John Simms et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2021

2021000119 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021)

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.
15/626,896 06/19/2017 John Simms 4686
84403 7590 05/17/2021
Dennis Clarke
6717 Corner Lane
McLean, VA 22101
EXAMINER
EL-BATHY, IBRAHIM N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN SIMMS, NOEL SIMMS, and
JOHN SIMMS JR.
____________

Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
John Simms, Noel Simms, and John Simms Jr. (Appellant2) seek
review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 6–13, the only
claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of associating a delivery with a
network platform which enables conducting the transaction utilizing a
mobile device. Specification 3.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 6, which is reproduced below (paragraphing added).
6. A method for the delivery of at least one item to at least one
of a plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage
container being associated with a corresponding customer,
wherein said delivery is associated with a processor-
implemented system programmed in a non-transitory
processor-readable medium,
the system comprising at least one server processor, and
storing instructions that are executable by a processor,
said instructions adapted to:
(a) receive from said customer a request for a mobile app,
(b) deliver the mobile app to a mobile device of said customer,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed June 4, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 2,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 21, 2020), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 7, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
inventors. (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

3

(c) receive from said customer, via said mobile device, a request
for authentication,
(d) authenticate said customer.
(e) generate a token that uniquely identifies said customer, and
(f) deliver the token to the mobile device of said customer,
wherein said token enables said customer to transact said
delivery of said at least one item to said at least one
locked storage container.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Miller US 2004/0254802 A1 Dec. 16, 2004
Carpenter US 2013/0124606 A1 May 16, 2013
Rellas US 2014/0201001 A1 July 17, 2014
Sadler US 2018/0060928 A1 Mar. 1, 2018
Claims 6–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, and Carpenter.
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, and Sadler.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the claim limitations.

Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

4

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Rellas
01.Rellas is directed to the distribution of products. Rellas para. 1.
02. Rellas describes a supplier managing deliveries of products to
people at locations in accordance with orders received from
customers of the supplier. This includes receiving the orders,
receiving payments for the orders, tracking deliveries of the
orders, receiving confirmation that the recipients of the deliveries
were the people at the locations, and tracking inventory of
products based on the orders and deliveries. Rellas para. 7.
03. Rellas describes a user application on a mobile device for some
implementations of the system. Rellas para. 130.
04. Rellas describes the user logging-in to the user application and
making purchases. Rellas para. 136.
Miller
05.Miller is directed to delivery and collection of goods to and from
secure lockers in response to orders received over the internet or
telephone. Miller para. 1.
06. Miller describes collection and/or delivery of at least one item
from/to at least one automated delivery facility, the system
including a delivery organisation serving a plurality of customers;
the automated delivery facility including at least one secure
enclosure, locking means for regulating access to the enclosure,
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

5

and security code input means for controlling the locking means;
characterised in that there is provided a database containing a
plurality of identifiers, each identifier being a telephone number or
email address associated with a customer; and the locking means
unlocks the enclosure when at least a first said identifier is entered
into the security code input means. Miller para. 16.
07. Miller describes generating and communicating a one-time
collection code to the customer awaiting the delivery. Miller
para. 45.
Carpenter
08.Carpenter is directed to automatic personalization of apps after
they are downloaded onto mobile devices. Carpenter para. 2.
09. Carpenter describes downloading and personalizing a mobile
app. Carpenter para. 10.
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Two issues as to claim construction arise from the record. Both relate
to recitations as to item deliveries to lockers. The first is to the claim
preamble phrase “for the delivery of at least one item to at least one of a
plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage container being
associated with a corresponding customer.” The issue is whether this limits
the claim.
“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole
suggests for it.” Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns
Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Where a patentee uses the
claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention,
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

6

the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. See id.; Corning Glass
Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete
invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a
purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim
limitation. See Bell Commc’ns, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie,
187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951).
What is immediately apparent is that the phrase at issue is not a
description of structure. It describes an aspirational operation of delivering
an item. Therefore there is no issue as to whether the phrase is needed to
structurally define the invention. Even with corresponding system claim 10,
the equivalent phrase is a similar aspirational operation.
As to the body of the claims, none of the steps is that of delivering an
item, or of an operation that depends on such a delivery. Instead all steps
copy an app to a user’s device and then send a digital token, i.e. data, to the
device. Thus, the preamble phrase is unnecessary to even define the steps of
the claims. Both the claims and the Specification at 3 go only so far as to
say the token so sent somehow enables a future transaction to occur after the
final step of token delivery. Therefore the Specification does not warrant
making the phrase a claim limitation. We conclude the phrase “for the
delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of locked storage
containers, each locked storage container being associated with a
corresponding customer” is a statement of intended use and does not limit
the claims.
The second issue is how to construe the final limitation of “wherein
said token enables said customer to transact said delivery of said at least one
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

7

item to said at least one locked storage container.” As we determine above,
this phrase recites an aspiration as to what is hoped to occur after the final
step. As such it is aspirational rather than functional, and is therefore also a
statement of intended use. Even granting the phrase patentable weight, the
only requirement is that the token enables something. But enablement (as
recited in the claims, not the patent law concept as to 35 U.S.C. § 112) is
very broad and encompasses anything that allows something. As the phrase
relies on a token that is generated and sent to a mobile device, the token is
data. The phrase does not narrow or recite how such enablement is
implemented. Any data item enables anything so long as software is
provided that appropriately responds to that data to perform that anything.
So the phrase is construed to mean wherein the token comprises data for
which some software would allow subsequent delivery. Such a data item is
itself insensitive to the nature of the delivery, including whether it would be
to a locked container. That would be a matter for the software the token is
entered into, which is again outside the scope of the claims.
Claims 6–13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 6, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

8

STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

9

additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 6 recites receiving request data, delivering app data, receiving more
request data, authenticating a customer, generating token data, and
delivering token data. Delivering data is transmitting data. Authenticating a
customer is conventional generic data reception and analysis. Thus, claim 6
recites receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and generating data. None of the
limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 6 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

10

human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 6 recites the concept of
managing commercial product deliveries. Specifically, claim 6 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to generate and
deliver customer app tokens. The advice to generate and deliver customer
app tokens involves generating customer identifiers, which is a commerce
act, and customers making requests, which is an act ordinarily performed in
the stream of commerce. For example, claim 6 recites “generate a token that
uniquely identifies said customer,” which is an activity that would take place
whenever one is managing customer transactions. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“receive from said customer a request,” which is also characteristic of
customer transaction management.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to individuals
communicating with one another to inquire about an available locker to store
a customer’s package. Ans. 4. The preamble to claim 6 recites that it is a
method for the delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of
locked storage containers, each locked storage container being associated
with a corresponding customer. The steps in claim 6 result in managing
commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app

5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

11

tokens absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional
computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations a and c recite receiving data.
Limitations b and d–f recite generic and conventional transmitting,
analyzing, and generating of app data, which advise one to apply generic
functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for
generating and delivering customer app tokens. To advocate generating and
delivering customer app tokens is conceptual advice for results desired and
not technological operations.
The Specification at page 3 describes the invention as relating to
associating a delivery with a network platform which enables conducting the
transaction utilizing a mobile device. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows
that claim 6 recites managing commercial product deliveries. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing customer
deliveries is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of managing
commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app
tokens is one idea for setting up a way to manage such deliveries. The steps
recited in claim 6 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting, recognizing, and storing data).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, transmitting,
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

12

analyzing, and generating data mimic human thought processes of
observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 6, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception,
transmission, analysis, and generation and does not recite an improvement to
a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims
not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation”). As such, claim 6 recites receiving, transmitting,
analyzing, and generating data, and not a technological implementation or
application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 6 recites
managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering
customer app tokens, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of
certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised
Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 6 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.7

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

13

At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g]
block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps a and c are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step b
recites basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and
storing data. Steps e and f are insignificant post solution activity, such as
storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step d recites generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 6 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering
customer app tokens as performed by a generic computer. This is no more
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

14

than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Claim 6 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 18+ pages of specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering
customer app tokens under different scenarios. They do not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,
claim 6 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering
customer app tokens using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or

8 The Specification describes a mobile phone, a tablet, a personal digital
assistant (PDS), a laptop, and the like. Spec. page 18.
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

15

uses the judicial exception in some other 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.
We conclude that claim 6 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial product deliveries by advising one to generate and
deliver customer app tokens, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 6 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

16

“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted) (alterations in original).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and generating data amounts
to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. The limitation of “said token enables said customer to transact
said delivery of said at least one item to said at least one locked storage
container” is not a step, but a recitation of prospective purpose of the token
generated in the claim, viz. an intended use, which is aspirational rather than
functional. All of these computer functions are generic, routine,
conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . .
. those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming”). None of these activities is used in some
unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

17

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.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 6 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-transmission-
analysis-generation is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of
receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and
receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed
Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of
data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission),
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and
monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional.
We conclude that claim 6 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 6 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.

Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

18

As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (citation omitted) (alteration in original). As a
corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial product deliveries by advising one
to generate and deliver customer app tokens, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are
analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 8. The claims differ from those found patent
eligible in Enfish, where the claims were “specifically directed to a self-
referential table for a computer database.” 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The claims thus were “directed to a specific improvement to the
way computers operate” rather than an abstract idea implemented on a
computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed to
an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

19

purport to accelerate the process of communicating delivery data, our
reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming
from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer “do[] not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to
those in FairWarning, wherein claims reciting “a few possible rules to
analyze audit log data” were found directed an abstract idea because they
asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words)
that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for
decades.” 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are
analogous to those in Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appeal Br. 8. Claims related to
“customizing information based on information known about the user and
specific data are directed to abstract ideas. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see Bridge
& Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 888 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (similar) (citing Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1346).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification
directs us to confer eligibility as described in Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 9.
Rather, as in Affinity Labs, “[n]othing in the flow chart or the text of the
specification provides any details regarding the manner in which the
invention accomplishes the recited functions.” Id. at 1260.
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

20

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification
directs us to confer eligibility as described in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appeal
Br. 9. Rather, as in Intellectual Ventures v Capital One Fin. Corp, “the
patent claims are, at their core, directed to the abstract idea of collecting,
displaying, and manipulating data.” Id. at 1340.
Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the
claims found patent-eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 9. But the Court in
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
addressed Appellant’s Core Wireless argument.
Relying principally on Core Wireless, TT argues the claimed
invention provides an improvement in the way a computer
operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not
improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more
efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they
recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that
assists traders in processing information more quickly.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093 (citations omitted).
The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it
operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they
recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists
users in processing information more quickly.

The district court likened this case to Core Wireless. In Core
Wireless, we determined that claims drawn to improved
interfaces for electronic devices with small screens that allowed
users to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions
of applications included in, the electronic devices were not drawn
to the abstract idea of an index. We concluded that the claims
recited “a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

21

an improved user interface for electronic devices.” The same is
not true here, where the claims merely recite a system that
communicates status information, in the same “well understood”
manner that wireless transmissions have always occurred. Unlike
Core Wireless, no specific manner of performing the abstract
idea is recited in these claims.
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted).
Claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rellas, Miller, and Carpenter
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Rellas does not
describe a system
which enables delivery of at least one item to at least one of a
plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage
container being associated with a corresponding customer.
Rellas is concerned solely with enabling a user to automatically
interact with a competitor that has the exclusive right to deliver
to a specific territory, without automatically enabling the user to
interact with a competitor that does not have an exclusive right.
Rellas is completely silent as to a plurality of locked storage
containers.
Appeal Br. 10. The highlighted phrase is in the claim preamble, which we
determine above is undeserving of patentable weight.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that as to the wherein
clause in limitation (f), “the limitation in question does not appear in the
preamble of the claim, but rather is present in the body thereof.
Accordingly, it must ‘get patentable weight.’” Reply Br. 3. We construed
this limitation above as meaning wherein the token comprises data for which
some software would allow subsequent delivery. Miller describes the
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

22

generation and transmission of a collection code that mirrors steps e and f,
and such a collection code is used for delivery.
Claims 8 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, and Sadler
This rejection is not separately argued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 6–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, and Carpenter is proper.
The rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, and Sadler is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 6–13 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6–13 101 Eligibility 6–13
6, 7, 9–11,
13
103 Rellas, Miller,
Carpenter
6, 7, 9–11,
13

8, 12 103 Rellas, Miller,
Carpenter, Sadler
8, 12
Overall Outcome 6–13

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
Appeal 2021-000119
Application 15/626,896

23

AFFIRMED