PAYPAL, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2021

2021000788 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/098,102 04/13/2016 Yashovardhana S. Kote 70481.485US02
(P3179US2)
4377
132906 7590 07/16/2021
Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481)
2323 Victory Ave. #700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
AGWUMEZIE, CHINEDU CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YASHOVARDHANA S. KOTE
____________

Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Yashovardhana S. Kote (Appellant2) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–20, the only claims pending
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a form of online and/or mobile payments and
more particularly a chargeback system for distributed crypto currencies that
may be used in online and/or mobile payments. Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 7, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
7. A method for providing distributed crypto currency
chargebacks, comprising:
[1] signing,
using a chargeback insurance entity device by a
chargeback insurance entity along with a payer,
a multi-signature distributed crypto currency transaction
that transfers an amount of crypto currency from
an address controlled by the payer to an address
controlled by a payee;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed June 10, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 11,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 21, 2020),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 10, 2020).
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 Paypal,
Inc. (Appeal Br. 1).

Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

3

[2] identifying,
using the chargeback insurance entity device
through a network,
a chargeback report
that was published to a distributed chargeback
ledger by a payer device of the payer,
wherein the chargeback report is included in a
chargeback transaction that is stored on the
distributed chargeback ledger,
and
wherein the chargeback report identifies the multi-
signature distributed crypto currency transaction
that transferred the amount of crypto currency
from the address controlled by the payer to the
address controlled by the payee;
[3] identifying,
using the chargeback insurance entity device
through the network subsequent to the chargeback
report being published to the distributed
chargeback ledger,
a chargeback response
that was published to the distributed chargeback
ledger by a payee device of the payee,
wherein the chargeback response is included in a
chargeback response transaction that is stored on
the distributed chargeback ledger,
and
wherein the chargeback response identifies the
multi-signature distributed crypto currency
transaction that transferred the amount of crypto
currency from the address controlled by the payer
to the address controlled by the payee;
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

4

[4] analyzing,
using the chargeback insurance entity device,
the chargeback report and the chargeback response;
and
[5] transferring,
using the chargeback insurance entity device
through the network in response to analyzing the
chargeback report and the chargeback response,
the amount of crypto currency from an address controlled
by a chargeback insurance entity
to
an address controlled by the payer.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Powell June 12, 2018
Allmen US 2015/0348017 A1 Dec. 3, 2015

Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Powell and Allmen.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the claim limitations.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

5

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. “Chargebacks” are transaction risk associated with transactions
between payers and payees. Spec. para. 4.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Powell
02. Powell is directed to settling payment card chargeback
transactions involving varying currency exchange rates. Powell
1:13–16.
03. Powell describes the cardholder returning the goods or
requesting a chargeback from the cardholder’s issuer when the
cardholder is unsatisfied with the goods or services provided by
the merchant. Generally, the issuer immediately issues a credit to
the cardholder’s account for the amount of the transaction. The
issuer then sends a chargeback request to an issuer processor,
which request is collected with other requests and submitted in a
batch to a payment card network. After the batch of chargeback
requests and associated transactions are processed by acquiring
banks, a reconciliation file is transmitted back to the issuer
processor, and then on to the issuer. Powell 1:35–46.
04. Powell describes the data in a chargeback transaction record.
Powell 4:32–51.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

6

Allmen
05. Allmen is directed to a module that creates contract/credit
certificates with verifiable and objective terms based on a trade
request between two or more parties. Allmen para. 4.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 7, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

7

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 7 recites signing a transaction, identifying and analyzing report and
response data, and transferring amount data between data memory addresses.
Signing a transaction is modifying data. Identifying and analyzing data are
rudimentary data analysis. Transferring data is transmitting data. Thus,
claim 7 recites modifying, analyzing, and transmitting data. None of the
limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

8

From this we see that claim 7 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 7 recites the concept of
managing commercial payment interactions. Specifically, claim 7 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to transfer data
representing amounts between cryptocurrency addresses based on
chargeback analysis. The advice to transfer data representing amounts
between cryptocurrency addresses based on chargeback analysis involves
transferring the amount from one party to an address controlled by the payer,
which is an economic act, and identifying a payment related transaction,
which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

9

example, claim 7 recites “transferring . . . the amount of crypto currency
from an address controlled by a chargeback insurance entity to an address
controlled by the payer,” which is an activity that would take place
whenever one is making payment transactions using cryptocurrency.
Similarly, claim 1 recites “the chargeback response identifies the multi-
signature distributed crypto currency transaction that transferred the amount
of crypto currency,” which is also characteristic of payment processing.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to a sales activity.
Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 7 recites that it is a method for
providing distributed crypto currency chargebacks. The steps in claim 7
result in managing commercial payment interactions by transferring data
representing amounts of crypto currency between cryptocurrency addresses
based on chargeback analysis absent any technological mechanism other
than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–5 recite generic and
conventional modifying, analyzing, and transmitting of transaction data,
which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The
limitations thus recite advice for transferring data representing amounts of
crypto currency between cryptocurrency addresses based on chargeback
analysis. To advocate transferring data representing amounts of crypto
currency between cryptocurrency addresses based on chargeback analysis is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
online and/or mobile payments and more particularly a chargeback system
for distributed crypto currencies that may be used in online and/or mobile
payments. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 7 recites
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

10

managing commercial payment interactions. This is consistent with the
Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial
payment interactions manages the interactions among people involved. The
concept of managing commercial payment interactions by transferring data
representing amounts of crypto currency between cryptocurrency addresses
based on chargeback analysis is one idea for accounting for such
interactions. The steps recited in claim 7 are part of how this might
conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (creating a transaction performance
guaranty for a commercial transaction on computer networks such as the
Internet); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
728 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2013) (generating rule-based tasks for
processing an insurance claim).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of modifying, analyzing, and
transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 7, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data modification, analysis, and
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

11

transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation”). As such, claim 7 recites modifying, analyzing, and
transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of
that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 7 recites
managing commercial payment interactions by transferring data representing
amounts of crypto currency between cryptocurrency addresses based on
chargeback analysis, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of
certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised
Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 7 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e., integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts ‘to a new and useful end,’ we have said, remain eligible
for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

12

‘buildin[g] block[s]’ of human ingenuity and those that integrate
the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 5 recite basic conventional
data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 2–4
recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by
any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice.
Although limitation 1 recites a multi-signature distributed crypto
currency transaction, this recitation offers no more than the conceptual ideas
of multiple signatures and distributed storage and processing. Multiple
signatures are the electronic analog of multiple paper check signatures.
Distributed storage and processing are decades old and are the basis of the
internet and client server processing. Invoking these concepts is just that,
conceptual invocation rather than technological substance. Similarly the
distributed chargeback ledger of limitation 2 is another instance of
conventional distributed storage. That the chargeback report identifies a
chargeback response using the multi-signature distributed crypto currency
transaction that transferred the amount of crypto currency is a matter of audit
reporting technique rather than technology. Whether such reporting is
innovative as such an accounting technique is not pertinent to eligibility.
All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted
and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such
a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

13

Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 7 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial payment interactions by transferring data representing
amounts of crypto currency between cryptocurrency addresses based on
chargeback analysis as performed by a generic computer. This is no more
than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not
recite any particular implementation.
Claim 7 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 24+ pages of Specification only spell out
different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of managing commercial payment interactions by
transferring data representing amounts of crypto currency between
cryptocurrency addresses based on chargeback analysis under different
scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a
computer functions. Instead, claim 7 at issue amounts to nothing
significantly more than an instruction to apply managing commercial
payment interactions by transferring data representing amounts of crypto
currency between cryptocurrency addresses based on chargeback analysis
using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not
enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.

8 The Specification describes a personal computer, smart phone, wearable
computing device, laptop computer, and/or other types of computing
devices. Spec. para. 53.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

14

None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 7 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial payment interactions by advising one to transfer data
representing amounts of crypto currency between cryptocurrency addresses
based on chargeback analysis, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 7 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

15

Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen [t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for modifying, analyzing, and transmitting data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

16

some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 7 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data modification-analysis-
transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving,
selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving
payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath &
Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission),
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and
monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional.
We conclude that claim 7 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 7 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

17

are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial payment interactions by advising
one to transfer data representing amounts of crypto currency between
cryptocurrency addresses based on chargeback analysis, without
significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 3–4 and Answer 3–6 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

18

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the signing of a multi-signature distributed crypto currency
transaction to transfer an amount of crypto currency from a payer
to a payee, the identification of that multi-signature distributed
crypto currency transaction by the payer in a chargeback report,
and the identification of that multi-signature distributed crypto
currency transaction by the payee in a chargeback response,
allow for the transfer of crypto currency back to the payer based
on that chargeback report and chargeback response. The use of
the multi-signature distributed crypto currency transaction in this
manner describes a practical application of a refund system on a
blockchain/public ledger. In other words, the claims do not
describe a conventional refund system with only a general link
to blockchain/public ledger technology as argued by the
Examiner, because those claims require specific technical
operations (signing the multi-signature distributed crypto
currency transaction and identifying that multi-signature
transaction in chargeback reports/responses) that simply cannot
be characterized as a “general link” to blockchain/public ledger
technology, but rather must be considered technical details that
provide a practical application of a refund system on
blockchain/public ledger and that are specific to
blockchain/public ledger technology.
Reply Br. 5. The issue is not whether the refund system with its particular
data labels is conventional, but whether the operations performed in the
representative process claim are conventional. Steps 1 and 5 recite basic
conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data.
Steps 2–4 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results
desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than
conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data
are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically
enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically
achieves those results.
Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

19

The claims attach a label of “cryptocurrency” to the context in which
the data are analyzed and transmitted, but simply providing a technical
sounding label is not reciting technological operations. “The Supreme Court
and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of
use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment
does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant contends the claim limitations “must be considered
technical details that provide a practical application of a refund system on
[a] blockchain/public ledger and that are specific to blockchain/public ledger
technology,” but provides no evidence to support this. Reply Br. 5. The
limitations are specific only in the sense they are specified using words. The
limitations are recited only at the level of conceptual ideas and not
technological implementation. Adding signature data and identifying
transactions are generic and conventional data processing operations.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe
a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting
detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an
identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim
confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete
embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).

Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

20

Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Powell
and Allmen
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
there simply is no discussion whatsoever in either of Powell or
Allmen of: (1) the signing of a multi-signature transaction,
(2) the identification of a chargeback report and a chargeback
response that are published to a distributed chargeback ledger
and that identify the multi-signature transaction, and (3) the
subsequent transfer of crypto currency based on the analysis of
the chargeback report and chargeback response, as recited by
independent claim[s] 1, 7, and 14.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner cites various portions of
both references, but none of those portions describes these limitations.
Instead, Examiner determines that it is sufficient to show conventional
chargeback and use of cryptocurrency individually. Final Act. 5–6;
Ans. 6–10. The Examiner appears to overlook the signature and distributed
nature of cryptocurrency in determining that “the claim does not invoke any
unique features of a cryptocurrency system.” Ans. 9.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Powell and Allmen is improper.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–20 is affirmed.

Appeal 2021-000788
Application 15/098,102

21

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
1–20 103 Powell Allmen 1–20
Overall Outcome 1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED