a computer
network," "a third party personal financial management provider," "an
online server from a financial institution device," "the Internet," and "one or
more of a website" as claimed are conventional. In particular, see, e.g.,
Spec. para. 26 (“Computing device 100 may be used to perform various
procedures, such as those discussed herein. Computing device 100 can
function as a server, a client, or any other computing entity.”). In doing so,
we have followed “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert
W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19,
2018 (the “Berkheimer Memo”)).
Here, the Specification indisputably shows the recited "a computer
network," "a third party personal financial management provider," "an
online server from a financial institution device," "the Internet," and "one or
more of a website" individually and in the context as claimed was
conventional at the time of filing. Accordingly, there is sufficient factual
support for the well-understood, routine, or conventional nature of the
claimed devices individually or in the combination as claimed.
No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude
that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two
that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements
circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to
transform the concept into a patent–eligible application.
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

25
We have considered all of the Appellant’s arguments (including those
made in the Reply Brief) and find them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the
determinations that representative claim 23, and claims 24–31 which stand
or fall with claim 23, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an
“inventive concept,” we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that they are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially-excepted
from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x
991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of LendingTree’s
remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly,
because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract
idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed
to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g., OIP Techs.,
788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The rejection of claims 23–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Venturo, Blackhurst, and Rukonic.
The claim limitation at issue is “removing extraneous information
from clustered descriptions of the first and second financial transaction data,
the extraneous information comprising extraneous alphanumeric characters
that the user has previously identified as extraneous alphanumeric characters
in previous financial transaction data” (independent claims 23 and 31).
According to the Examiner, said claim limitation is disclosed in
column 8, lines 35-40 of Rukonic. Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

26
Column 8, lines 35-40 of Rukonic state: “Normalizing the vendor's
name may include removing extraneous alphanumeric characters, adding or
removing abbreviations, or performing other such actions.”
Column 8, lines 35-40 of Rukonic does not disclose said claim
limitation.
We agree with Appellant that “Rukonic does not teach removing
extraneous alphanumeric characters from a transaction based on whether the
user previously identified the alphanumeric characters as extraneous
information, as recited in the claimed solution.” App. Br. 10.
Given no other evidence that said claim limitation is disclosed or
suggested by the cited prior art references, a prima facie case of obviousness
has not been made out in the first instance. The rejection of the claims is not
sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
23–31 101 Eligibility 23–31
23–31 103(a) Venturo,
Blackhurst, and
Rukonic
23–31
Overall
Outcome
23–31

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).
Appeal 2020–005606
Application 14/481,775

27
AFFIRMED