UECHI, Edward Yoshio.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

14820541 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
14/820,541 08/06/2015 Edward Yoshio UECHI 974192-4000 1771
28765 7590 01/22/2020
Winston & Strawn LLP
1700 K Street NW, 2nd Floor
Patent Department
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
MINCARELLI, JAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
patentdocket@winston.com
sfanelli@winston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD YOSHIO UECHI
____________

Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Edward Yoshio Uechi (Appellant2) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 8–12, 15, and 21–33, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal.3 We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of tracking and optimizing productivity
of agricultural products. Specification 1:7–8.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 10, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
10. A computer-based method for processing information
related to origin, production and distribution of an agriculture
product4, wherein each step is conducted by one or more special
purpose computer servers designed to serve as a storage server
for storing data records in accordance with a logical data model,
which method comprises:
[1] collecting various, diverse agricultural, administrative and
environmental data from each of several sources that include
personal computers, mobile phones, farm machines and third
party computer servers, wherein the collecting of data includes:

1 Our Decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed September 19, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed February 13, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 14, 2017), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 28,
2017).
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 Edward
Yoshio Uechi. Appeal Br. 3.
3 Appellant presented oral hearing arguments December 5, 2019.
4 The claims and Specification use the phrase “agriculture product” and
“agricultural product” interchangeably.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

3

[2] assigning a Farm Plot Number to the agriculture product
first planted or managed at an origin site;
[3] compiling daily farming activities for the agriculture
product, and
associating the compiled activities to the agriculture
product via the Farm Plot Number;
[4] compiling harvest activities related to the harvesting of the
agriculture product at the origin site, and
associating the compiled activities to the agriculture
product via the Farm Plot Number;
[5] compiling post–harvest activities for the agriculture product,
and
associating the compiled activities to the agriculture
product via the Farm Plot Number, including all activities
related to processing, packaging, and shipping of the
agricultural product, in the form of data records that
document
(1) preparing the agricultural product for
packaging once it arrives at a packing facility and
packaging the agricultural product for shipment to
market,
or
(2) converting the agricultural product into a new
product, and then packaging the converted
agricultural product for shipment to market;
with either (1) or (2) in combination with data records
that document shipping information including the
agricultural product’s point of origin, final destination for
sale, estimated time of departure and arrival, and
transportation identification including shipping container
or shipping pallet identification;
[6] compiling and maintaining all data in a single database by
the one or more special purpose computer servers retrieving and
merging disparate data sets from the various sources, and
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

4

associating the compiled activities with the agriculture
product via the Farm Plot Number,
wherein the data is compiled without changing or
modifying the Farm Plot Number during the entire term
of the agricultural production cycle;
[7] providing information in a generated report summarizing
the compiled data for authenticating all activities related to the
agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution,
wherein the server generated report is produced upon
receiving a single user input of the Farm Plot Number by
which all data associated with that user input is included
for compilation and is then presented on a graphical user
interface or outputted in a printed form;
[8] wherein each of the Web service application computer
program products communicate with the remote computer
system via a fixed IP address or a specific Internet domain
name to create a restricted connection between two known and
registered computers by controlled user access;
[9] wherein the combined computer programs together provide
alternative interfaces and procedures tailored to collect data
both manually and automatically for merging into a single
database from several sources provided by controlled user
access of multiple registered users; and
[10] wherein the compiled data enables a consumer of the
agricultural product to access and retrieve all of the collected,
merged and compiled data by querying the computer server(s)
with a single input of the Farm Plot Number.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

5

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Dlott US 7,440,901 B1 Oct. 21, 2008
Pickett US 7,761,334 B2 July 20, 2010
Macy US 9,084,389 B2 July 21, 2015
Brown US 2008/0189142 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
Farmer US 2010/0106660 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
Gross US 2016/0117462 A1 Apr. 28, 2016
Claims 1, 8–12, 15, and 21–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.5
Claims 1, 8–12, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28–31, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dlott, Pickett, and Farmer.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dlott, Pickett, Farmer, Macy, and Brown.
Claims 26, 27, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dlott, Pickett, Farmer, and Gross.
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 prior art
shows it was predictable to index farm data on land plot identifiers.

5 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Final Act. 2) was withdrawn.
Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

6

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:
Dlott
01. Dlott is directed to agricultural certification compliance,
agricultural regulatory compliance, agricultural process
management, and agricultural product marketing, and more
particularly, to capturing and providing data about agricultural
products, practices and conditions with high integrity and
credibility. Dlott 1:7–16.
02. Dlott describes that Figure 12 is a block diagram illustrating an
exemplary collection 400 of data records 102 that may be
maintained within the database 103 of the agricultural
management information system 50. Figure 12 also illustrates that
the collection 400 of records 102 may be indexed by a common
product code (e.g., a Universal Product Code (UPC) 402 or a lot
code 404). Specifically, the UPC 402 or the lot code 404 may
comprise the unique identifier 120 of an agricultural product data
record 102, as illustrated in Figure 5. Each of the records 102 may
be linked to further records and reports pertaining to a specific
agricultural product, or agricultural product lot, so that a
hierarchical data structure of records and reports that comprises
the collection 400 is defined. An exemplary chain of custody 406
for an agricultural product is also illustrated in Figure 12. Dlott
17:62–18:10.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

7

03. Dlott describes how, having captured the location data (e.g., the
location code 202) and the product data (e.g., the product data
code 204), a custodian 48 may where appropriate and possible
capture product identification data as embodied within a product
identification code 206 (e.g., a Universal Product Code (UPC))
embodied within a barcode associated with a particular
agricultural product as illustrated in Figure 7. It will be
appreciated that a product identification code 206 may not be
associated with an individual product at all locations along a chain
of custody, and may only become associated with an individual
product and during a packaging stage. For example, at a unit of
production 18 (e.g., a farm unit producing thousands of lettuce
heads), a product identification code 206 is not associated with
each individual agricultural product. However, at a downstream
packaging custodian 152, such product identification codes 206
may be associated with each individual agricultural product. Dlott
13:62–14:11.
04. Dlott describes how a user may, in a manner similarly described
with reference to Figure 15, input information pertaining to an
agricultural production system (e.g., a unit of production
identifier), responsive to which the report tool 474 of the
certification server 454 locates records associated with the
relevant agricultural production system 15 (e.g., a field of land).
Dlott 23:1–5.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

8

05. Dlott describes a custodian entering product data reflecting a
condition pertaining to the product at the first location identified
by the relevant location code. Dlott 8:14–18.
Pickett
06. Pickett is directed to automated tracing of a crop or an
agricultural product. Pickett 1:12–13.
Farmer
07. Farmer is directed to commodity inspection. Farmer para. 6.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8–12, 15, and 21–33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 16
Claim 10, 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.
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

6 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from the 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

9

“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
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 10 recites collecting data, assigning data, compiling and associating
activity data, including data with data, compiling and maintaining more data,
and providing report data. Collecting and associating data is retrieving data.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

10

Assigning data is data creation. Compiling and maintaining data is data
processing. Including data with data is data update. Providing report data is
data transmission. Thus, claim 10 recites retrieving, creating, processing,
updating, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recites
technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead
recites only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 10 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,7 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity,8 and (3) mental processes.9 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 10 recites the concept of
managing agricultural business information. Specifically, claim 10 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to report an

7 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp.
of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
8 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).
9 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 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

11

agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled
and associated data. The advice to report an agriculture product’s origin,
production and distribution data from compiled and associated data involves
providing information in a generated report related to the agriculture
product’s origin, production and distribution, which is a managerial act, and
collecting various, diverse agricultural, administrative and environmental
data, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of agricultural
management. For example, claim 10 recites “providing information in a
generated report summarizing the compiled data for authenticating all
activities related to the agriculture product’s origin, production and
distribution,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
managing an agricultural business. Similarly, claim 10 recites “collecting
various, diverse agricultural, administrative and environmental data,” which
is also characteristic of agriculture management.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to collecting and
compiling data regarding an agricultural product. Final Act. 5.
The preamble to claim 10 recites that it is a method for processing
information related to origin, production and distribution of an agriculture
product. The steps in claim 10 result in reporting an agriculture product’s
origin, production and distribution data from compiled and associated data
absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for
doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–7 recite generic and
conventional retrieving, creating, processing, updating, and transmitting of
agriculture data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
results. Limitations 8–10 are not steps but process parameters and attributes
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

12

of the process results. The limitations, thus, recite advice for reporting an
agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled
and associated data. To advocate reporting an agriculture product’s origin,
production and distribution data from compiled and associated data is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification, at 1:7–8, describes the invention as relating to
tracking and optimizing productivity of agricultural products. Thus, all this
intrinsic evidence shows that claim 10 recites managing agricultural business
information. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. Final
Act. 5–6.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because agriculture is a
commercial enterprise and managing commercial enterprises is a way of
organizing human activity in that enterprise. The concept of managing
agricultural business information by reporting an agriculture product’s
origin, production and distribution data from compiled and associated data is
one idea for collecting the type of data needed for such management. The
steps recited in claim 10 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. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (process of
taking plural data sets and combining them into a single data set); 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);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

13

Cir. 2017) (creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve
data).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 10 recites
managing agricultural business information by reporting an agriculture
product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled and
associated data, 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 10 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.10
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).

10 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

14

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 1 and 3–6 are pure data gathering
steps including gathering relationship data. Limitations describing the
nature of the data do not alter this. Step 2 recites basic conventional data
operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Step 7 is
insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or
displaying the results. All steps recite 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. Limitations 8–10 are not
steps. Limitation 8 only recites the internet address as a process parameter.
Limitations 9 and 10 recite attributes of the process results, but not structural
or process limitations.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 10 simply recites the concept of
managing agricultural business information by reporting an agriculture
product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled and
associated data as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not
recite any particular implementation.
Claim 10 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 Specification only spells out different
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

15

generic equipment11 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of managing agricultural business information by reporting an
agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled
and associated data under different scenarios. It does not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,
claim 10 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction
to apply managing agricultural business information by reporting an
agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled
and associated data 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
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological

11 The Specification describes using a generic database server, storage
server, and web server. Although these devices are described as special
purpose computers, such specialization relates to no more than programming
for these generic functions. Spec. 8:12–27. Thus, referral to such servers
amounts to no more than adopting the conceptual idea of distributed
processing for generic functions.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

16

environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 10 is directed to achieving the result of
managing agricultural business information by advising one to report an
agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution data from compiled
and associated data, 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 10 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.
[T]he 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 “implemen[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
featur[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

17

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 retrieving, creating, processing, updating, and transmitting data
amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. Limitations 8–10 are not steps, but recitations of a
process parameter and process result attributes. 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 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., 898 F.3d at 1168.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

18

Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 10 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-creation-
processing-update-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (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 10 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 10 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.
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.’
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

19

Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (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 agricultural business information by advising
one to report an agriculture product’s origin, production and distribution data
from compiled and associated data, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 5–9 and Answer 3–11 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the ordered
combination of steps that result[s] in a composite webpage containing all of
the information regarding the product due to the merging of data from
various electronic sources using a logical data model” should render the
claims eligible. Reply Br. 2. These steps are no more than those of
conventional data processing to retrieve data from related tables of data and
report the query results which has been held non-eligible.
[W]e agree with the district court that the invention is drawn
to the abstract idea of “creating an index and using that index
to search for and retrieve data.” As the patent itself observes,
the invention relates to “locating information in a database, and
... using an index that includes tags and metafiles to locate
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

20

the desired information.” This type of activity, i.e., organizing
and accessing records through the creation of an index-
searchable database, includes longstanding conduct that
existed well before the advent of computers and the Internet.
For example, a hardcopy-based classification system (such as
library-indexing system) employs a similar concept as the
one recited by the ’434 patent. There, classifiers organize
and cross-reference information and resources (such as
books, magazines, or the like) by certain identifiable tags,
e.g., title, author, subject. Here, tags are similarly used to
identify, organize, and locate the desired resource.
We have previously held other patent claims ineligible
for reciting similar abstract concepts that merely collect,
classify, or otherwise filter data. . . . Here, the claimed
creation of an index used to search and retrieve information
stored in a database is similarly abstract.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC., 850 F.3d at 1327 (citations omitted).
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). Reply Br. 2. 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 at 1337. 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 purport
to accelerate the process of finding agricultural 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.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

21

2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein claims
reciting “a few possible rules to analyze the audit log data” were found
directed t o 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 contain
an inventive concept that is also found in the specific ordered combination
of the limitations, similar to the Federal Circuit’s findings in BASCOM
(BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Reply Br. 2. Initially, we remind Appellant that
BASCOM did not find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the
Appellees did not provide sufficient evidence to support a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss in which facts are presumed in the non-movant’s favor.
The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in
“installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-
users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This
design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer
and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350.
The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit. This structural
change occurred in the context of the internet as it existed at filing in
March 1997 when dial up internet service was still prevalent. It was not the
idea of having user customizable filtering located separately from the user
that was inventive, but the manner of accomplishing it in that context, as the
relatively primitive internet architecture at that time did not readily lend
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

22

itself to such filtering. Filtering located separately from the user was already
performed. “To overcome some of the disadvantages of installing filtering
software on each local computer, another prior art system relocated the filter
to a local server.” Id. at 1344. But it was known that allowing user
customization there was desirable. “However, the one-size-fits-all filter on
the local server was not ideal.” Id.
The BASCOM filter was invented prior to the now prevalent use of
self-identifying devices with media access control (MAC) addresses. Thus,
absent that, “BASCOM explains that the inventive concept rests on taking
advantage of the ability of at least some ISPs to identify individual accounts that
communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content
with a specific individual account.” Id. at 1350. Thus, BASCOM solved the
problem of how to create the structural relationship known to be desired by
finding a way to relate a user to a centrally located filter at a time when how to
do so was unclear. It was not the structural relation per se, but how it was
accomplished that was inventive. No analogous technological hurdle is
described in the instant record. Indeed, the whole point appears to be to simply
use existing database technology to introduce indexing data by a particular data
field.
Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the
claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reply Br. 2–3. In DDR Holdings, the
Court evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of
retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional
functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly
transported away from a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

23

advertisement and activating a hyperlink.” Id. at 1257. There, the court
found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the
manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem
that had no “pre-Internet analog.” Id. at 1258. The court cautioned,
however, “that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric
challenges are eligible for patent.” Id. For example, in DDR Holdings
the court distinguished the patent-eligible claims at issue from claims
found patent-ineligible in Ultramercial. See id. at 1258–59 (citing
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 7 0 9 , 715–16 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
As noted there, the Ultramercial claims were “directed to a specific
method of advertising and content distribution that was previously
unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” Id. at 1258
(quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715–16). Nevertheless, those claims
were patent ineligible because they “merely recite[d] the abstract idea of
‘offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,’ along
with ‘routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a
request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and
use of the Internet.’” Id.
Appellant’s asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible
in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings.
The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited “providing [a] media product
for sale at an Internet website”; “restricting general public access to said
media product”; “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a]
sponsor message”; and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message,
presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer
access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

24

query.” 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted claims recite
retrieving, creating, processing, updating, and transmitting data. This is
precisely the type of Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial.
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). Reply Br. 3. But the court in
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC 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 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(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.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
multiple features of the present invention, such as the single
FPN identifier, logical data model, and connections with mobile
phones and farm machines, make the present claims very
specific to the tracking and documenting of an agricultural
product from even prior to being grown (due to measurement of
land conditions and treatments) through all phases of commerce
to the grocer so that the consumer can readily confirm how the
product was cultivated, processed and packaged.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

25

Reply Br. 3. These features are specific only in the sense they are specified
using words. The argument amounts to the benefit of collecting a lot of data
and the agricultural context of that data. There is nothing inventive abut
collecting data. Nor is there anything particularly inventive about choosing
a context. “The Supreme Court and [the Federal Circuit] have repeatedly
made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a
particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any
less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s argument that
separately argued claim 26 also relies on web services for data collection.
Reply Br. 3. Again, this is no more than reciting a conceptual idea to use
such services without reciting technological implementation details.

Claims 1, 8–12, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28–31, and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Dlott, Pickett, and Farmer
The claims recite collecting many different items of data describing
the production, collection, and distribution of agricultural products. The
claims then recite producing a report based on a single data item among
those collected, viz. a land plot identifier. The issue is whether such an
identifier was a predictable data item to do so with, as the technology for
doing so was old and well known relational and hierarchical database
technology. The easy answer, before getting into Appellant’s arguments, is
that any data field collected is a predictable field to base a report on, if only
because the fact that the field was included indicated a motivation to analyze
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

26

the data based on that field whenever it showed unusual values or whenever
it identified other data with unusual values.
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 10–62 and Answer 11–17 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims
recite a Farm Plot Number as a single unique identifier to be
assigned to an agriculture product first planted or managed at an
origin site and to allow further data of all subsequent activities
relating to that product to be are collected, and associated with
it so that a final display or composite webpage containing all of
the activity information can be viewed and/or printed by a
potential or actual consumer of the agricultural product.
Reply Br. 4. Aside from a plot of land being a naturally predictable index
item in any agricultural context, Dlott explicitly describes using the field of
land identifier to create a report. FF 04. Dlott also separately describes
using the land identifier in combination with a product identifier for such
indexing. FF 03. Appellant does not contend that one of ordinary skill did
not know how to eliminate the product identifier and just use the agriculture
land identifier, only that Dlott does not describe this. It would have been
obvious to eliminate an item, such as the product identifier, for the purpose
of eliminating its function. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965 (CCPA 1965)
(Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the
cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have
been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553
(CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its
function was an obvious expedient).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

27

Dlott fails to include processing and shipping details and
instead just documents custody of the product from one party to
another. Dlott does not teach that a single number could be used
for collecting all information and as evidence of this, column 14
lines 1-11 of Dlott explains that “a product identification code
206 may not be associated with an individual product at all
locations along a chain of custody, and may only become
associated with an individual product and during a packaging
[packing] stage.”
Reply Br. 4 (alteration in original). Again, Appellant fails to address the
portions of Dlott cited supra. The portion Appellant cites simply describes
the inherent limitation of any system to only be able to access records
pertaining to a data field if the data so described existed. Dlott simply states
that it does not find records pertaining to a product lot (as contrasted with an
agricultural land parcel lot) until after that lot comes into existence. This in
no way negates Dlott’s separate descriptions of retrieving data based on
agricultural land parcel lot. As to whether Dlott describes all of the recited
data fields, all of those data fields are well known attributes associated with
agricultural production, collection, and distribution and so are at least
predictable components of the data collected.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Dlott is further
deficient in that he discloses no system for combining the data from these
different identifiers in a logical or organized way.” Reply Br. 4. The
asserted logical or organized way Appellant argues is recited as the
combination of compiling and associating data. This is a standard database
accumulation technique. To the extent this argument also refers to the
equipment recited, data collection from production equipment was itself
conventional at the time of filing.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Dlott
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

28

is much more complicated than the present invention which
logically combines and merges all relevant data into a single
location. The report that is generated and displayed or printed is
not one that any farmer could generate as it would not contain
the data obtained from these physical steps and in particular any
data obtained from post harvesting activities such as packaging
and shipping to retail stores for purchase by consumers.
Reply Br. 4. Appellant only argues that certain data might not have been
collected in Dlott. But as all the recited data fields were known to be
associated with agricultural production, collection, and distribution, they
were all at least predictable.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the rejections are
nothing more than a hindsight reconstruction of the prior art using
Applicant’s claims as a guide and attributing features to the prior art that are
actually disclosed in the present specification and claims.” Reply Br. 5.
Again, Appellant’s claim recites no more than collecting data in a database
and producing a report based on agricultural land plot identifiers. As
databases were notoriously well known and a land plot used to grow on was
a notoriously well-known agricultural data item, this can hardly be
considered hindsight.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dlott, Pickett,
Farmer, Macy, and Brown
This rejection is not separately argued.
Claims 26, 27, and 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dlott, Pickett, Farmer, and Gross
This rejection is not separately argued in the Reply Brief. We adopt
the Examiner’s determinations from the Answer in response to the Appeal
Brief arguments.
Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

29

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 8–12, 15, and 21–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1, 8–12, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28–31, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Dlott, Pickett, and Farmer is
proper.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dlott, Pickett, Farmer, Macy, and Brown is proper.
The rejection of claims 26, 27, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dlott, Pickett, Farmer, and Gross is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 8–12, 15, 21–25, 28–31, and 33 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8–12, 15,
21–33
101 Eligibility 1, 8–12, 15,
21–33

1, 8–12, 15,
21, 22, 24, 25,
28–31, 33
103 Dlott, Pickett,
Farmer
1, 8–12, 15,
21, 22, 24, 25,
28–31, 33

23 103 Dlott, Pickett,
Farmer,
Macy, Brown
23
26, 27, 32 103 Dlott, Pickett,
Farmer, Gross
26, 27, 32
Overall Outcome 1, 8–12, 15,
21–33

Appeal 2018-003538
Application 14/820,541

30

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).

AFFIRMED