Pierce, Thomas L. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

14033965 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
14/033,965 09/23/2013 Thomas L. Pierce JR. 17959.0001US01 3495
23552 7590 02/03/2020
MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2020 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):
USPTO23552@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS L. PIERCE, JR.,
RANDALL K. MORGAN, and
CHARLES T. JOSEPH

Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–24.1 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(a). Appellant identifies Comdata Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “managing fuel costs” (Spec.
para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining fuel
related scores and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon
from a processor, the method comprising steps of:
aggregating, at a server, a set of fleet preferences
communicated to the server from one or more fleet systems by
way of one or more messages, wherein the set of fleet
preferences includes a weighting preference defining one or
more predetermined weighting factors;
aggregating, at the server, merchant data including one
or more pricing agreements between one or more merchants
and one or more fleets of trucks, wherein the merchant data is
periodically updated to include latest agreements;
receiving, by the server from a fuel related data source
via a communications network, fuel related data, the fuel
related data including:
first fuel pricing data for a first fuel provider
location, which includes first discounted fuel pricing data based
on a pre-negotiated agreement between a first fleet of trucks
and the first fuel provider location, wherein the pre-negotiated
agreement is stored as part of the merchant data, and
second fuel pricing data for a second fuel provider
location, which does not include a discount in fuel pricing with
respect to the first fleet of trucks;
receiving, by the server, a request for fuel related
scoring;
computing, by the server, a first fuel related score
corresponding to the request and the first fuel provider
location, based on the first fuel pricing data and the one or
more predetermined weighting factors;
computing, by the server, a second fuel related score
corresponding to the request and the second fuel provider
location, based on the second fuel pricing data and the one or
more predetermined weighting factors;
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

3
determining, based on a scoring preference of the set of
fleet preferences whether at least one of the first fuel related
score and the second fuel related score pass a threshold;
responsive to the at least one of the first fuel related
score and the second fuel related score passing the threshold,
generating, by the server, a tailored fuel–related notification
customized according to the set of fleet preferences; and
transmitting, by the server to a device on a truck via a
communications interface, the tailored notification, wherein the
notification is customized to the truck according to a
notification preference, the scoring preference, and the
weighing preference, and wherein the notification directs the
truck to at least one of the first fuel provider location or the
second fuel provider location, thereby providing the device on
the truck with information in at least one of realtime or pseudo-
realtime.
REJECTION
Claims 1–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
judicially-excepted subject matter.
OPINION
The Appellant argues these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 18–39.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 1–24 stand or fall with claim 24. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Preliminary comment
Previous Office guidance on patent subject matter eligibility has been
superseded by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter “2019 Revised 101 Guidance.”
See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility–related
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

4
guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R–08.2017, of the MPEP
(published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, we will not
address arguments on the sufficiency of the Examiner’s position relative
prior guidance but rather our analysis that follows will comport with the
2019 Revised 101 Guidance. We will pay particular attention to the
Examiner’s position taken in the Answer and Appellant’s arguments made in
the Reply Brief which are expressed in the context of the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance.

Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.”
In that regard, claim 1 covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject
matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is not in dispute.
However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “contains an important
implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).

2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which
requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” 84 Fed.
Reg. at 53. See also id. at 53–54 (“consider[] whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.”).
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

5
In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject
matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground
that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Alice step one — the “directed to” inquiry:
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218
(emphasis added).
The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to “determining fuel
related scores and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon.” Final Act. 4
(emphasis omitted). Specifically,
[t]he claims recite a method for determining fuel related scores
and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon, comprising:
aggregating a set of fleet preferences[], aggregating merchant
data including one or more pricing agreements[], receiving fuel
related data[], receiving a request for fuel related scoring[],
computing a first fuel related score[], computing a second
related score[], determining whether at least one of the first
fuel related score and the second fuel related score pass a
threshold[], generating a tailored fuel related notification
customized according to the set of fleet preferences[], and
transmitting a notification . . . thereby providing with
information in at least one of realtime or pseudorealtime,
which can be performed in a computer and is similar to the kind
of ‘organizing human activity’ which can be performed in a
computer and is similar to the kind of ‘organizing human
activity’ (e.g., concepts relating to interpersonal and
intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or
transactions between people, social activities, and human
behavior; satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising,
marketing, and sales activities or behaviors; and managing
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

6
human mental activity), mathematical relationships/formulas,
and is an idea of itself.
Id.
The Examiner’s Answer (page 5) states:
Independent claim 1 recites Judicial Exception (an abstract
idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon) because the claim recites a method of organizing
human activity (commercial or legal interactions including
agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations;
advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations), then it falls within the “Organizing human activity”
grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an
abstract idea.
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
but rather “describe technical improvements to managing fueling.” Appeal
Br. 19, 21 (“[I]mprovements to fueling management technology.”); see also
Reply Br. 11 (“The instant claims recite a practical application at least by
relating to a technical improvement in managing fueling by efficiently
generating accurate, tailored notifications provided to vehicles in at least
pseudo-realtime.”), and 14 (“[I]mprovement of more efficient and dynamic
processing.”).
Accordingly, there is a dispute over whether claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea. Specifically, is claim 1 directed to “determining fuel related
scores and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon” or “technical
improvements to managing fueling?” Final Act. 4; see also Appeal Br. 19.

Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

7
Claim Construction3
We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable
construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the Specification at the time of filing.4,5,6
Claim 1 recites 9 steps “for determining fuel related scores and
directing a fleet of trucks based thereon.” Claim 1, preambles. They are:
1. “aggregating” A;
2. “aggregating” B;
3. “receiving” C;
4. “receiving” D;
5. “computing” E;

3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).
5 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. .
. . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is
important to read the claims ‘in light of the [S]pecification.’” Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), among others.

6 See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, page 52, footnote 14 (“If a claim, under
its broadest reasonable interpretation.”) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

8
6. “computing” F;
7. “determining” G;
8. “responsive to” G, “generating” H; and
9. “transmitting” I “thereby providing [a] device on [a]
truck with information in at least one of realtime or pseudo-
realtime.”
Where,
A is “a set of fleet preferences . . . by way of one or more
messages, wherein the set of fleet preferences includes a
weighting preference defining one or more predetermined
weighting factors;”

B is “merchant data including one or more pricing agreements
between one or more merchants and one or more fleets of
trucks, wherein the merchant data is periodically updated to
include latest agreements;”

C is “fuel related data, the fuel related data including:

[C1] first fuel pricing data for a first fuel provider
location, which includes first discounted fuel pricing data based
on a pre-negotiated agreement between a first fleet of trucks
and the first fuel provider location, wherein the pre-negotiated
agreement is stored as part of the merchant data, and
[C2] second fuel pricing data for a second fuel provider
location, which does not include a discount in fuel pricing with
respect to the first fleet of trucks;”
D is “a request for fuel related scoring;”
E is “a first fuel related score corresponding to the request [i.e.,
D] and the first fuel provider location, based on the first fuel
pricing data [i.e., C1] and the one or more predetermined
weighting factors [ i.e., A];”

Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

9
F is “a second fuel related score corresponding to the request
[i.e., D] and the second fuel provider location, based on the
second fuel pricing data [i.e., C2] and the one or more
predetermined weighting factors [i.e., A];”

G is “based on a scoring preference of the set of fleet
preferences whether at least one of the first fuel related score
[i.e., E] and the second fuel related score [i.e., F] pass a
threshold;”

H is “a tailored fuel–related notification customized according
to the set of fleet preferences;” and,

I is “the tailored notification, wherein the notification is
customized to the truck according to a notification preference,
the scoring preference [i.e., G], and the weighing preference
[i.e., A], and wherein the notification directs the truck to at least
one of the first fuel provider location or the second fuel
provider location.”
Claim 1 employs “a server;” “one or more fleet systems;” “a fuel
related data source;” “a communications network;” “a device on a truck;”
and “a communications interface.”
More specifically, steps 1 and 2 are performed “at a server” while
steps 3–6 and 8 and 9 are performed “by the server.” Appeal Br. 40–41,
Claims App. (emphasis added). Step 1 aggregates data communicated “to
the server” “from one or more fleet systems” while Steps 3 and 9 receive
and transmit data “by the server” from/to other devices; i.e., “by the server
from a fuel related data source via a communications network” and “by the
server to a device on a truck via a communications interface,” respectively.
Appeal Br. 40–41, Claims Appendix (claim 1, Step 7), which determines
whether certain scores pass a threshold, is not attached to any device and
therefore is reasonably broadly construed to cover performing it by any
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

10
means, including purely mentally. This is also the case for the periodic
updating of the merchant data to include latest agreements set forth in step 2.
Claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as a scheme for determining
fuel related scores and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon.
The Specification states that
it would be beneficial to enable trucking service providers to
manage fuel costs based on meaningful, accurate, and up-to-
date fuel-related data centrally aggregated from various sources.
It would also be beneficial to enable trucking service providers
to analyze, in a timely manner, how individual fuel purchases
factor into overall fuel expenses.
Spec., para. 3.
The example embodiments herein provide systems, methods,
and computer program products for managing fuel costs. Fuel-
related data, including a request for authorization of a fuel
transaction, is received from a fuel-related data source via a
communications network. A fuel-related score is computed
based on the fuel-related data and a predetermined weighting
factor. The fuel-related score is presented through a user
interface.
Id. para. 4.
Given the method as claimed as reasonably broadly construed above
and in light of the Specification’s description of the objective of the
invention, we reasonably broadly construe claim 1 as being directed to
determining fuel related scores and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon.

Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

11
The Abstract Idea7
Above, where we reproduce claim 1, we identify in italics the
limitations we believe recite an abstract idea.8 Based on our claim
construction analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations
describe a scheme for determining fuel related scores and directing a fleet of
trucks based thereon. Determining fuel related scores and directing a fleet of
trucks based thereon is a commercial interaction. It falls within the
enumerated “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” as grouping of
abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.9

7 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A
determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an
abstract idea. Step 2A is two prong inquiry.
8 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong
One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the
claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the Examiner
believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg.. at 54.
9 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the
[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates
subject matter grouping “(b):” “(b) Certain methods of organizing human
activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including
agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including
social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Id. at 52.
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

12
Technical Improvement10 (Appellant’s Argument)
Our characterization of what the claim is directed to is the same as the
Examiner’s, albeit the Examiner adding several claim limitations to the
characterization and thus characterized it at a lower level of abstraction. “An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the
patentability analysis.”).
We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or
the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 1 is directed to.
A principle argument Appellant makes is that the claimed subject
matter is not directed to an abstract idea but rather to a technical
improvement. However, we do not find that the record adequately supports
it.
Appellant argues that a technical improvement is achieved by, for
example,

10 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a
Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A
claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will
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.” 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an
additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the
exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects
an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to
other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55.

Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

13
 “efficiently generating accurate, tailored notifications
provided to vehicles in at least pseudo-realtime (Appeal Br.
18);
 “centraliz[ing] processing of fuel-related data to efficiently
generate tailored notifications that are provided to vehicles in
at least pseudo-realtime” (id. at 19);
 “improving accuracy, efficiency, and display of a tailored
fuel-related notification communicated to a device on a truck
to direct the truck to particular fuel provider locations” (id. at
20);
 “processing fueling data at a single location” (id. at 22);
 “aggregating and processing periodically updated merchant
data” (id. at 23);
 not “wast[ing] resources” (id. at 24);
 “[c]ustomiz[ing] notifications [which] provide the technical
benefit of an improved user interface and the technical benefit
of ‘improv[ing] the ability of [a] computer to display
information and interact with the user’ (id. at 26, quoting from
“USPTO July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, p. 12
(discussing Example 23: Graphical User Interface for
Relocating Obscured Textual Information” (footnote 15));
and,
 “more efficient and dynamic processing” (Reply Br. 14).
We have reviewed the Specification and have been unable to find any
mention of these alleged improvements.
Appellant draws our attention to paragraphs 3, 57, and 65 of the
Specification. Appeal Br. 22 (footnotes 8, 13, and 11, respectively). They
disclose:
[3] Given the foregoing, it would be beneficial to enable
trucking service providers to manage fuel costs based on
meaningful, accurate, and up-to-date fuel-related data centrally
aggregated from various sources. It would also be beneficial to
enable trucking service providers to analyze, in a timely
manner, how individual fuel purchases factor into overall fuel
expenses.
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

14

[57] In another example aspect herein, pricing agreement
information relating to pre-negotiated agreements between
merchants and fleets (e.g., discount pricing, discount
conditions, discount time frame, discount location, and/or the
like) is aggregated and stored in the memory or database
included in, or coupled to, the server 102 for each of a plurality
of fleets and/or merchants. The pricing agreement information
is aggregated (e.g., periodically, automatically, or manually) by
way of messages communicated to the server 102 from fleet
systems and/or merchant systems (e.g., fuel-related data sources
101 of each fleet or each merchant) via the communication
network 103. This enables scoring to be generated (block 303,
described below) for each of a plurality of fleets while taking
into account any contracts that the fleet may have pre-
negotiated with merchants. By aggregating and storing fleet
preferences and pricing agreement information, fleets may be
provided, in realtime or pseudo-realtime, with meaningful and
up-to-date information that they deem relevant and/or important
regarding driver behavior, thus enabling the fleet to manage
fuel costs by, for example, causing a timely change in driver
behavior.

[65] The merchant data 214 includes information about
merchants, such as, for example, a merchant name, a merchant
type, a merchant address, coordinates (e.g., latitude and
longitude) of a merchant location, a merchant identifier,
agreement information that relates to agreements (e.g., pricing
agreements) or contracts that a merchant has in place with one
or more fleets, customers, or other entities, an identifier of an
acquirer associated with a merchant, an identifier of an acceptor
associated with the merchant, a terminal identifier, information
about amenities offered by a particular merchant location,
and/or the like. As described above, merchants may have pre-
negotiated pricing agreements or contracts in place with one or
more fleets, customers, or other entities. In one example
embodiment, the merchant data 214 is periodically updated to
include the latest such agreements. In this way, up-to-date and
accurate fleet/merchant-specific pricing may be employed in
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

15
scoring computations to provide a user with an efficient means
of viewing and acting on fuel spending patterns.
Paragraph 3 describes the invention’s aspiration (“it would be
beneficial”), not its technical improvements.
Paragraph 57 states (emphasis added): “aggregating and storing fleet
preferences and pricing agreement information, fleets may be provided, in
realtime or pseudo-realtime, with meaningful and up-to-date information
that they deem relevant and/or important regarding driver behavior, thus
enabling the fleet to manage fuel costs by, for example, causing a timely
change in driver behavior.” That the meaningful information may be
provided in realtime or pseudo-realtime is not an indication that the claimed
method achieves a technical improvement. Rather, it discloses a desired
result. It should be noted that claim 1 makes no mention of causing a timely
change in driver behavior. According to claim 1, a notification is transmitted
to a device on a truck thereby providing the information in real/pseudoreal
time. What happens after that is unclear.
Paragraph 65 states that “up-to-date and accurate fleet/merchant-
specific pricing may be employed in scoring computations to provide a user
with an efficient means of viewing and acting on fuel spending patterns.”
This, too, is a desired result, not a technical improvement. Also this
disclosure concerns certain types of information which claim 1 is not limited
to.
The Specification does not describe the claimed method as providing
any improvement to technology, let alone fuel–management technology.
Rather, the Specification discloses only non-technical aspirations; that is, the
invention may provide “meaningful, accurate, and up-to-date fuel-related
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

16
data centrally aggregated from various sources.” Spec., para. 3; see also cf.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(“The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that
helps them process information more quickly, ’556 patent at 2:26–39, not on
improving computers or technology.”).
Appellant’s technical-improvement argument is unpersuasive as to
error in the Examiner’s or our characterization of what the claim is directed
to because the record evidence fails to adequately support it. The argument
alone cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See generally In re
Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019 (CCPA 1973); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); and In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965).
We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim
construction analysis, claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as covering a
scheme to determining fuel related scores and directing a fleet of trucks
based thereon. We see no specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities recited in the claim. Nor does the Specification discuss any.
Rather than being directed to any specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities, the claim and Specification support the opposite view — that
the claimed subject matter is directed to determining fuel related scores and
directing a fleet of trucks based thereon employing generic devices. See
Spec., paras. 52–55, 144 (“Useful machines for performing the operation of
the example embodiments presented herein include general-purpose digital
computers or similar devices.”) and 145.
The claim provides no additional structural details that would
distinguish the recited “server;” “one or more fleet systems;” “fuel related
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

17
data source;” “communications network;” “device on a truck;” and
“communications interface” from their generic counterparts.11
With respect to the “aggregating,” “receiving,” “computing,”
“determining,” “generating,” and “transmitting” steps, the Specification
attributes no special meaning to any of these operations, individually or in
the combination, as claimed. In our view, consistent with the Specification,
these are common computer processing functions that one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have known generic computers
were capable of performing and would have associated with generic
computers. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015)
Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price
optimization, the claims merely recite “well-understood, routine
conventional activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional
computer activities or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, 134
S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). . . . For
example, claim 1 recites “sending a first set of electronic
messages over a network to devices,” the devices being
“programmed to communicate,” storing test results in a
“machine-readable medium,” and “using a computerized
system . . . to automatically determine” an estimated outcome
and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of these computer
functions are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional
activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S.Ct.
at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) (alterations in
original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.], 765 F.3d
[1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer receives and

11 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid
of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us
to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the
abstract idea identified by the district court.”).
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

18
sends the information over a network—with no further
[S]pecification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
At best, the “server;” “one or more fleet systems;” “fuel related data
source;” “communications network;” “device on a truck;” and
“communications interface” distinguish over other generic devices known at
the time the application was filed in the type of electronic information being
processed — such as, “merchant data,” “fuel pricing data,” and a “fuel
related score[s].” But that alone is not patentably consequential. This is so
because “[c]laim limitations directed to the content of information and
lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable
weight because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP
Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance,
we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application.
The Reply Brief argues, inter alia, that “[t]he instant claims recite a
practical application at least by relating to a technical improvement in
managing fueling by efficiently generating accurate, tailored notifications
provided to vehicles in at least pseudo-realtime.” Reply Br. 11. We disagree.
The argument does not adequately explain in what way claim 1
integrates the abstract idea (i.e., determining fuel related scores and directing
a fleet of trucks based thereon) into a practical application. The associated
discussion repeats the points made in the Appeal Brief to argue,
unpersuasively, that the claimed process is directed to a technical
improvement. Given that claim 1 does not reflect any such improvement and
the record evidence fails to adequately support such an improvement for the
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

19
subject matter as broadly presented in claim 1, we do not see how the
alleged improvement can nevertheless demonstrate an integration into a
practical application.
The question is whether claim 1 goes beyond determining fuel related
scores and directing a fleet of trucks based thereon in a “meaningful” way.
According to the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, “[a] claim that integrates a
judicial exception into a practical application will 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.” See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53 (emphasis added). Managing fueling by efficiently
generating accurate, tailored notifications provided to vehicles in at least
pseudo-realtime as the objective for the invention in the technically–broad
manner claimed (see the analysis in the claim construction section above)
does not “apply, rely on, or use” said scheme so as to impose any
meaningful limit on it. The record evidence weighs in favor of the view that
the claim’s focus is on nontechnical improvements, such as improving fuel
management, not technical ones.
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments challenging the
Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find
them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.

Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

20
Alice step two — Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?12
Step two is “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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).
In that regard, the Examiner determined that the claim(s) do not
include “additional elements” that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements,
which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional
computer functions that “do not [add] meaningful limitations to practicing
the abstract idea.” Ans. 6, 11; see also Final Act. 3. We agree.
We addressed the matter of whether there were any purported specific
asserted improvements in computer capabilities in our analysis above under
step one of the Alice framework. This is consistent with the case law. See
Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one
when sufficiently focused on such improvements.”). Such an argument can
also challenge a determination under step two of the Alice framework. See
buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354–55. “[R]ecent Federal Circuit jurisprudence has
indicated that eligible subject matter can often be identified either at the first

12 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial
exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to
determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the
additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).”
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

21
or the second step of the Alice/Mayo [framework].” See 2019 Revised 101
Guidance 53, n.17.
Be that as it may, we are unpersuaded that claim 1 presents an element
or combination of elements indicative of a specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities, thereby rendering the claimed subject matter
sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon a scheme for determining fuel related scores and directing
a fleet of trucks based thereon employing a “server;” “one or more fleet
systems;” “fuel related data source;” “communications network;” “device on
a truck;” and “communications interface.”
We have reviewed the Specification and, as explained above, we can
find no suggestion of any improvements to the system as a result of
performing the functions as broadly as they are recited.
We cited the Specification in our earlier discussion. It is intrinsic
evidence that the claimed “server;” “one or more fleet systems;” “fuel
related data source;” “communications network;” “device on a truck;” and
“communications interface” as claimed is conventional. In doing so, we
have followed “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert
W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19,
2018 (the “Berkheimer Memo”)).
The court in Berkheimer held that “[t]he patent eligibility inquiry may
contain underlying issues of fact.” See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365
(quoting Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc., 811 F.3d
1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry ‘may contain underlying
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

22
factual issues.”’)). But the court also held that “[w]hen there is no genuine
issue of material fact regarding whether the claim element or claimed
combination is well-understood, routine, [and] conventional to a skilled
artisan in the relevant field, this issue can be decided on summary judgment
as a matter of law.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368 (emphasis added). This
qualification has been subsequently reiterated.
If there is a genuine dispute of material fact, Rule 56 requires
that summary judgment be denied. In Berkheimer, there was
such a genuine dispute for claims 4–7, but not for claims 1–3
and 9.
. . . .
[I]n accordance with Alice, we have repeatedly recognized the
absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility for the many
claims that have been defended as involving an inventive
concept based merely on the idea of using existing computers
or the Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no
alteration of computer functionality.
Berkheimer, 890 F.3d 1369, 1371–73 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Order, On Petition
for rehearing en banc, May 31, 2018 (J. Moore concurring)); see also Aatrix
Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“A factual allegation or dispute should not automatically take the
determination out of the court’s hands; rather, there needs to be justification
for why additional evidence must be considered—the default being a legal
determination.”).
Here, the Specification indisputably shows the recited “server;” “one
or more fleet systems;” “fuel related data source;” “communications
network;” “device on a truck;” and “communications interface” individually
and in the context as claimed was conventional at the time of filing.
Accordingly, there is sufficient factual support for the well–understood,
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

23
routine, or conventional nature of the claimed “server;” “one or more fleet
systems;” “fuel related data source;” “communications network;” “device on
a truck;” and “communications interface,” individually or in the combination
as claimed.
No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude
that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two
that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements
circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to
transform the concept into an inventive application.
We have considered all of the Appellant’s arguments (including those
made in the Reply Brief) and find them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the
determinations that representative claim 1, and claims 2–24 which stand or
fall with claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an
“inventive concept,” we sustain the Examiner’s conclusion that they are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially-excepted
from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x
991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of LendingTree’s
remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly,
because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract
idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed
to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g., OIP Techs.,
788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–24 is affirmed.
Appeal 2019–004084
Application 14/033,965

24
More specifically:
The rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to judicially-excepted subject matter is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24

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).
AFFIRMED