PTAB Denies Institution of CBM Review of ATM Patent

Jan 28, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The Board denied institution of CBM review. Although NRT argued that the claims were directed to abstract ideas, it did not specify what those abstract ideas were. The Board found that NRT implicitly identified them as “providing money to an account holder” and “trial-and-error.” Yet the Board found these to be an oversimplification: “[t]he 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.” The Board also faulted NRT for failing to consider the claim elements as ordered combinations to determine whether any additional elements transformed the claims into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. Because NRT failed to show that the claims were more likely than not patent-ineligible, the Board denied CBM review.

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

Share This Insight

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.