Christopher P. Jones et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2020

2018006728 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2020)

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.
13/920,292 06/18/2013 Christopher P. Jones AUS920130036US1 7335
133905 7590 06/16/2020
IBM CORPORATION- POUGHKEEPSIE (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
EXAMINER
SINGH, RUPANGINI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2020 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):
leslie@vl-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER P. JONES,
JONATHAN LENCHNER, and NATHAN E. MASTERS
____________________

Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
relating “to a distributed object tracking approach that utilizes a self-
sufficient tracking device attached to an object, which indicates a deviation
to the objects expected route by comparing the object’s expected route to
expected routes of nearby objects.” Spec ¶ 1.2
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with paragraph notations
added):
1. A method for tracking objects, implemented by an
information handling system, comprising:
(a) loading, into a first tracking device at a first source
location, a first route of a first package, wherein the first route
includes the first source location and a first destination location
of the first package;
(b) in response to the first package departing the first
source location:
(c) transmitting, by the first tracking device, a request
message to a plurality of second tracking devices;
(d) in response to transmitting the request message,
receiving, at the first tracking device attached to the first
package, a plurality of second routes from the plurality of
second tracking devices each attached to one of a plurality of
second packages, wherein each of the plurality of second routes
includes one or more second source locations and one or more

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 16, 2017
(“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Mar. 08, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Reply Brief filed June 13, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Apr. 18, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed June 18,
2013 (“Spec.”).

Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

3
second destination locations corresponding to its respective
attached one of the plurality of second packages;
(e) determining, by the first tracking device, that an
amount of the plurality of second routes reaches a threshold;
(f) comparing, by the first tracking device in response to
the determination, the first route of the first package with at
least one of the plurality of second routes corresponding to at
least one of the plurality of second packages; and
(g) generating a notification, by the first tracking device,
that indicates the first package is deviating from the first route
in response to the comparison.

Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
unpatentable subject matter, i.e., to a judicial exception without significantly
more. Final Act. 6–10.
ANALYSIS
A. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions,
and Appellant’s Contentions
The Examiner finds that claims 1–20 are directed to the abstract idea
of “comparing a first route loaded into a first package’s tracking device,
against received second packages’ routes from second packages’ tracking
devices in order to generate a notification that, post-departure, the first
package is deviating from the first route.” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 5–6.
In particular, the Examiner finds that this abstract idea or concept is
described by the “loading,” ‘transmitting,” “receiving,” “determining,”
“comparing,” and “generating” steps and functions in claims 1, 9, and 16.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner also finds that the additional elements recited in
claims 1, 9, and 16 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

4
the judicial exception because they are “generic computer components” that
perform “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously
known to the industry.” Id. at 7–9. The Examiner further finds that
dependent claims 2–8, 10–15, and 17–20 are ineligible because they each
further describe the abstract idea and do not “alter[] the significantly more”
analysis. Id. at 9–10.
Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea
because it recites additional elements, so the claim as a whole does not “seek
to tie up the abstract idea of loading, transmitting, receiving, determining,
comparing, and generating data processing steps.” Appeal Br. 7. According
to Appellant, claim 1 recites “specific elements that limit the abstract idea of
data processing steps cited in the Final Office Action:”
1) require the data to be route information of a package that
includes a source location and a destination location; 2) requires
received data to also be route information of different packages
that includes source locations and destination locations; 3)
require that the amount routes received reaches a threshold; and
4) determining that the first package is deviating from its route
based on analyzing the received data and generating a
notification accordingly.
Id. at 8.
Appellant also argues that claim 1 recites specific steps that are
“unconventional steps that 1) confine the claim to a particular useful
application (package tracking) and 2) improve the technical field of package
delivery systems” by comparing route information between proximate
packages, instead of relying on a package’s actual location (via GPS signals)
as in existing systems, to determine whether it is off-course. Id. at 8–9.
Appellant asserts that conventional tracking systems are unreliable at many
points of a package’s route because they use external data or signals, such as
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

5
GPS signals and cell phone signals, which are deficient in penetrating
certain materials such as “a semi-truck’s enclosed metal cargo area, a
warehouse’s thick concrete walls, underground tunnels, etc.” Reply Br. 3.3
Appellant then argues that claim 1 solves the deficiencies of conventional
tracking systems because it enables tracking devices affixed to proximate
packages to pass routing information between one another, and “does not
require external signals and functions correctly in locations where
conventional systems do not function.” Id. Thus, Appellant argues that
“claim 1 is patent-eligible under Part 2 of the Mayo test.” Appeal Br. 9
(emphasis added). For these same reasons, Appellant argues that
independent claims 9 and 16, and dependent claims 2–8, 10–15, and 17–20,
are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 9–10.
B. Applicable Law
“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Technology, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Commission, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
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. However,
the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit
exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (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

3 The pages of the Reply Brief are not numbered. We consider the title page
to be page 1 and the following pages to be numbered sequentially thereafter.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

6
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 [the] 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 Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claim 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 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
In January 2019, the Patent Office issued guidance about this
framework. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance” or “Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg.”).4 Under the Revised Guidance, to decide whether a claim is
directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites one of
the abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance (“Prong One”) and (2) fails
to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (“Prong
Two”). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 51, 54. If the claim is directed
to an abstract idea, as noted above, we then determine whether the claim has
an inventive concept. The Revised Guidance explains that when making this
determination, we should consider whether the additional claim elements

4 See also USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (Oct.
17, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

7
add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[]
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 56.
With these principles in mind, we first analyze whether claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.5
C. Abstract Idea
1. USPTO Step 2A, Prong One
Beginning with Step 2A, Prong One, of the Revised Guidance, we
must determine “whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts,” including the abstract ideas enumerated in the
Revised Guidance.6 Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. One of the subject matter
groupings identified as an abstract idea in the Revised Guidance is “mental
processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” See Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 52, 53. The Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes”
include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper,
even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the
acts. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for

5 Appellant argues claims 1–20 as a group focusing on claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 6–10. Thus, we decide the appeal based on representative claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
6 The Revised Guidance refers to “Step One” as determining whether the
claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories identified by
35 U.S.C. § 101: “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter.” This step is not at issue in this case.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

8
the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental
processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the
mind.”).
For our prong one analysis, we set aside, for consideration below, the
technological elements recited in claim 1: “information handling system,”
“first tracking device,” and “second tracking device.” Apart from these
elements, claim 1 focuses on tracking objects using the steps of: “(a)
loading . . . a first route of a first package, wherein the first route includes
the first source location and a first destination location of the first package;
(b) in response to the first package departing the first source location; (c)
transmitting . . . a request message[]; (d) in response to transmitting the
request message, receiving . . . a plurality of second routes . . . of second
packages, wherein each of the plurality of second routes includes one or
more second source locations and one or more second destination
locations[]; (e) determining . . . that an amount of the plurality of second
routes reaches a threshold; (f) comparing . . . the first route of the first
package with at least one of the plurality of second routes . . . of second
packages; and (g) generating a notification . . . that indicates the first
package is deviating from the first route in response to the comparison.”
We determine that claim 1 focuses on the abstract idea of “mental
processes” because the recited steps are concepts that can be performed by
people in their mind or with pen and paper. For example, step (a) of
“loading” a first route of a package can be performed by a person observing
the route on a tag or label of a first package and retaining that information
mentally or recording it using pen and paper. A person can perform the
function of “transmitting” a request message, as recited in step (c), by
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

9
verbally stating the message or writing the message on a piece of paper with
a pen and handing the paper to another. And, a person can perform the
function of “receiving” a plurality of second routes, as recited in step (d), by
merely observing the tag or label on two or more second packages. Further,
a person can perform the function of “determining” that an amount of
second routes reaches a threshold, as recited in step (e), by making that
evaluation or judgment in his or her mind. Moreover, a person can mentally
perform the “comparing” function, as recited in step (f), by analyzing or
evaluating the first route in regard to at least one of the plurality of second
routes.
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we also determine that these
limitations of claim 1 simply receive, store, transmit, analyze, manipulate,
and convey data or information. See Final Act. 7–8.7 We see no meaningful
difference in claim 1 and claims in similar cases that the Federal Circuit has
found are directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., Electric Power Grp. LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting
information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their
minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of
collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the
realm of abstract ideas); see also Content Extraction and Transmission LLC
v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (“[C]ollecting data,[] recognizing certain data within the collected
data set, and . . . storing that recognized data in a memory.”); CyberSource

7 Step (g) of claim 1 recites “generating a notification” in response to the
comparison of step (f). We determine that step (g) constitutes insignificant
extra-solution activity, e.g., post-solution activity. See Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 55 n.31.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

10
Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (Holding that the incidental use of “computer” or “computer readable
medium” does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that “can be
performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” patent
eligible, explaining that “purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even
when performed by a computer.”); and Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687
F.3d at 1266 (Explaining that “storing, retrieving, and providing data . . . are
inconsequential data gathering and insignificant post solution activity.”).
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 focuses on a method of
tracking objects by performing functions that can be performed in the human
mind or with paper and pen. Thus, we also conclude that the focus of claim
1 is the abstract idea of mental processes.
2. USPTO Step 2A, Prong Two
Because we determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we turn to
prong two of the first step of the Alice analysis and consider whether claim 1
integrates this abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 51. In doing so, we consider whether there are any
additional elements beyond the abstract idea that, individually or in
combination, “integrate the [abstract idea] into a practical application, using
one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.”8 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55.

8 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under step 2 of Alice (step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg.). Solely for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the
Office, we evaluate it under step 1 of Alice (step 2A, prong two, of the
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

11
As stated above, the technological elements recited in claim 1 are the
“information handling system,” “first tracking device,” and “second tracking
device.” These elements are recited at a high level of generality in claim 1
without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure to limit the
abstract idea to a specific practical application. These elements are also
broadly described in the Specification. For example, the Specification
describes the tracking device shown in Figure 1 as including a battery,
processor, memory, and wireless transceiver. Spec. ¶ 19. The Specification
also explains that the tracking device depicted in Figure 1 is “one type of
information handling system,” and “other types of information handling
systems may be utilized, which include a processor and memory, to perform
the computing operations discussed herein.” Id. ¶ 23. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that the Specification discloses “a generic tracking device
performing routine and conventional activities such as receiving and
comparing/analyzing data.” Final Act. 8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 26–30).
We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct
us to any indication, that the functions of claim 1 require any specialized
computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a
particular machine, invoke any asserted inventive programming, or that the
claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer
components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations
does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).

Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–
55.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

12
As discussed supra, Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an
abstract idea because it recites additional elements, so the claim as a whole
does not “seek to tie up the abstract idea of loading, transmitting, receiving,
determining, comparing, and generating data processing steps.” Appeal Br.
7. In that regard, Appellant argues that these specific elements are: (1)
requiring the data to be “route information” that includes “a source location
and a destination location;” (2) requiring the received data to also be “route
information” of different packages that includes “source locations and
destination locations;” (3) requiring that the amount of routes received
reaches a “threshold;” and (4) determining that the first package is deviating
from its route based on analyzing the received data and generating a
notification accordingly. Id. at 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument for several reasons.
First, requiring the “data” to be of a particular type, such as route
information that includes source and destination locations, as in elements (1)
and (2), does not distinguish the method of claim 1 from the recited abstract
idea. As the Federal Circuit held in Electric Power Group, “merely
selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from [section] 101 undergirds
the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Electric Power Group,
830 F.3d at 1355. Second, requiring the amount of routes received to reach
a “threshold,” as in element (3), is insufficient to result in a practical
application of the abstract idea of claim 1 because the Specification broadly
describes that the number or amount of nearby object routes received, i.e.,
the “threshold,” can be any “sufficient” number or amount of nearby object
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

13
routes. See Spec. ¶¶ 44–45. Third, determining that the first package is
deviating from its route based on “analyzing the received data and
generating a notification accordingly,” as in element (4), is insufficient to
provide a practical application because this is nothing more than the abstract
idea itself. BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of
the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive
concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible
concept.”); see also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
890 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he ‘inventive concept’ cannot be
the abstract idea itself.”).
Accordingly, we conclude that claim 1 does not contain an element
that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea and integrates the
abstract idea into a practical application. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1169–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Affinity Labs of
Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In this
case, the claims are directed not to an improvement in cellular telephones
but simply to the use of cellular telephones as tools in the aid of a process
focused on an abstract idea. That is not enough to constitute patentable
subject matter.”); and Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (explaining that
courts have identified “merely us[ing] a computer as a tool to perform an
abstract idea” as an example of when a judicial exception may not have been
integrated into a practical application). Further, consistent with the
Examiner’s findings, and in view of Appellant’s Specification, we conclude
that claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application, and thus is directed to the judicial exception itself. See Final
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

14
Act. 7–8; see also, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 19, 21–26. In particular, we determine
claim 1 does not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.

See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
3. USPTO Step 2B — Inventive Concept
Finally, we consider whether claim 1 has an inventive concept, that is,
whether any additional claim elements “‘transform the nature of the claim’
into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether the additional
claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or
“simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.”
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
As stated supra, the Examiner finds that the additional elements
recited in claims 1, 9, and 16 are not sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because they are “generic computer
components” that perform “well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry.” Final Act. 7–9.
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

15
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites specific steps of a tracking
device that receives route information from other tracking devices and
determines whether the tracking device’s package is off-course. Appeal Br.
8. Appellant also argues that these steps are “unconventional steps that 1)
confine the claim to a particular useful application (package tracking) and 2)
improve the technical field of package delivery systems” by comparing route
information between proximate packages, instead of relying on a package’s
actual location (via GPS signals) as in existing systems, to determine
whether it is off-course. Appeal Br. 8–9; see also Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 recites specific steps that
are “unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful
application (package tracking).” Appeal Br. 8. As we understand this
argument, Appellant asserts that the specific steps of claim 1 prevent
preemption of package tracking by others. However, this argument is not
persuasive. “While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility
. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible
subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case,
preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may
be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them
any less abstract.”).
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

16
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
specific steps recited in claim 1 improve the technical field of package
delivery systems because claim 1 does not require external signals. Appeal
Br. 8–9; see also Reply Br. 3. As discussed supra, we have determined that
claim 1 does not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or
an improvement to another technology or technical field. Appellant has also
failed to demonstrate that claim 1 requires any specialized computer
hardware, other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine,
or that the claimed invention is performed using other than readily available
components. Further, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the Specification discloses “a generic tracking device
performing routine and conventional activities such as receiving and
comparing/analyzing data.” See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26 (Holding
that “implement[ing] the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer” was not
sufficient “to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Thus, even if we were to agree with Appellant that claim 1 solves the
deficiencies of conventional tracking systems by passing routing information
between proximate packages, instead of relying on external signals,
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 improves the technical field of package
delivery systems is not persuasive because any alleged improvement lies in
the abstract idea itself, not to any technological improvement. See BSG, 899
F.3d at 1287–88. Such an improvement to the recited abstract idea does not
confer patent-eligibility. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network
Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363–65 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collecting cases).
Accordingly, the specificity by which the abstract idea is claimed is
immaterial to the question of patent eligibility. Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

17
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (“An abstract idea can generally be described at
different levels of abstraction.”); see also SAP Am. In. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[E]ven 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.”).
Thus, considering claim 1 as a whole, we determine that the additional
elements recited in claim 1 are readily available computing elements
performing their basic functions and do not provide “a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Rather, these elements “simply append[] well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality.” Id. Accordingly, we find that claim 1 does not have an
inventive concept.
4. Opinion
Because we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and
does not contain an inventive concept, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the same reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claims 9 and 16,
and dependent claims 2–8, 10–15, and 17–20, which are not argued
separately substantively.

Appeal 2018-006728
Application 13/920,292

18
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

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