Peter Winfield-Chislett et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2019

13178431 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2019)

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.
13/178,431 07/07/2011 Peter Winfield-Chislett E1283.USAW+ 8389
66945 7590 09/18/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP/VISA
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
GREGG, MARY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER WINFIELD-CHISLETT, WESTLEY STRINGFELLOW,
ITAMAR LESUISSE, VERONICA CASABONNE,
and RAYMOND TAMBLYN
____________

Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21–24, 27, 29, 33–36, and 38–42, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies Visa Europe Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
4.
2 Claims 1–20, 25, 26, 28, 30–32, and 37 have been canceled previously.
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification describes systems and methods for
“processing payment authorization requests for payment transactions to be
conducted via a data communications network.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 21 under appeal read as follows;
21. A method of authorizing payment transactions
conducted via a data communications network, a payment
transaction being conducted as a result of an order by a financial
account holder via a merchant data processing system, the
method comprising using an online banking authentication
process whereby a financial account holder is able to access an
online banking application associated with an issuer banking
data processing system, the online banking application relating
to at least one financial account holder financial account, wherein
the method comprises a transaction processing data processing
system:
receiving, via the data communications network, a request
relating to authorization of a payment transaction, said request
being initiated as a result of a financial account holder
conducting an order in a merchant data processing system and
selecting a payment option, from a plurality of payment options,
to access the transaction processing data processing system,
wherein the transaction processing data processing system is
separate from the issuer banking data processing system;
in response to receiving said request, conducting a
payment authentication process in which the financial account
holder provides authentication details to the online banking
authentication process conducted by the issuer banking data
processing system, whereby to enable the online banking
authentication process to verify the provided authentication
details to authenticate the financial account holder;
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

3
in response to verification of the provided authentication
details by the online banking authentication process, receiving,
from the online banking application, a primary account number
(PAN) for use in payment processing;
transmitting, via the data communications network, said
received primary account number (PAN) to an Internet Payment
Service Provider (merchant IPSP system) system for use in
authorization of the payment transaction.
References and Rejections on Appeal
Claims 21–24, 27, 29, 33–36, and 38–42 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See
Final Act. 16–35.
Claims 21–24, 27, 29, 33–36, and 38–40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dominguez (US 2003/0200184 A1;
pub. Oct. 23, 2003) and Paulsen (US 7,941,370 B2; iss. May 10, 2011). See
Final Act. 36–41, 43–52.
Claims 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dominguez, Paulsen, and Singh (US 2011/0161230 A1;
pub. June 30, 2011). See Final Act. 41–43, 48–49.

ANALYSIS
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. App. Br. 6–14. As
permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal based on claim 21.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Arguments
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to “a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

4
idea) without significantly more.” Final Act. 16. The Examiner adds that
the claims are “directed to the abstract idea of selecting payment options and
verifying authorization information in order to provide a primary account
number for a transaction,” which is similar to “concepts related to the
processes of comparing data that can be performed mentally.” Id. (citing
SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs, SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2014); Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057
(Fed. Cir. 2011); and Elec. Power Gp., LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) for “receiving, comparing and transmitting data;” Card
Verification for “verifying transaction information.”). The Examiner also
determines the claimed functions including “receiving, . . ., a request
relating to authorization of a payment transaction,” “conducting a
payment authentication process,” and receiving/transmitting “a primary
account number” are directed to “an economic principle” providing any
improvements to another technology/technical field nor the functioning of
the computer itself. Final Act. 16–19. With respect to the additional
elements and whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception, the Examiner finds:
The communication network is recited at a high level of
generality and simply performs the function of transmitting
data. The merchant data processing system is recited at a high
level of generality and simply performs the function of sending
intangible data. The online banking application/algorithm
performs the functions of receiving, comparing and transmitting
data and comprising instructions. Generic computer elements
performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Verifying data has
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

5
been identified by the courts as an abstract concept
specification).
This is because additional elements do not affect an
improvement to another technology or technical field; the
claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a
computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general
link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment. The claims merely amount to the application or
instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. performing data
analysis) using a data communication network performing the
function of data transmission, a merchant data processing
system transmitting data; merchant IPSP system receiving data;
and an online banking application, and is considered to amount
to nothing more than requiring a generic computer elements to
merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims,
when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the
instruction to implement the abstract idea in a particular, albeit
well-understood, routine and conventional technological
environment.
Final Act. 19–20. Based on these determinations, the Examiner concludes
that the claims are ineligible under § 101. Final Act. 21.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 7–11. According to Appellant, the Examiner
determined each recited step is directed to an abstract idea, instead of
considering the claim as a whole. App. Br. 8. Appellant argues
The claims of the present invention are clearly directed to
an improvement in a technological process in online payment
systems. Specifically, the claims of the present invention
introduce a new network entity, the “transaction processing data
processing system” in the data communication network. The
transaction processing data processing system resolves several
issues in online payment systems, including: reducing the
amount of information and processing required to initiate a
payment, thus reducing the need of a merchant to provide its
own merchant data processing system and limiting the use of
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

6
required bandwidth; increasing the interoperability of various
network entities controlled by different banks and merchants by
acting as an interface between merchant systems and acquiring
bank systems, thereby reducing the processing load on all other
network entities and providing increased transaction processing
functionality; and in some embodiments, preventing data loss
by allowing financial account information to be coupled with a
transaction data. See Spec. at [0007], [0009], [0014], and
[0016]. Therefore, the claims improve the underlying computer
technology itself from a technical standpoint.
App. Br. 10. Appellant also contends that “[e]ven if, arguendo, the claims
are directed to an abstract idea, Appellant respectfully submits that the
limitations of the claims amount to significantly more than the fundamental
business practice of creating a contractual relationship.” Id.
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“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)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

7
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive concept,” “an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
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, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

8
Abstract Idea
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity; or (c) mental processes.
Independent claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim
recites a method of organizing human activity, one of the abstract idea
groupings listed in the Guidance. See, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human [activities] such as commercial or
legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations)” as one of the “enumerated groupings of abstract ideas”).
The claims are directed to “a method of processing payment
authorization requests for payment transactions to be conducted via a data
communications network.” Spec. ¶¶ 9, 23, 46; Fig. 4. The claimed system
includes the following: (1) “receiving . . . a request relating to authorization
of a payment transaction, said request being initiated as a result of a
financial account holder conducting an order in a merchant data processing
system and selecting a payment option . . . to access the transaction
processing data processing system” and results in “a payment authentication
process;” (2) “in response to receiving said request, conducting a payment
authentication process in which the financial account holder provides
authentication details to the online banking authentication process conducted
by the issuer banking data processing system . . . to authenticate the financial
account holder;” (3) “in response to verification of the provided
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

9
authentication details . . . receiving, from the online banking application, a
primary account number (PAN) for use in payment processing” and (4)
“transmitting . . . said received primary account number (PAN) to an Internet
Payment Service Provider (merchant IPSP system) system for use in
authorization of the payment transaction.” App. Br. 28 (Claims App’x.).
Here, apart from the data communications network, processing
system, and different received or transmitted numbers, every limitation of
claim 21 recites an abstract idea, namely organizing human activity, or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations). The claimed method of authorizing payment
transactions does not require a machine, let alone a particular machine, to
implement, and therefore fits squarely within the human activity
organization category of the agency’s guidelines. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity
including (1) commercial interactions, and (2) managing interactions
between people including following rules or instructions). More
specifically, the recited steps are similar to payment transactions conducted
in the course of a financial account holder “conducting an order placed with
a merchant” who conducts “a payment authentication process in which the
financial account holder provides authentication details” to obtain
verification of the authenticity of the user data and account information
before completing the payment transaction.
Although claim 21 recites an abstract idea based on these methods of
organizing human activity, we nevertheless must still determine whether the
abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

10
claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55. We therefore (1) identify whether there are any
additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those
elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate
the exception into a practical application. See id.
Here, the data communications network, transaction processing
system, and different received or transmitted numbers are the only recited
elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim 21
as a whole. We are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves the
computer or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise
changes the way those devices function. In another words, contrary to
Appellant’s assertion (App. Br. 10), the claimed invention here merely uses
generic computing components to process payment transactions including
receiving a request of a payment after placing an order with a merchant,
providing authentication detail for verification of the account holder by the
bank, receiving a primary account number (PAN), and transmitting the PAN
the merchant payment system—a generic computer implementation that is
not only directed to fundamental human activity organization, but also does
not improve the underlying computer technology similar to improving a
display mechanism as was the case in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Ans. 8.
Furthermore, the remaining elements recited in claim 21 do not
integrate these abstract ideas into a practical application. In addition to the
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

11
steps discussed above, claim 21 recites a “data communications network,” a
“merchant data processing system,” a “transaction processing data
processing system,” and a “banking data processing system.” The written
description discloses that the recited systems encompass generic
components, such as a general-purpose computer. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 57, 62,
67, 68, 100, Figs. 5a–5b. In addition to similar components discussed
above, independent claim 33 recites a “transaction processing data
processing system” whereas independent 40 recites a “computer-readable
storage medium,” which are not disclosed in the Specification as required
anything more than generic components. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 23, 39. Simply
adding generic hardware and computer components to perform abstract ideas
does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement
an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has
not been integrated into a practical application).
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for
a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article
to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any 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. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

12
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 21 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 21 recites an “inventive concept.” The Examiner
determined claim 21 does not recite an inventive concept because the
additional elements in the claim do not amount to “significantly more” than
an abstract idea. See Final Act. 18–21; Ans. 9–10.
We agree. The additional elements recited in the claim include a
“data communications network,” a “merchant data processing system,” a
“transaction processing data processing system,” and a “banking data
processing system.” The claim recites these elements at a high level of
generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are
generic computer components. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 57, 62, 67, 68, 100, Figs.
5a–5b. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does
not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these
elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly
more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
Appellant contends various elements recited in the claim provide the
necessary “inventive concept” and “contribute ‘significantly more’ than the
alleged abstract idea or any other abstract idea.” App. Br. 11. Appellant
also alleges that the claimed invention is similar to the claims found eligible
in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Namely, Appellant argues that like the claims at issue in DDR, “the claims
are rooted in an online payment system in data communication networks that
have various network components, and the claims solve several problems
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

13
that arise in the context of such online payment systems as discussed above
and also described in paragraphs [0001-0009] and [0014-0016], such as data
loss and fraud, high bandwidth usage, and interfacing between network
components owned and operated by different entities.” App. Br. 11.
We disagree. Regarding DDR, the Federal Circuit explains that the
claims at issue in DDR Holdings specified
how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a
desired result—a result that overrides the routine and
conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click
of a hyperlink. Instead of the computer network operating in its
normal, expected manner by sending the website visitor to the
third-party website that appears to be connected with the clicked
advertisement, the claimed system generates and directs the
visitor to the above-described hybrid web page that presents
product information from the third-party and visual “look and
feel” elements from the host website. When the limitations of
the [disputed claims] are taken together as an ordered
combination, the claims recite an invention that is not merely the
routine or conventional use of the Internet.
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–59. In other words, the claimed invention
in DDR Holdings did not merely use the Internet but rather provided a novel
way for how interactions on the internet operated. In contrast, the claimed
invention uses the computer as tool to process payment transactions
including receiving a request of a payment after placing an order with a
merchant, providing authentication detail for verification of the account
holder by the bank, receiving a primary account number (PAN), and
transmitting the PAN to the merchant payment system. As such, the claimed
invention does not provide a solution to a technical problem and merely uses
the computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 23,
39, 57, 62, 67, 68, 100 (describing the known process of receiving account
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

14
data and providing authentication details regarding the transaction and
payment processing).
In particular, we are not persuaded that the claimed limitations “are
rooted in an online payment system in data communication networks that
have various network components, and the claims solve several problems
that arise in the context of such online payment systems as discussed above .
. ., such as data loss and fraud, high bandwidth usage, and interfacing
between network components owned and operated by different entities.”
See App. Br. 11. However, these elements form part of the recited abstract
ideas and thus are not “additional elements” that “‘transform the nature of
the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24
(“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim
features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the
identified judicial exception.” (Emphasis added)). As such, Appellant’s
claims can be distinguished from patent-eligible claims such as those in
McRO and Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (See Br. 13–14), that are directed to “a specific
means or method that improves the relevant technology” (McRO, 837 F.3d
at 1314) or “solving a technology-based problem” (Bascom, 827 F.3d at
1349–52).
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
21 is “directed to” an abstract idea and does not recite an “inventive
concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

15
the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds Dominguez teaches all the
recited claim limitations, but not “an Internet Payment Service provider
(merchant IPSP system)” for which the Examiner relies on Paulsen. See
Final Act. 36–39. The Examiner finds the combination would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because
Both Dominguez and Paulsen teach online transaction systems.
Paulsen teaches the motivation of utilizing internet payment
service providers in order to provide secure payment
processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill at the time of the invention was made to modify the online
transaction system of Dominguez to include internet payment
service providers as taught by Paulsen since Paulsen teaches the
motivation of utilizing internet payment service providers in
order to provide secure payment processing.
Final Act. 39.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is in error
because the Examiner has based the rejection on interpreting the claim as
“‘receiv[ing] a request . . . and selecting a payment option, from a plurality
of payment options,’ which is not a buyer selecting an option but a system
selecting an option,” whereas the claim “specifies two actions that result in
the initiation of the request: 1) the financial account holder conducting an
order in a merchant data processing system; and 2) the financial account
holder selecting a payment option.” App. Br. 12. Appellant specifically
argues the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 78 of Dominguez to meet this
limitation is improper because the authentication process take place if the
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

16
card is registered and “after the buyer enters his or her account number.”
App. Br. 14. Appellant further argues the cited paragraphs of Dominguez do
not teach that “the PAN is received ‘from the online banking application’
in response to verification of authentication details, not from the financial
account holder as in Dominguez,” and instead include a proxy PAN in a
URL addressing a proxy server for account authentication. App. Br. 15–16.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred, but we disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response,
supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the above-noted contentions
raised by Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 18–28). We highlight the
following points for emphasis.
First, with respect to the financial account holder conducting an order
and also selecting a payment option, we agree with the Examiner that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, consistent with the
Specification, does not preclude including the “selecting a payment option”
feature as a part of the transaction processing data processing system instead
of an action performed specifically by the account holder. See Ans. 19.
Based on this claim interpretation, we agree with the Examiner’s findings
and analysis and observe that the cited portions of Dominguez in paragraphs
43, 64, 77, and 78 teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 21–25.
Second, regarding the recited “receiving, from the online banking
application, a primary account number (PAN) for use in payment
Appeal 2018-000640
Application 13/178,431

17
processing,” we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that paragraphs 64–
68, 90–92, 116, 149, and 150 discloses receiving a PAN. See Ans. 25–28.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 21,
independent claims 33 and 40 which are argued based on the same reasons
presented for claim 21, as well as the remaining dependent claims, which are
not argues separately. See App. Br. 16–27. We, therefore, sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 21–24, 27, 29, 33–36, and 38–42.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–24, 27, 29, 33–36,
and 38–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–24, 27, 29, 33–36,
and 38–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–24, 27, 29, 33–
36, 38–42
§ 103(a) 21–24, 27, 29,
33–36, 38–42

21–24, 27, 29, 33–
36, 38–42
§ 101 21–24, 27, 29,
33–36, 38–42

AFFIRMED