ATM Patent Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The Board denied institution of covered business method review of an ATM patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. "Petitioner does not identify directly 'the abstract ideas' to which the claims are purportedly directed. . . . [but] implicitly identifies them as: 'providing money to an account holder' and 'trial-and-error.' . . . As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner has oversimplified the challenged claims. The challenged claims are not directed simply to the idea of providing money to an account holder or using trial-and-error until success is achieved. Rather, the claims are directed to particular methods of providing money to an account holder using an ATM via a POS transaction after an ATM transaction has failed. Further, Petitioner’s analysis omits any consideration of the elements of the claims as ordered combinations to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. It was Petitioner’s burden to do so. Petitioner has not shown that the claims are more likely than not patent-ineligible."

Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review by NRT Technology Corp., CBM2015-00167 (PTAB January 22, 2016, Order) (Fitzpatrick, APJ)