Zebra Technologies Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

14556753 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 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.
14/556,753 12/01/2014 Michael Fein 150761US01 4996
133839 7590 09/01/2020
Zebra Technologies Corporation
(Legacy)
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
EXAMINER
WILDER, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL FEIN, ANTHONY R. BROWN,
JOHN HUFFMAN, ROBERT GROM,
KARL TORCHALSKI, and JAMES J. O’HAGAN
__________________

Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 52, 53, 55, 58, 61, 65, 103,
104, 106, 109, 112, 116, and 154, which are all the pending claims.2 Appeal
Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Zebra Technologies Corporation as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Brief, filed December 10, 2019, at 2 (hereinafter “Appeal Br.”).
2 Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11–13, 15–51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62–64, 66–102, 105,
107, 108, 110, 111, 113–115, and 117–153 have been cancelled. See Appeal
Br. 21–26 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 52, and 103 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for a location system of allocating
providers of a service to an area of a venue, the method
comprising:
receiving, by the location system, blink data comprising
at least a tag unique identifier from a tag, the tag being
associated with a monitored individual, the blink data including
characteristics of a signal that allow a location of the tag to be
determined;
calculating, using a processor of the location system, tag
location data based on the blink data;
correlating the tag location data to provider data
corresponding to a first type of provider, the first type of
provider to provide a product to an area of a venue;
calculating, using the processor and based on the
provider data, demand for the product in the area;
generating, using the processor and based on the demand
for the product in the area, predictive analytic data indicative of
a need for a second type of provider in the area, the second type
of provider being different than the first type of provider, the
second type of provider to provide a service different than the
product;
allocating, based on the predictive analytic data, a
number of the second type of provider to the area; and
communicating a message to the allocated number of
second type of provider, the message indicative of the
allocation to the area.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 52, 53, 55, 58, 61, 65, 103, 104, 106, 109,
112, 116, and 154 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.

Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

3
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility of the Claims
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 6–20. We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Examiner’s Determination
The Examiner analyzes the limitations of claim 1 and determines that
the “calculating” steps recite mathematical calculations, the “correlating,”
“generating,” and “allocating” steps recite mental processes, and the steps of
“receiving” and “communicating” recite certain methods of organizing
human activity (e.g., fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal
interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or
interactions between people). Ans. 4–7; see Final Act. 7–11. The Examiner
cites recent court decisions holding claims to customizing information for a
user, collecting and analyzing information, generating rule-based tasks, and
advertising, marketing, and sales activities are certain methods of organizing
human activity, and decisions holding comparing data is a mental process.
Final Act. 2–4, 9–10. The Examiner also determines that dependent claims
recite “correlating,” “generating,” and “calculating” steps that recite the
same abstract idea under this analysis. Ans. 6; Final Act. 4.
The Examiner determines the additional elements of a tag, a processor
of a location system, and a memory are generic computer elements that
perform generic functions to apply the judicial exception as tools and do not
impose a meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea or reflect an
inventive solution. Ans. 7; Final Act. 15–16. The Examiner determines that
the devices and their functions are well-known and conventional as indicated
by court decisions and patent publications. Final Act. 5–6, 14–16; Ans. 7–9.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

4
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not given a reasoned analysis
why claim limitations correspond to concepts that courts have identified as
an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant argues that the
claims do not recite the judicial exceptions identified by the Examiner, and
the Examiner has not addressed the dependent claims. Appeal Br. 13–14;
Reply Br. 10–11. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not explained why
“calculating a tag location based on the blink data” or “calculating a demand
for a product” is a mathematical concept. Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends
that the Examiner has not explained why “correlating,” “generating,” and
“allocating” steps are mental processes. Id. at 3–4. Appellant argues that
the Examiner has not explained why other limitations recite certain methods
of organizing human activity. Id. at 4–5. Appellant argues that a human
mind cannot calculate a tag location based on blink data. Id. at 7.
Appellant contends that the claims recite an improvement in location
systems tasked with determining locations based on blink data and improve
allocation of resources in specific areas of a venue such as a sporting event
venue using real-time location blink data. Appeal Br. 6–7, 16; Reply Br. 9.
Appellant asserts that the location system and tag are particular machines
that are integral to the claim and its determination of tag location based on
blink data. Appeal Br. 17. In addition, Appellant argues that the claims
recite different service providers, a particular area in a venue, allocating a
number of service providers to an area, and communicating a message to
allocated service providers. Id. Appellant also argues that the limitations
amount to significantly more when not limited to a tag, a processor, and a
memory as the Examiner has done. Id. at 19.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

5
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
Whoever 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, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. This provision contains an implicit exception: “Laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the elements of each claim, individually and
“as an ordered combination,” to determine if additional elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application” as an “inventive
concept” sufficient to ensure the claims in practice amount to significantly
more than a patent on the ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we consider whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. rev. 08.2017 Jan.
2018) (“MPEP”)). Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

6
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
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. Id. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a “method” which is a statutory category of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, namely, a process. See Ans. 3. Thus, we consider whether claim 1 as
a whole recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. The
Revised Guidance enumerates the abstract idea as (1) certain methods of
organizing human activity––fundamental economic principles or practices,
commercial interactions and sales activities, managing personal behavior
and interactions between people, (2) mathematical concepts, and (3) mental
processes. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The Specification describes the claims as relating to the use of radio
frequency locating as a means for providing supply and demand analytics
and management. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. The claimed method analyzes and matches
supply and demand using a location system. Id. ¶ 180. Such matching may
improve opportunities for sales at venues such as concerts, sporting events,
entertainment events, and competitive events. Id. ¶¶ 68, 79. The preamble
recites this intended use as “a location system of allocating providers of a
service to an area of a venue.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

7
First, the location system receives “blink data comprising at least a tag
unique identifier from a tag [that is] associated with a monitored individual
. . . [to] allow a location of the tag to be determined.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims
App.). This step collects location data of individuals to match to providers
who offer products in the same area. It is a precursor to the next steps that
organize this human activity to correlate individual demand in an area of a
venue to providers who supply that area. Spec. ¶¶ 73–80, 180–188. The
Specification describes “blink data” as “characteristics of the tag signal that
allow a tag signal to be recognized by a receiver” so the location of the radio
frequency (RF) location tag may be determined by a location system. Spec.
¶¶ 5, 73. It also may include a tag unique identifier (tag UID) to identify a
particular tag that is unique to a particular individual to be monitored. Id.
The next steps analyze this collected data to match providers (supply)
to monitored individuals (demand). The steps include “calculating, using a
processor of the location system, tag location data based on the blink data,”
“correlating the tag location data to provider data corresponding to a first
type of provider, the first type of provider to provide a product to an area of
a venue,” and “calculating, using the processor and based on the provider
data, demand for the product in the area.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
These steps are recited at a high level of generality. The Specification
describes blink data as including a tag unique identifier that a processor may
use to calculate tag location data. Spec. ¶¶ 73–75, 180. A central processor
correlates a tag’s location to provider location data to ascertain supply and
demand in an area. Id. ¶¶ 75, 93, 143–46, 180. Demand may be aggregated,
but no details are claimed for this step or for the calculating and correlating
steps. Id. ¶¶ 145, 181, Fig. 4A; see Appeal Br. 3 (claimed subject matter).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

8
When recited at such a high level of generality, steps of collecting and
analyzing data by mathematical algorithms or other processes recite mental
processes and mathematical concepts. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52; October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, § II.A.iii; see also
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”); id. at 1355
(“But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds
the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same); Ans. 5.
As the Federal Circuit also held in TLI:
[T]he claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea
of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s rejection of “categorical
rules” to decide subject matter eligibility, . . . we have applied
the “abstract idea” exception to encompass inventions pertaining
to methods of organizing human activity. . . . Here, we find that,
like the claims at issue in Content Extraction which were
directed to “collecting data,” “recognizing certain data within
the collected data set,” and “storing the recognized data in
memory,” 776 F.3d at 1347, attaching classification data, such
as dates and times, to images for the purpose of storing those
images in an organized manner is a well-established “basic
concept” sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.
In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
(emphasis added). Here, tag location data of individual activity is collected
and organized in an area of a venue to match to providers supplying the area.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

9
Appellant argues that the claims improve real-time location systems
for sporting venues. Appeal Br. 6. However, the steps are recited at a high
level of generality similar to steps of detecting and analyzing events in a
particular area of an electric power grid in real time in Electric Power. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–52. The court determined that collecting and
analyzing power grid information at a high level of generality was a mental
process. Id. at 1354, 1355. Similarly, in TLI, the court held that collecting
and classifying digital data in an organized manner involved a method of
organizing human activity. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613. Here, the claimed steps
classify tag location data by location and monitored individual and correlate
that data to providers in an area of a venue, thus organizing the relationships
and activities of parties for sales activities. See Automated Tracking Sols.,
LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 732 F. App’x 989, 991–93 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding
claims to a system for locating, identifying and tracking an object in a first
coverage area by collecting and analyzing RF signals from sensors recited an
abstract idea). No particular arrangement of receivers and tags is claimed.
Indeed, receivers are not even recited as being used to receive the blink data.
The Specification indicates demand may be aggregated with a defined
hierarchy or taxonomy that relates providers, monitored areas, products, and
services into a category or sub-category, but no details are claimed. Spec.
¶¶ 180–82. As claimed, calculating demand is a mental process counting tag
location data in areas. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (persons can make a map of credit card
numbers and transactions from IP addresses); Coffelt v. NVIDIA Corp., 680
F. App’x 1010, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (calculating steradian region of space
is a mathematical algorithm that can be implemented using a pen and paper).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

10
Furthermore, “[d]emand response is itself an abstract concept––a
familiar business choice to alter terms of dealing to help match supply and
demand.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 771 (Fed.
Cir. 2019). Simply aggregating demand in “an area of a venue” in order to
match a provider (a supply) recites the abstract idea of organizing human
activity––fundamental economic principles or practices identified above.
The Specification describes demand aggregation as correlating the tag
location data of individuals to provider location data to optimize sales based
on the location of providers. Spec. ¶ 182. It creates real time opportunities
to enhance sales. Id. ¶¶ 146, 68. Optimizing sales is similar to concepts that
the Federal Circuit has found to be an abstract idea. See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding claims to
the concept of offer-based price optimization is similar to other fundamental
economic concepts found to be abstract by the Supreme Court and this
court); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II.
The next two steps recite similar concepts as “generating, using the
processor and based on the demand for the product in the area, predictive
analytic data indicative of a need for a second type of provider in the area”
and “allocating, based on the predictive analytic data, a number of the
second type of provider to the area.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). These
steps match supply of a second type of provider that “provide[s] a service
different than the product” of the first provider. Id. Thus, it recites the same
mental processes and fundamental economic principles and practices.
The Specification describes how matching demand for alcohol from a
first provider to an area may indicate a need for additional security personnel
(second provider of different service) in that same area. Spec. ¶¶ 93, 157.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

11
The last step of “communicating a message to the allocated number of
second type of provider, the message indicative of the allocation to the area”
recites extra-solution activity of the data collection and analysis steps recited
in the claim. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“And we have recognized
that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis.”).
Furthermore, the process of targeting particular products or services to
an individual based on information known about the individual including a
location or profile also recites an abstract idea. The Specification describes
“predictive analytic data” as including demographic data, provider data, and
monitored area data. Spec. ¶¶ 13, 89, 153. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the court held that
tailoring information provided to a customer based on a customer’s location
and navigation data and time of day is a fundamental practice long prevalent
in our system. Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1369–70. Here, claim 1
correlates location data of monitored individuals in an area to providers in
the area in real time so providers are tailored to individuals at that location.
See id. at 1370 (the dynamic presentation of data in “real time” to a user
based on information known about a viewer is not patent eligible); Bridge &
Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (retrieving historic and location-centric information about user
locations and generating a user profile to deliver customized content using a
persistent identifier is a fundamental practice); see Final Act. 9 and cases
cited therein; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) II.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

12
Similar claims to resource planning and forecasting by collecting and
analyzing information at a high level of generality were not patent eligible in
In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the claimed
steps of collecting and analyzing location data of monitored individuals and
correlating that data to providers to calculate (forecast) demand in the area
also recite an abstract idea with no improvement to technology. See id.
Steps of “calculating” when recited at such a high level of generality
as in claim 1 recite mathematical concepts as the Examiner has determined.
See October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, § II.A.iii.; Ans. 5.
Court decisions cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 8–10) support that
claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above, as do the dependent claims.
Ans. 6. Correlating demand to tag and provider location data and generating
experience enhancement data based on the demand in claim 2 is a method of
organizing human activity for supply and demand and is a mental process.
“Experience enhancement data” is associated with analyzing quality, value,
or extent, of an experience, or routes, traffic patterns, movements, trends, or
demand associated with tag and provider location data. Spec. ¶ 81. Thus, it
relates to providing customized, targeted information to individuals, which is
a fundamental practice as discussed above when recited at a high level of
generality. So too, are claims to generating analytic and historical analytic
data to transmit alerts when recited at such a high level of generality. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (“Information as such is an intangible.”).
Appellant also argues that a human mind cannot receive blink data or
calculate location data. Appeal Br. 14. However, the Examiner determines
that these steps recite mathematical calculations and certain methods of
organizing human activity as discussed above. See Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

13
In Content Extraction, the Federal Circuit addressed a similar issue.
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed method extracted data from
hard copy documents using an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner,
recognized specific information in the extracted data, and stored that data in
a memory locations for that data field. Id. at 1345. The court held that
humans always performed these functions of collecting data, recognizing
certain data in a collected set, and storing data in memory as fundamental
economic practices. See id. at 1347 and cases cited therein.
Here, claim 1 recites collecting (receiving) digital data (blink data)
and essentially extracting “characteristics of a signal that allow a location of
the tag to be determined.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Receiving and
analyzing blink data of a tag at such a high level of generality is within the
abstract realm. In British Telecommunications, the court held a method of
using a telecommunications system to track locations of users in the system
by receiving tracking information for a user and then generating a shortlist
of information sources matched to the user based on the tracking information
and location data of the information providers was an abstract idea. British
Telecommc’ns PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, LLC, 813 F. App’x 584, 586–87
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have previously held that tailoring the provision of
information to a user’s characteristics, such as location, is an abstract idea.”).
The Examiner’s analysis has been as detailed as the claimed steps require.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 and the dependent claims
recite the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity of a
fundamental economic practice involving commercial sales activities,
mathematical concepts, and mental processes identified above.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

14
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Revised Step 2A, Prong Two). We determine claim 1
lacks additional elements that improve a computer or other technology. The
additional elements do not implement the abstract idea in conjunction with a
particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. They do not
transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. They do
not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking it to a
particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55 and MPEP sections cited therein.
Appellant contends that claim 1 recites an improvement to location
systems that determine locations using blink data and allocate resources with
real time location information. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the
claims recite multiple particular machines that are integral to the claims such
as the location system, blink data, tag, and processor and perform specific
operations. Id. at 17–18; see Reply Br. 9.
The Specification describes a locating system 100 comprising tags
102 and receivers 106 configured to provide two and/or three dimensional
precision localization. Spec. ¶¶ 107, 108, Fig. 1A. It describes other aspects
of the tags and their transmission of information packets and other data to
the receivers. Id. ¶¶ 109–140. However, none of these features is claimed.
Indeed, claim 1 does not even require a receiver or particular configuration
of receivers, modules, and engines for real time location and aggregation of
individuals and providers. Id. ¶¶ 141–159, Fig. 1B; cf. Thales Visionix Inc.
v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

15
It is well-settled that unclaimed features cannot provide additional
elements that integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See
ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769–70 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (“Even if ChargePoint’s specification had provided, for example, a
technical explanation of how to enable communication over a network for
device interaction (which, as discussed above, it did not), the claim language
here would not require those details. Instead, the broad claim language
would cover any mechanism for implementing network communication on a
charging station.”); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955
F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in
illuminating what a claim is directed to [but it] must always yield to the
claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”); Synopsys,
839 F.3d at 1149 (“The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the
Asserted Claims themselves.”); Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
Software, 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he important inquiry
for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”).
As the court held in Accenture, “the complexity of the implementing
software or the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim
reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.”
Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345. The specification in Accenture contained
detailed software implementation guidelines, but the claims recited only
general software components arranged to implement the abstract idea on a
computer. Id. Here, claim 1 recites no details of software modules or other
technological innovations to integrate the abstract idea. Claim 1 does not
even recite receivers configured in a particular arrangement to receive blink
data and provide real time locations of tags.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

16
“[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes
the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry.” TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611; see
also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26 (an instruction to apply an abstract idea using
an unspecified generic computer is not enough to transform an abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1318, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding claims
reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nonetheless directed
to an abstract idea).
We recognize that “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements
to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes
the improvements can be accomplished through either route.” Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “to be
directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the
claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the
computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish
Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1336–39).
Here, claim 1 recites no improvement to RFID technology or location
systems. There is no indication that the location system identifies locations
of monitored individuals or providers more accurately or efficiently or that it
correlates demand of individuals to providers better in an area of a venue by
using improved technology or improved computers. Instead, claim 1 recites
a location system, tag, processor, and blink data as generic components that
perform generic steps of the abstract idea. These generic components are
recited as mere tools that implement the abstract idea without providing any
technological improvement.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

17
Nor does claim 1 recite a particular configuration or a specialized
operation of tags. See Automated Tracking Sols., 723 F. App’x at 994.
Claim 1 does not recite any particular improvement to location systems by
using a generic processor, tag, and blink data. The asserted “specific
operations applied to specific aspects of a system” (Appeal Br. 18) merely
involve limitations that recite the abstract idea identified above.
“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the
ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept
that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
id. at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea
does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math)
to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim
non-abstract.”); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“But, a claim for a new abstract
idea is still an abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding claims that improved an
abstract idea but did not recite the supposed computer improvements were
not patent eligible); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (additional
elements refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in a
claim beyond the identified judicial exception).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks any additional elements
that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.

Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

18
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider if claim 1 recites additional elements, individually,
or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217–18. The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the
claim limitations involve more than the performance of well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (explaining that the second step of the Alice
analysis considers whether a claim adds a limitation beyond a judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field).
Individually, the additional elements recited in claim 1, namely, the
location system, processor, tag, and blink data, are generic components that
perform generic functions of receiving and analyzing data at a high level of
generality. See 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.”).
As an ordered combination, these elements provide no more than
when they are considered individually. Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They are
used as tools to implement the judicial exception. See SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1169–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claimed databases
and processors did not improve computers but used available computers and
functions as tools to execute the claimed process); Inventor Holdings, LLC v.
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (considering
the steps of representative claims as an “ordered combination” reveals they
“amount to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply [an]
abstract idea” using generic computer technology).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

19
In Automated Tracking Solutions regarding similar claims to an RFID
tracking and analysis system the court held:
Our analysis of the representative claims here uncovers no
inventive concept in the individual claim limitations or their
ordered combination. The representative claims are quite
broad, reciting uses of RFID system components recognized in
the specification to be routine and conventional. The claims do
not use these conventional RFID components in a non-
conventional combination or arrangement. Instead, the claims
merely disclose collecting data from a particular source—RFID
transponders—and analyzing that data. Whether we view the
claim elements individually or as an ordered combination, the
claims do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to confer
patent eligibility.
Automated Tracking Sols., 723 F. App’x at 995. Similarly, here, our
analysis of the claim elements both individually and in combination
uncovers no inventive concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility.
A “tag” may include a UWB transmitter that transmits a signal burst
with a tag unique identifier. Spec. ¶ 74. Tags are used with operational
parameters that are not claimed. Spec. ¶¶ 107–140, 170–175. Tags may be
arranged in a grid with receivers to obtain location data more accurately but
such features are not claimed. See id., Fig. 1A. Modules and engines of the
system are described but are not claimed. See id. ¶¶ 141–169, Fig. 1B.
The claimed processor is described generically as a microprocessor
configured to execute software instructions or other types of code to carry
out defined steps and communicate over a data bus. Spec. ¶ 176, Fig. 3.
Thus, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the Specification,
requires anything besides off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and
tag technology for gathering, sending, and analyzing data. Such components
do not provide an inventive concept. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355.
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

20
Appellant argues that the steps of claim 1 “fall beyond the identified
judicial exception.” Appeal Br. 19. However, as discussed above, these
limitations recite an abstract idea. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in
a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining
whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of
possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–
89 (1981). Even groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant steps that are
abstract are insufficient for patent eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898
F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the
claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no
plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An
advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”). “An abstract idea can
generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Examiner cites prior art describing RFID devices and processors
used to communicate with tags and identify locations as known. Ans. 8–9
(citing US 2013/0257598 A1 to Kawaguchi); see also British Telecommc’ns,
813 F. App’x at 587 (the claim recites only generic computer hardware of a
“telecommunications system” and “terminal” that perform conventional
functions); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (the claims recite existing
scanning and processing technology that recognize and store data from
specific data fields); Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838
F.3d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Affinity makes no claim that it invented
any of those components or their basic functions, nor does it suggest that
those components, at that level of generality, were unknown in the art.”).
Appeal 2020-002784
Application 14/556,753

21
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 52, 53, 55, 58, 61,
65, 103, 104, 106, 109, 112, 116, and 154 as directed to a judicial exception
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 7, 10,
14, 52, 53,
55, 58, 61,
65, 103, 104,
106, 109,
112, 116, 154
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4, 7, 10,
14, 52, 53,
55, 58, 61,
65, 103, 104,
106, 109,
112, 116, 154

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