Dennis Mack

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2019

13073056 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2019)

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.
13/073,056 03/28/2011 Dennis Mack 018360/402426 7275
143177 7590 10/21/2019
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(United Parcel Service, Inc.)
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
ZEROUAL, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2019 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
docketing.shb@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DENNIS MACK
____________

Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Dennis Mack (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1–16 and 21–24, the only claims pending in the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed January 31, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 7,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 5, 2018), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 7, 2017).
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

2

application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way to store the information associated with
the original commercial invoice and provide easy identification of the
appropriate information of the goods so that the return forms for the specific
returned goods are completed by others, not the customer. Specification
para. 33.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method
for facilitating the return of international dutiable goods
including a good purchased by a customer from a
merchant wherein the good is shipped internationally
from the merchant to the customer,
the method comprising:

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 United Parcel
Service of America, Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

3

[1] correlating,
via a processor of a network device,
in a commercial invoice database
a plurality of records each respectively linked with a
plurality of commercial invoices,
including a first commercial invoice linked with a
completed delivery of an international shipment of the
good from the merchant to the customer
wherein the first commercial invoice is linked with a first
package tracking number and a first commercial invoice
number, the first commercial invoice indicating the good
purchased, a harmonized tariff code linked with the good,
and a quantity and value of the good;
[2] generating,
via the processor of the network device,
a label comprising machine readable indicia encoded by
the processor to indicate the content of the first
commercial invoice,
the label affixed on a package of the goods shipped
internationally;
[3] correlating,
via the processor of the network device,
in the commercial invoice database
a second commercial invoice linked with a second
package tracking number,
wherein the second package tracking number is linked
with a return shipment of the good;
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

4

[4] correlating,
via the processor of the network device,
in a package level detail ("PLD") database,
a plurality of records
each respectively linked with a plurality of
packages, including a first PLD record identified
by the first package tracking number and a second
PLD record identified by the second package
tracking number;
[5] facilitating storage,
via the processor of the network device,
in the PLD database
of an indication in the first PLD record of the first
commercial invoice;
[6] receiving an electronic request
via a communication network,
at an interface of the network device,
for generating the second commercial invoice,
the electronic request comprising an identification
of the first commercial invoice and identification
of the good of the first commercial invoice to be
returned;
[7] generating,
via the processor of the network device,
an image of the first commercial invoice;
[8] retrieving,
via the processor of the network device,
the first commercial invoice;
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

5

[9] generating,
by the processor of the network device,
the second commercial invoice
to utilize for international return of the good to the
merchant based on using the identification of the
good in the image of the first commercial invoice;
[10] facilitating storage,
via the processor of the network device,
in the commercial invoice database
of the second commercial invoice;
[11] facilitating storage,
via the processor of the network device,
in the PLD database
of the second PLD record;
[12]providing,
via the processor of the network device,
the second commercial invoice along with the second
package tracking number to the interface
for transmission to a communication device of the
merchant;
[13] correlating,
via the processor of the network device,
in the PLD database
a linkage between the second package tracking number
and the second commercial invoice;
and
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

6

[14] determining,
via the processor of the network device,
a closest location,
among a plurality of locations,
to the customer
for drop-off of the good for international return of
the good to the merchant.
Claims 1–16 and 21–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 1, 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

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

7

claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider
the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim”
into a patent-eligible application. [The Court] described
step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive
concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements
that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, 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 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 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 1 recites correlating records (limitations 1, 3, 4, and 13), generating a
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

8

label (limitation 2), facilitating storage of data (limitations 5, 10, and 11),
receiving request data (limitation 6), generating and retrieving invoices data
(limitations 7–9), providing invoice data (limitation 12), and determining a
location (limitation 14). Correlating records is rudimentary data analysis.
Generating a label is printing data. Facilitating storage is storing data.
Generating data is rudimentary analysis and update. Providing data is data
transmission. Determining data is rudimentary analysis. Thus, claim 1
recites retrieving, analyzing, updating, storing, printing, and transmitting
data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for
any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all
possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods of

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

9

organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
and legal interaction. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
shipping management. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would
ordinarily take place in advising one to create a return invoice and tracking
number and determining a drop off location based on data for the second
invoice and a first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes. The
advice to create a return invoice and tracking number and determining a
drop off location based on data for the second invoice and a first invoice,
their tracking numbers, and tariff codes involves creating invoices, which is
an economic act, and linking invoices to tracking numbers, which is an act
ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1
recites “providing . . . commercial invoice along with the . . . package
tracking number,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
shipping. Similarly, claim 1 recites “correlating . . . a linkage between the
second package tracking number and the second commercial invoice,”
which are also characteristics of commercial shipping.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to creating a first
shipping invoice and tracking number for shipping goods and a second
invoice and tracking number intended for returning the goods and linking the
first and second invoice and tracking number in a record in order to facilitate
the return of the goods, generating a shipping label for the returned good and
directing the customer to a drop off location. Final Act. 10.

6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

10

The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a method for facilitating the
return of international dutiable goods including a good purchased by a
customer from a merchant wherein the good is shipped internationally from
the merchant to the customer. The steps in claim 1 result in providing an
invoice and tracking number and determining a location absent any
technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
Limitations 6–9 recite data retrieval and generation. Limitations 2, 5,
and 10–12 recite insignificant updating, storing, printing, and transmitting of
invoice data. Limitations 1, 3, 4, 13, and 14 recite generic data analysis,
which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The
limitations thus recite advice for creating a return invoice and tracking
number and determining a drop off location based on data for the second
invoice and a first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes. To
advocate creating a return invoice and tracking number and determining a
drop off location based on data for the second invoice and a first invoice,
their tracking numbers, and tariff codes is conceptual advice for results
desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 33 describes the invention as relating
to storing the information associated with the original commercial invoice
and providing easy identification of the appropriate information of the goods
so that the return forms for the specific returned goods are completed by
others, not the customer. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1
is directed to creating shipping documents and determining a shipping
location, i.e. shipping management. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

11

This in turn is an example of commercial and legal interaction as a
certain method of organizing human activity because shipping is part of
delivery in commercial interactions. The concept of shipping management
by creating a return invoice and tracking number and determining a drop off
location based on data for the second invoice and a first invoice, their
tracking numbers, and tariff codes is one idea for generating a return invoice
for shipping returns. The steps recited in claim 1 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 Technologies, LLC
v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (2014) (analyzing and
combining data sets); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed.Cir.2014) (creating a transaction performance guaranty for a
commercial transaction on computer networks such as the Internet); Content
Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343,
1347 (2014) (collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected
data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of retrieving, analyzing,
updating, storing, printing, and transmitting data mimic human thought
processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with
paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the
human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611
(Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in
prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data retrieval,
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

12

analysis, update, storage, print, and transmission and does not recite an
improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 1 is directed to
retrieving, analyzing, updating, storing, printing, and transmitting data, and
not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 is directed
to shipping management by creating a return invoice and tracking number
and determining a drop off location based on data for the second invoice and
a first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes, 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 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
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

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

13

“‘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).
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 6–9 are pure data gathering steps.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2, 5, and
10–12 are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting,
or displaying the results. Steps 1, 3, 4, 13, and 14 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 is interpreted and the results desired,
and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or
in how the processing technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
shipping management by creating a return invoice and tracking number and
determining a drop off location based on data for the second invoice and a
first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes 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 do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 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 31 pages of specification spell out
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

14

different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of shipping management by creating a return invoice
and tracking number and determining a drop off location based on data for
the second invoice and a first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff
codes under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue
amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply shipping
management by creating a return invoice and tracking number and
determining a drop off location based on data for the second invoice and a
first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes 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 reflect 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 environment, such that

8 The Specification describes a processor and incorporates interfaces for
communicating via email, a web site, and via telephone. Spec. para. 66.
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

15

the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
shipping management by advising one to create a return invoice and tracking
number and determining a drop off location based on data for the second
invoice and a first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes, 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 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding
the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility.
Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular
technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea
while adding the words “apply it with a computer”
simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient
result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “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
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

16

generic computer implementation is not generally the sort
of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical
assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[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, analyzing, updating, storing, printing, and
transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the
most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are
generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only
for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litigation, 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 are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some
unexpected result. Appellant does not contend they 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
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

17

and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data retrieval-analysis-update-
storage-print-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
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 1 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 1 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
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

18

of generic computer components configured to
implement the same idea. This Court has long “warn[ed]
... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that make patent
eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. 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 shipping management by creating a return invoice and
tracking number and determining a drop off location based on data for the
second invoice and a first invoice, their tracking numbers, and tariff codes,
without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 10–13 and Answer 2–13 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “a proper analysis
includes, at very least, a reasoned rationale explaining why the
improvements offered by the claimed features, as discussed in the Appeal
Brief, fails to qualify as evidence of the claims’ unconventionality.” Reply
Br. 3. Aside from the Examiner’s response, the analysis supra explains this.
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

19

We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “the Examiner
commits a procedural error by failing to provide evidence supporting his
conclusion that the claimed features are so routine that they should be
considered conventional in the relevant industry.” Reply Br. 4. Such
evidence is provided supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “[t]he Examiner's
rejection should be reversed because it fails to consider the all the [sic]
claimed elements both individually and as a combination.” Reply Br. 5.
(Emphasis omitted). Aside from the Examiner’s response, the analysis supra
provides the analysis for such consideration.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “[i]t is contrary to
the Federal Circuit precedent for the Examiner to disregard the specific
limitations as to how to the claimed embodiment is achieved.” Reply Br. 6.
No limitations are disregarded. The issue is whether the claims recited some
technological steps or structure for such achievement. The claims here do
not. All of the steps are conventional and generic computer operations.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than
describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any
limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution
to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the
claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a
concrete embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269
(2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Appellant
provided a reasoned rationale that the Examiner has committed procedural
error by not demonstrating why the instant claims are similar to at least one
concept that a court has identified as abstract.” Reply Br. 7. We show supra
that the claims are directed to commercial interactions as certain methods of
Appeal 2018-005484
Application 13/073,056

20

organizing human activity, one of the categories the courts identified as
abstract ideas.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–16 and 21–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION

The rejection of claims 1–16 and 21–24 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 21–24 101 Eligibility 1–16, 21–24

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED