Federal Circuit disposition — 24-1533

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: HAIM S. RAIZ,
Appellant
______________________
2024-1533
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/536,175.
______________________
Decided: February 11, 2025
______________________
HAIM S. RAIZ, Cleveland Heights, OH, pro se.
K AKOLI CAPRIHAN , Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee
Coke Morgan Stewart. Also represented by ROBERT
MCBRIDE, AMY J. N ELSON, F ARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before L OURIE, BRYSON, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM.
Appellant Haim S. Raiz seeks to overturn a decision of
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting claims as in-
definite and as directed to unpatentable subject matter.
We affirm.
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 2
I
Mr. Raiz’s patent application is directed to computer
software for effectuating bank transaction operations on a
blockchain network. Claim 13 of the application, which is
the only independent claim, recites the following:
13. A software system for a transaction node in
combination with a digital blockchain network for
speeding up simultaneous bank funds transfer be-
tween multiple banks, comprising:
mean [sic] implementing mass service transaction
method provided by at least three interacting tasks
for servicing of parallel inbound and outbound flow
of transaction requests with allocated pool of net-
work accounts for each of the multiple banks;
means for providing servicing for a plurality of an
active transactions request by assignments service
accounts and establishment [sic] plurality of bidi-
rectional communication lines;
means for monitoring and executing individual
steps for each time cycle for the plurality of all an
[sic] active independent transaction requests and
in accordance with particular bank contract;
means for creating state transaction dialog (STD)
data for each active transaction and on each side;
means for providing requests for API web terminal
emulation for task three;
means for providing funding multiple parallel
transactions with cryptocurrency;
means for employing hash code produced and
transferred by recipients to sender to obtain real
time confirmation of transaction from sender;
means utilizing [sic] established communication
lines for settlement according to contracts and
transferring completion code.
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 3
The examiner rejected the claims as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). On appeal, the Pa-
tent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) sustained both re-
jections. Ex parte Haim S. Raiz, No. 2023-003502, 2024
WL 94310, at *16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2024).
The Board agreed with the examiner that claim 13 is
properly interpreted as a means-plus-function claim under
35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Id. at *3. The Board also agreed that
the specification fails to disclose a structure that corre-
sponds to the limitation “means [for] utilizing established
communication lines for settlement according to contracts
and transferring completion code.” Specifically, the Board
rejected Mr. Raiz’s argument that the specification dis-
closes the structure for a “monitor” that provides the trans-
fer and reception functions for the bank’s transactions and
agreed with the examiner that the disclosed monitor lacks
any structure to perform settlement of contracts or transfer
completion code. Id.
The Board upheld the section 101 rejection because it
agreed that claim 13 was directed to bank-to-bank remit-
tance transaction operations, i.e., fund transfers. Id. at *6.
The Board agreed that transferring funds is an economic
practice and therefore a method of organizing human ac-
tivity. Id. Thus, the Board found that the claim is directed
to an abstract idea. Id. Next, the Board rejected Mr. Raiz’s
argument that the claim’s use of a mass transaction service
(“MTS”) is an additional element that provides a technolog-
ical improvement beyond the abstract idea. Mr. Raiz ar-
gued that use of MTS allowed the system to expand the
number of communication channels and to service multiple
transaction requests in parallel. The Board, however,
found these benefits to be improvements to the abstract
idea of processing bank-to-bank remittance transactions
and not technological improvements. Id. at *8.
Turning to whether the claim included an inventive
concept, the Board rejected Mr. Raiz’s arguments that
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 3 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 4
using MTS in the claimed system was not obvious but in-
stead new and novel. The Board explained that the in-
ventive concept inquiry is distinct from an obviousness
inquiry, so Mr. Raiz’s arguments of novelty failed to refute
the examiner’s finding that the claim contained no in-
ventive concept. Id. at *10.
II
Section 112(f) of the Patent Act permits a patentee to
“recite, in the claim, a function without reciting structure
for performing the function and limit the claims to the
structure, materials, or acts disclosed in the specification
(or their equivalents).” Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28
F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022). We refer to this type of
claim language as “means-plus-function” claiming.
Whether claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is a le-
gal question that we review de novo. Williamson v. Citrix
Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We presume that a claim has been drafted in means-
plus-function format when the claim uses the term
“means.” Dyfan, 28 F.4th at 1365. Here, the limitation at
issue is “means [for] utilizing established communication
lines for settlement according to contracts and transferring
completion code.” The Board found that use of “means” in
this limitation gives rise to the presumption that the limi-
tation is a means-plus-function limitation. Mr. Raiz does
not meaningfully challenge that conclusion. Given the un-
rebutted presumption, we agree with the Board’s conclu-
sion.
Having determined the limitation to be a means-plus-
function limitation, we first identify the claimed function
and then determine what structure, if any, is disclosed in
the specification. Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
Am., Inc., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2021). If the spec-
ification does not disclose any adequate structure, the
claim is indefinite. Id. The determination of the claimed
function and the corresponding structure are both matters
of claim construction, which is an issue of law that we
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 4 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 5
review de novo. In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
In its decision upholding the examiner’s rejection of the
claims, the Board found that the claimed function is to per-
form settlement of contracts and transfer completion codes.
See Raiz, 2024 WL 94310, at *3. Mr. Raiz does not dispute
that conclusion. Based on the plain language of the claim
limitation and Mr. Raiz’s acquiescence, we agree with the
Board as to the claimed function. What Mr. Raiz does dis-
pute is whether an adequate structure is disclosed in the
specification. Before both the Board and now us, Mr. Raiz
identifies a monitor as the structure corresponding to the
recited function.1
The specification discusses the structure of the monitor
twice. First, it explains that the monitor “is built in accord-
ance with mass service solution and bank transaction
productivity requirements.” App. 18. Second, it explains
that the monitor is
on both sides seamlessly connected to host bank’s
computer resources to validate and record pay-
ment transactions. . . . Monitor provide[s] func-
tions of transfer and reception of all running on
blockchain bank’s transactions. To minimize total
service time and r[a]ise number of parallel servic-
ing requests for banks, monitor could provide mul-
tiple service for steps of different request[s] at each
cycle.
App. 23.
1 In his reply brief, Mr. Raiz identifies the structure
as two interacting nodes with two Tasks 2 providing func-
tionality of sequential dialogs for the implementation of
settlement contracts. This argument is new on reply and
therefore considered waived. Becton Dickinson & Co. v.
C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 5 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 6
Mr. Raiz does not argue that the disclosed monitor is
anything more than a general-purpose computer or proces-
sor. Instead, Mr. Raiz explains that implementation of the
application is based on the contract, which provides struc-
ture and actions, and that the monitor simply executes the
contract. Br. 12–13. This description of the role of the mon-
itor is consistent with the disclosures in the specification,
which also do not suggest that the monitor is anything
other than a general-purpose computer that can execute
software.
“If the function is performed by a general-purpose com-
puter or microprocessor, then the second step generally fur-
ther requires that the specification disclose the algorithm
that the computer performs to accomplish that function.”
Rain Computing, 989 F.3d at 1007. In rare cases, an algo-
rithm does not need to be disclosed if any general-purpose
computer without any special programming can perform
the function. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc.,
673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
It is not apparent that a monitor without special pro-
gramming can settle contracts and transfer completion
code. To the contrary, Mr. Raiz explains that the “monitor
supports implementation of the contract” but that it is the
“contract software” that provides the structure and actions.
Br. 12; see also id. at 11 (“The contract presents software
implemented with two counterparts for two blockchain’s
accounts on two interacting nodes.”). We understand Mr.
Raiz’s explanation to mean that the monitor is a general-
purpose computer that executes specialized software to set-
tle contracts and transfer completion code, i.e., an algo-
rithm.
Although Mr. Raiz refers to the algorithm as contract
software, the specification does not sufficiently disclose the
algorithm. We have explained that in order to qualify as
the structure corresponding to the function recited in a
means-plus-function claim, an algorithm must be ex-
pressed as a “step-by-step procedure for accomplishing a
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 6 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 7
given result.” Ergo Licensing, 673 F.3d at 1365 (citation
omitted). Here, the specification does not provide a step-
by-step explanation of the contract software. Rather, it
notes that all different types of transactions between banks
can be presented as a bank contract, that new types of con-
tracts can be programmed and used in the invention, and
that the contract can be executed in one step or fragmented
into multiple steps. App. 23. In other words, the specifica-
tion acknowledges that there are many ways, some still un-
known, to implement the contract software. This
conclusion is consistent with Mr. Raiz’s explanation that
“[d]isclosure of settlement requires a description of the con-
tracts for settlement because different settlements are im-
plemented by different contracts.” Br. 11.
Mr. Raiz explains that the “contract presents software
implemented with two counterparts for two blockchain[]
accounts on two interacting nodes.” Id. Mr. Raiz then pro-
vides further details about the execution of the contract,
namely that the contract will execute in a step-wise man-
ner with information being sent between two nodes. Id. at
11–12. But these high-level characterizations of how to run
the contract do not explain how the contract executes set-
tlement or transfers completion code, and we do not find
any more specific disclosures regarding the execution of
settlement or transference of completion code in the speci-
fication. This conclusion is consistent with Mr. Raiz’s ad-
mission that the “disclosure did not provide a particular
contract for settlement that could be implemented for bank
transactions.” Id. at 12.
In his reply brief, Mr. Raiz provides more detail regard-
ing the algorithm, including describing that data is trans-
ferred, contract functions are initiated based on a changed
state in an account, direct lines are created, and funds are
sent using a public key. Procedurally, these arguments are
new on reply and therefore waived. Becton Dickinson, 922
F.2d at 800. On the merits, these details merely describe
the other limitations in the claims; they do not explain the
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 7 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

IN RE: RAIZ 8
steps that are taken to settle contracts and transfer com-
pletion code using established communication lines.
In sum, we find that the specification’s disclosures re-
garding the contract software do not provide sufficient
structure for the execution of settlement of contracts and
transference of completion code, rendering claim 13 indefi-
nite. See, e.g., Rain Computing, 989 F.3d at 1008.
In passing, Mr. Raiz suggests that claim 18 “could be
implemented as settlement according to contract” and that
claim 20 describes a contract. Br. 2. Claim 18 describes a
way to implement near real time transaction clearance us-
ing a hash code. See App. 71. It is not clear from the claim
language or from the specification that claim 18 describes
the structure that executes settlement according to con-
tract. Claim 20 recites adding new contracts and taking a
“sequence of action” according to the contract. App. 92. We
read claim 20 as simply instructing that code should be ex-
ecuted and not disclosing the steps for executing the settle-
ment of the contract or transfer of completion code.
Neither dependent claim adds sufficient structure to ren-
der the claimed invention definite, and Mr. Raiz has not
argued that any other dependent claims provide sufficient
structure to avoid indefiniteness. Accordingly, we agree
with the Board that the dependent claims are also indefi-
nite.
Because we find the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, we need not reach the issue of whether the claims
are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No costs.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1533 Document: 57 Page: 8 Filed: 02/11/2025

-- 8 of 8 --