WHITEHOUSE, Harry T.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2020

13651091 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/651,091 10/12/2012 Harry T. WHITEHOUSE 080839-0417869 9407
909 7590 02/27/2020
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
EXAMINER
POE, KEVIN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2020 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HARRY T. WHITEHOUSE
____________

Appeal 2018–0038451
Application 13/651,091
Technology Center 3600
____________

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

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 36–53, which constitute all the claims pending in
this Application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral
hearing was held on December 5, 2019.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed August 29, 2017); and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed February 27, 2018); the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December
28, 2017); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 7, 2017).
2 Appellant identifies PSI Systems, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claims relate generally “to shipping and mailing and in
particular to a system and method for handling collect on delivery (COD)
transactions.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 36, 44, and 52 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 36, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
36. A method for facilitating a collect on delivery (COD)
transaction via a United States Postal Services (USPS) tracking
code, the method comprising:
[a] scanning, by a scanning device, a tracking code
associated with the USPS on a mail piece associated with a
postal transaction, the USPS tracking code being allocated to
the postage transaction and configured for tracking the mail
piece within the USPS;
[b] detecting, by the scanning device, based on the USPS
tracking code scanning, the postal transaction as corresponding
to a COD service;
[c] causing, by the scanning device, based on the COD
service detection, a COD-specific screen to be overlaid over a
user interface of the scanning device;
[d] obtaining, by the scanning device, delivery data for
the postal transaction via the COD-specific screen overlaid over
the user interface; and
[e] transmitting, by the scanning device, the delivery data
to a postal tracking computer system via one or more computer
networks.

Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

3
REJECTION3
Claims 36–53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.

ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
See 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to
the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to
mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental

3 The Examiner withdrew two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 4.
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

4
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 183 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Mayo/Alice framework, where “we must examine the elements of
the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient
to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
Alice 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract
idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more
than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id.
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg.”). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

5
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice,
or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application, i.e., that “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 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.

Independent claims 36 and 44, and dependent claims 38–43, 46–51, and 53
Appellant argues claims 36, 38–44, 46–51, and 53 as a group (see
Appeal Br. 5–19; see also Reply Br. 2–14). We select independent claim 36
as representative. Claims 38–44, 46–51, and 53 stand or fall with
independent claim 36. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With regard to the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework, the
Examiner states that the claims broadly recite “facilitating a collect on
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

6
delivery transaction, which is similar to the commercial practices that have
been found by the courts to be abstract ideas.” Final Act. 6. More
particularly, the Examiner states that independent claim 36 recites an
abstract idea including steps for:
“scanning, a tracking code associated with the USPS on a mail
piece associated with a postal transaction, the USPS tracking
code being allocated to the postage transaction and configured
for tracking the mail piece within the USPS; detecting, the postal
transaction as corresponding to a COD service; obtaining
delivery data for the postal transaction; and transmitting, the
delivery data to a postal tracking.”
Id. (emphasis omitted). After considering the language of independent
claim 36, the Examiner determined that “facilitating a collect on delivery
transaction” is “similar to certain methods of organizing human activity that
have been found by the courts to be abstract ideas.” Id. at 7.
In response, Appellant first argues that the claims are not directed to
an abstract idea and “the Examiner overgeneralized the claims under
Alice/Mayo step one by failing to even consider all the limitations of each of
the independent claims as a whole.” Appeal Br. 5–6, 13–15; see also Reply
Br. 2–5, 7). We cannot agree.
Under the first prong of step 2A of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we
first determine if the claims recite an abstract idea. In this regard, the
Specification is titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HANDLING
COLLECT ON DELIVERY TRANSACTIONS,” and relates generally “to
shipping and mailing and in particular to a system and method for handling
collect on delivery (COD) transactions.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to the
Specification, “the current system and method for handling COD is
cumbersome and inefficient.” Id. ¶ 7. In this regard, the Specification
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

7
identifies that “the current COD system is replete with inconveniences and
archaic processes. From the merchants’ standpoint, they must prepare the
multi-part (multi-copy) carbon USPS form 3816 by using increasingly-rare
pin-feed impact printers or fill in the USPS form 3816 by hand.” Id. ¶ 4.
And,
[i]n many cases, the product being shipped will also have another
shipping label, perhaps with an independent tracking barcode, so
there is often redundancy in the labeling and the need to
coordinate the identification number of the COD form provided
at the top right of the first copy of the USPS form 3816 (shown
in FIG. 1) with the tracking number generated by another system.
Id. Thus, the Specification identifies “there is a need for a new and
improved system and method for handling collect on delivery (COD)
transactions.” Id. ¶ 7. The Specification discloses that “[b]y using the
present COD system, USPS delivery events benefit from a faster process
which eliminates filling out conventional COD forms by hand and storing
the paperwork in the carrier’s pocket.” Id. ¶ 41.
Taking independent claim 36 as representative, the claim recites “[a]
method for facilitating a collect on delivery (COD) transaction via . . . a
tracking code” including steps for (1) “scanning . . . a tracking code . . . on a
mail piece” (step [a]); (2) “detecting . . . based on the USPS tracking code
scanning” whether the mail piece is being shipped via “a COD service”
(step [b]); (3) “based on the COD service detection,” causing “a COD-
specific screen to be overlaid over a user interface of the scanning device”
(step [c]); (4) “obtaining . . . delivery data . . . via the COD-specific screen
overlaid over the user interface” (step [d]); and (5) “transmitting . . . the
delivery data to a . . . tracking computer system” (step [e]).
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

8
Understood in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner
that independent claim 36 broadly recites “facilitating a collect on delivery
transaction.” Final Act. 6. Here, independent claim 36 simply obtains a
tracking code (step [a]), determines whether a mail piece is being shipped
COD (step [b]), displays information, (steps [c] and [d]), and transmits
information (step [e]). Thus, it is clear that independent claim 36 recites a
form of financial transaction that, under the Revised Guidance, falls under
the category of “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” and more
specifically “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the
form of contracts; legal obligations; []sales activities or behaviors; business
relations).” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly,
independent claim 36 recites an abstract idea. Cf. Univ. of Fla. Research
Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366–68 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(Claim for standardizing data to be conveyed to a bedside device for
graphical display was directed to the abstract idea of “collecting, analyzing,
manipulating, and displaying data.”), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Claim for
manipulating XML documents by organizing, identifying, mapping,
defining, and modifying data was directed to the abstract idea of “collecting,
displaying, and manipulating data.”), and Electric Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Claim for detecting
events by receiving, detecting, analyzing, displaying, accumulating, and
updating data, and deriving a composite indicator from that data was
directed to the abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”). As such, we
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

9
disagree with Appellant’s contentions that the claim is not directed to an
abstract idea.
Having concluded that claim 36 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea, we turn to the second prong of step 2A of the 2019 Revised
Guidance and determine whether the claim integrates the recited judicial
exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. Here we look
to see if, for example, any additional elements of the claim (i) reflect an
improvement in the functioning of a computer or to another technological
field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular
machine, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing, or (iv) use the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to
a particular technological environment. See 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 55; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct
us to any indication, that the steps recited in claim 36 require any specialized
computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a
particular machine, invoke any assertedly inventive programming, or that the
claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer
components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations
does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

10
argument, that attributes an improvement in technology and/or a technical
field to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed
invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that
phrase is used in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appellant argues that independent claim 36 recites patent-eligible
subject matter because it is “directed to a particular useful application that
provides an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g.,
postal tracking computer systems, postal scanning device user interfaces,
etc.). Appeal Br. 5–6, and 16–18. More particularly, Appellant argues that
the claims recite a particular technical solution at least to
problems, for example, arising from different computer systems
using different tracking codes for tracking information related
to the same mail piece (e.g., including COD-related data) (see
Specification at ¶ 6), less-user-friendly scanning device user
interfaces, etc.
Appeal Br. 6, 17–18; see also Reply Br. 12–14. We disagree.
The claim does not recite any “specific technical detail” on how the
steps are performed. And the problem “arising from different computer
systems using different tracking codes for tracking information related to the
same mail piece” is a business problem that existed prior to the Internet.
Appellant has not provided evidence or reasoning that this problem is
“necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings,
773 F.3d at 1257. And, here, the purported “particular solution,” i.e.,
“scanning device user interfaces,” simply requires a generic and
conventional scanner operating in its ordinary and conventional capacities.
See Spec. ¶ 34 (“[E]xisting USPS carrier scanners can be reprogrammed to
capture data at delivery or collection.”).
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

11
The Specification, including the claims, simply recites the functional
results to be achieved by any and all possible means, and “provides only a
result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer
accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d at 1342. Here, Appellant does not provide
support or reasoning as to how the steps of “scanning,” “detecting,”
“causing,” “obtaining,” and “transmitting” are performed by “the scanning
device,” such that they result in any improvement to a technology and/or a
technical field. Nor does Appellant provide evidence that the programming
related to the limitations of independent claim 36 entails anything atypical
from conventional programming. Cf. Spec. ¶ 35 (“The scanner can be
programmed such that upon scanning the barcode 112, different prompting
sequences can be launched.”). Thus, the focus of independent claim 36 is
not on any technological advancement, but rather on the implementation of
the abstract idea, “for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” See
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, independent
claim 36 uses generic computer technology to obtain, analyze, display, and
transmit information, and does not recite an improvement to a particular
computer technology. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Finding claims not abstract
because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation.”). And unlike Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 840 F.3d
1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cf. Appeal Br. 17–18; see also Reply Br. 6)
where the improvement was to a physical tracking system, here “the focus of
the claim[] is not to a physical-realm improvement but an improvement in
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

12
wholly abstract ideas–the selection and mathematical analysis of
information, followed by reporting or display of the results.” SAP America,
Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 36 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 36 is directed to an abstract idea, we turn to Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance and determine whether the additional elements:
(1) add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that is not well-
understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field, which is
indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or (2) simply append
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. See
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
The Examiner determined that
[t]he claims do not include limitations that are “significantly
more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an
improvement to another technology or technical field, an
improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Final Act. 7. According to the Examiner, the only additional elements of
independent claim 36 are “[t]he generically recited computer elements such
as [the] ‘scanning device, postal tracking computer, one or more computer
networks’ [which] do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea
because they would be routine in any computer implementation.” Id.
(emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

13
We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations of a
“scanning device,” “postal tracking computer,” and “one or more computer
networks” simply allow the generic scanning device to perform the claimed
operations using generic computer functionality. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34–35.
And, taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
scanning device at each step of the process is purely conventional. The
claimed “scanning device” operates in its ordinary and conventional capacity
to perform the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of
obtaining a tracking code (step [a]), determining whether a mail piece is
being shipped COD (step [b]), displaying information (steps [c] and [d]), and
transmitting information (step [e]). Cf. Spec. ¶¶ 35–36. See Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Assn., 776 F.3d
1343, 1347–49 (Fed Cir. 2014) (using scanner to convert paper document to
store electronically was conventional, well-understood, and routine activity
and function of scanning technology); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (gathering, sending,
monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and presenting information does not
transform the abstract process into a patent-eligible invention); Alice, 573
U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer [is] capable of performing the basic
calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method
claims.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[S]toring, receiving, and extracting data” are generic computer
functions.); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a
network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

14
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
exemplary independent claim 36 add nothing that is not already present
when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of “scanning,”
“detecting,” “causing,” “obtaining,” and “transmitting” information is
equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); see also Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract); and Two-Way Media
Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring
was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and
conventional.
Appellant argues that even if the claims are directed to an abstract
idea, independent claim 36 is nonetheless patent eligible in light of
BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 15–16; see also Reply Br. 10–11.
However, Appellant does not persuasively explain how, and we do not see
how, Appellant’s claim 36 parallels the claims in BASCOM, which recited a
“non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces” within a network, the arrangement of elements being “a technical
improvement over [the] prior art ways of filtering.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d
at 1350. The difficulty with Appellant’s argument is that Appellant does not
persuade us that “the ordered combination as a whole” is a technological
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

15
improvement, as opposed to an improvement in a business practice for
which generic computer components are used in their ordinary capacity.
Appeal Br. 16. That is, the Specification describes repurposing an existing
scanner in order to “eliminate[] filling out conventional COD forms by hand
and storing the paperwork in the carrier’s pocket.” Spec. ¶¶ 34–35, and 41.
Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Holding that “the interactive interface limitation is a
generic computer element” that does not amount to an inventive concept
because “the ‘interactive interface’ simply describes a generic web server
with attendant software, tasked with providing web pages to and
communicating with the user’s computer.”).

Independent claim 52 and dependent claims 37 and 45
Independent claim 52 is substantially similar to independent
claim 36, but also recites that the scanning device is programmed to
“initiate, based on the COD service detection, a short-range wireless
payment transaction between the scanning device and another user device of
the mail piece’s recipient” and “obtain delivery data for the postal
transaction via the COD-specific screen overlaid over the user interface and
via the short-range wireless payment transaction.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims
App.). Dependent claims 37 and 45 include similar limitations.
Appellant argues that claims 37, 45, and 52 are further patent eligible
because “the scanning device (and/or its user interface) may reduce the
transaction time associated with COD services (e.g., reduction in the
transaction time involved in the payment-related interactions between the
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

16
user of the scanning device and the recipient of the mail piece at the delivery
site).” Appeal Br. 6, 18; see also Reply Br. 14. We cannot agree.
Instead, we find that independent claim 52, and substantially similar
dependent claims 37 and 45 merely describe further characteristics of the
underlying concept and lack additional elements that would render the
claims patent eligible. In this regard, we agree with the Examiner that the
additional limitations
are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as
performing generic computer functions routinely used in
computer applications. Generic computer components recited as
performing generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine and conventional activities amount to no more than
implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The
use of generic computer components in this manner does not
impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of
the abstract idea.
Ans. 7. The Specification indicates that the instruction for “initiat[ing],
based on the COD service detection, a short-range wireless payment
transaction between the scanning device and another user device of the mail
piece’s recipient” is simply “implemented is by using near field technology
to transfer funds from a recipient’s mobile phone to the postal carrier
scanning device.” Spec. ¶ 55. And, with respect to the instruction for
“obtain[ing] delivery data . . . via the COD-specific screen overlaid over the
user interface and via the short-range wireless payment transaction,” the
Specification simply indicates that
the USPS scanners can be reprogrammed or updated so that if a
tracking number with a service code indicating COD (e.g., 053)
is detected or read, a subsequent screen pops up so that the carrier
can input the amount collected and record whether it is cash,
check, or credit card, for example.
Appeal 2018–003845
Application 13/651,091

17
Id. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the instructions for performing
the steps recited by independent claim 52, and dependent claims 37 and 45
amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract
idea on a computer—none of which adds inventiveness because they merely
require the application of conventional, well-known analytical steps. Ans. 7.
See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 (“[T]he claimed sequence of steps
comprises only ‘conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’
which is insufficient to supply an ‘inventive concept.’”) (citing Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2357) (citations omitted).
As such, we are similarly not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for
the same reasons as to independent claim 36, supra. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 52 and dependent claims 37 and 45 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
36–53 101

36–53

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

AFFIRMED