John Andrews et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 20, 2019

14226803 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 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.
14/226,803 03/26/2014 John Andrews IDF 9643 (4300-40600) 3898
28003 7590 09/20/2019
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2019 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):
6450patdocs@sprint.com
SprintMail@dfw.conleyrose.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte JOHN ANDREWS, DEANDRA CASSONE, and
KERRI STUECKEN
____________________

Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, 17, and 20, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sprint
Communications Company L.P. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ disclosure relates to improving supply chain performance
and, more specifically, to an operations review expert providing better
review and control of variables in a supply chain operation “by determining
the key variables that impact functional areas and/or factors of the process,
determining the correlation between key variables” to decide which key
variables are most likely to improve the process and will most benefit the
overall operation. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1 is the only independent claim and
is reproduced below:
1. A method of improving supply chain performance
comprising:
monitoring, by an application stored in a non-transitory
memory on a server and executable by a processor, a plurality of
sources, wherein each source of the plurality of sources is
associated with a different functional area of a plurality of
functional areas on a supply chain, and wherein the plurality of
functional areas comprises fulfillment, inbound, kitting,
customization, transportation, over-short-and-damaged,
reporting, inventory control, and end user tickets;
collecting, by the application, data from the plurality of
sources based on the monitoring, wherein the data is received by
the application from a plurality of remote servers associated with
different functional areas of the plurality of functional areas;
determining, by the application, a plurality of variables for
the collected data associated with at least one functional area of
the plurality of functional areas;
analyzing, by the application, the plurality of variables to
determine correlations between all variables to generate a
plurality of correlation values;
filtering, by the application, the plurality of correlation
values to generate a first filtered set of correlation values based
on a first factor and a first absolute value, wherein the first factor
comprises one of a period of time, a variable data reporting
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

3

entity, a product stock keeping unit (SKU), a piece of equipment,
an entire processing line, a process code, a manufacturing area, a
product launch, or a training initiative;
filtering, by the application, the first filtered set of
correlation values using a second absolute value to generate a
second filtered set of correlation values;
ranking, by the application, at least some variables of the
plurality of variables based on a number of correlation values of
the second filtered set of correlation values associated with each
of the at least some of the variables; and
using, by the application, at least the highest ranked
variable to improve supply chain performance by implementing
an additional system in at least one of the plurality of functional
areas associated with the highest ranked variable to perform an
additional quality check on products in the at least one of the
plurality of functional areas.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–7.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner concludes claims 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are
directed to judicially excepted subject matter. Final Act. 3–7. Appellant
argues the § 101 rejection of all claims as a group. Appeal Br. 18–25; Reply
Br. 4–9. We select claim 1 as representative of the claims on appeal.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(iv) (2016).
Appellant asserts the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 18–23; Reply Br. 4–5. Specifically, Appellant argues the claims
are more than just the abstract idea, “and do not preempt all improvements,”
of supply chain management because the claims transcend the abstract ideas
of mere data gathering or displaying results of data collection and analysis
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

4

by providing a specific solution to improve supply chain management.
Appeal Br. 18–23; Reply Br. 4–6.
Appellant also contends the particular combination of recited elements
adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 21–25; Reply Br. 6–
9. In particular, Appellant argues “none of the recited elements are well-
understood, routine, and conventional” (specifically identifying the step of
using a highest ranked variable to implement an additional system to
perform an additional quality check) and the Examiner fails to provide
evidence to show “the alleged features are well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the field.” Reply Br. 7–9.
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the United States Patent and Trademark
Office recently published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the
Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).
If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter),
we determine whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially
recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of our inquiry, we “look at the
‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s
‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs
of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
Guidance directs us to address this inquiry using the following two prongs of
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

5

analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea),
and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Under the Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application, the claim is patent eligible under § 101. Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., the
claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception
into a practical application), we next determine whether the claim provides
an inventive concept, which includes determining whether any element, or
combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, we conclude claim 1 is directed to mental processes (i.e., a
concept performed in the human mind, such as, an observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion), which are abstract ideas. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. Claim 1 generally is directed to ranking variables in data related
to supply chain functional areas and performing additional quality checks in
functional areas associated with the highest ranked variable(s).
This is consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed
embodiments of the invention. Spec. ¶¶ 4 (explaining that “enterprises may
collect data and determine metrics from that data regarding some facets of
the operations and attempt to use the data and metrics for process control
and management”), 14 (explaining that certain data collected related to
various functional areas within a supply chain “may be thought of as key
variables” or “”key performance indicators”), 15 (explaining that the
“increasing availability of data and the ability to store that data may result in
previously unrealized or only partially-realized interactions between the
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

6

variables that are associated with the data” and determining the variables
that “have the greatest degree of interactions” allows more efficient resource
allocation), 16 (describing various data analytics steps to identify the
variables having the greatest effect on the supply chain); accord Appeal
Br. 7–8, 10–11; see Spec. ¶¶ 23–27 (describing exemplary systems or supply
chains and the process of obtaining, analyzing, filtering, and ranking the
relevant key variables to identify a subset of variables to be managed), 32–
33 (describing additional details of filtering and correlating variables).
Appellant characterizes the invention as enabling “analysis of a large
amount of data from a plurality of sources” that may identify “previously
unknown relationships between a plurality of variables related to the
operations of an enterprise” or a supply chain by identifying correlations and
root causes of supply chain dependencies. Spec. ¶¶ 18–19, 47–48; accord
Appeal Br. 9–11.
Appellant characterizes the claims as providing a specific
technological solution that improves supply chain management, Appeal
Br. 18–23, but supply chain management is a business process, not a
technology. Moreover, according to Appellant’s own statements, claim 1
does not address a problem relating to the technology used in supply chain
management, but rather provides improved variable analysis and correlation
to identify functional areas where addressing issues may have a greater
impact. See Spec. ¶¶ 15–16 (describing the invention as using the increased
availability of data to identify key variables having the greatest effect on the
supply chain). Although Appellant describes the invention as a “specific
technological solution,” Appellant describes and broadly claims a solution
rooted in data collection and analysis.
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

7

Claim 1 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite
elements of the abstract idea of ranking variables in data related to supply
chain functional areas and performing additional quality checks in functional
areas associated with the highest ranked variable(s) emphasized in italics:
1. A method of improving supply chain performance
comprising:
monitoring, by an application stored in a non-transitory
memory on a server and executable by a processor, a plurality of
sources, wherein each source of the plurality of sources is
associated with a different functional area of a plurality of
functional areas on a supply chain, and wherein the plurality of
functional areas comprises fulfillment, inbound, kitting,
customization, transportation, over-short-and-damaged,
reporting, inventory control, and end user tickets;
collecting, by the application, data from the plurality of
sources based on the monitoring, wherein the data is received by
the application from a plurality of remote servers associated with
different functional areas of the plurality of functional areas;
determining, by the application, a plurality of variables for
the collected data associated with at least one functional area of
the plurality of functional areas;
analyzing, by the application, the plurality of variables to
determine correlations between all variables to generate a
plurality of correlation values;
filtering, by the application, the plurality of correlation
values to generate a first filtered set of correlation values based
on a first factor and a first absolute value, wherein the first factor
comprises one of a period of time, a variable data reporting
entity, a product stock keeping unit (SKU), a piece of equipment,
an entire processing line, a process code, a manufacturing area,
a product launch, or a training initiative;
filtering, by the application, the first filtered set of
correlation values using a second absolute value to generate a
second filtered set of correlation values;
ranking, by the application, at least some variables of the
plurality of variables based on a number of correlation values of
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

8

the second filtered set of correlation values associated with each
of the at least some of the variables; and
using, by the application, at least the highest ranked
variable to improve supply chain performance by implementing
an additional system in at least one of the plurality of functional
areas associated with the highest ranked variable to perform an
additional quality check on products in the at least one of the
plurality of functional areas.
More particularly, the abstract idea of ranking variables in data related
to supply chain functional areas and performing additional quality checks in
functional areas associated with the highest ranked variable(s) comprises
(i) monitoring a plurality of sources associated with functional areas in a
supply chain; (ii) collecting data from the monitoring; (iii) determining
variables associated with at least one of the functional areas; (iv) analyzing
the determined variables for correlations between the variables and
generating correlation values; (v) filtering the correlation values (twice)
based on certain factors to generate a subset of correlation values;
(vi) ranking some variables based on the filtered correlations values
associated with those variables; and (vii) using the highest ranked variable(s)
to “implement an additional system” in a function area associated with the
variable(s) “to perform an additional quality check on products.” The
monitoring, collecting, determining, analyzing, filtering, and ranking steps
fall squarely within the types of mental processes considered abstract—i.e.,
observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. We also determine the using step encompasses observations
and/or judgments. For example, the using step involves merely observation
and judgment because it at least encompasses using a variable to implement
an additional “system” that adds a second visual product inspection to a
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

9

system that previously included only one inspection (i.e., an observation)
prior to packaging the product and, in response to that inspection,
determining whether to package the product (i.e., a judgment).
The limitations that make up the concept recited in claim 1 are simply
a series of observations, evaluations, and judgements for receiving and
ranking variables in data related to supply chain functional areas and
performing additional quality checks in functional areas associated with the
highest ranked variable(s). Consistent with our Guidance and case law, we
conclude this concept is a mental process and, therefore, an abstract idea.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding “taking
existing information . . . and organizing this information into a new form” is
an abstract idea); SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F.
App’x 950, 954–56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding claims that provided
patient information and used knowledge bases including treatment regimens,
expert rules, and advisory information to generate, based on that
information, (1) a ranked list of treatment regimens and (2) advisory
information for treatment regimens were directed to an abstract idea); In re
Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 841 (Fed. Circ. 1989) (concluding claims to a process
of performing a clinical test, obtaining data therefrom, and determining
whether an abnormality exists, and determining causes of any abnormality
were ineligible); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (concluding claims were directed to the abstract idea of “selecting
certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and
reporting or displaying the results of the analysis”). If a claim, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

10

the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental
processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the
mind. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); see Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(concluding that “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” and concluding claims directed
to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis” were abstract); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding
claims that focused on collecting, displaying and manipulating data were
directed to an abstract idea).
Because claim 1 recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there are “any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”
and evaluate those elements to determine whether they integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Here, the additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception
itself fail to integrate the exception into a practical application. More
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

11

particularly, claim 1 does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality
of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial
exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an
article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other
meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55.
Rather, the additional elements simply use computers as tools to
implement the abstract idea requiring no more than generic computer
elements to perform generic computer functions or add insignificant extra-
solution activity. The only additional element recited in claim 1 is the
“application stored in a non-transitory memory on a server and executable
by a processor.” The application, memory, server, and processor are generic
computer elements recited at a high level of generality. The Specification
and claims provide only generic high-level descriptions of these elements,
without providing detail indicating these elements include any improvement
to existing computers or technology. Cf. Berkheimer Memo2 § III.A.1.

2 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.)” at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF (explaining that a specification that describes additional
elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the
particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can
show that the elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional).
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

12

Although the recited step of “using . . . the highest ranked variable to
improve supply chain performance by implementing an additional system
. . . to perform an additional quality check on products in” a functional area
associated with the highest ranked variable” is part of the recited abstract
idea, for purposes of this Decision, we alternatively evaluate this step as an
additional element. We disagree with Appellant that this step provides an
improvement to a technology or otherwise adds significantly more to the
abstract idea sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.
This is the step on which Appellant focuses their argument.
Specifically, Appellant argues this feature transcends mere data gathering
and displaying data collection and analysis results. Appeal Br. 18–23
(attempting to distinguish Electric Power and In re Grams). Appellant
contends the combination of the data collection, analysis, filtering, and
ranking steps and the broadly recited step of using a variable to improve
supply chain performance by implementing an additional system that
performs an additional quality check on products somehow goes beyond
collecting data, analyzing the data or diagnosing abnormal conditions in the
data, and displaying the results. See Br. 18–23. Appellant repeatedly
reproduces or characterizes the various claim limitations and states that the
claim language is different from, and more than, what was recited in Electric
Power and Grams, but Appellant provides no persuasive explanation of why
or how the claims differ from claims the Federal Circuit previously found
ineligible.
Notably, Appellant neither claims nor describes any claimed
technological improvement tied to the recited “additional system.” Rather,
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

13

Appellant merely claims a general use of a variable to implement a system to
achieve a goal of improving supply chain performance. As broadly recited,
this step encompasses simply outputting the variable so a person could use
the variable to perform an additional quality check, which is the type of
insignificant extra-solution activity the courts have determined insufficient
to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31; MPEP § 2106.05(g);
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (determining adjusting an alarm
limit in a process is insignificant extra-solution activity and explaining “[t]he
notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in
itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process
exalts form over substance”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.
of Can., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1065 (E.D. Mo. 2011) aff'd, 687 F.3d 1266
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that “providing data . . . [is] insignificant post-
solution activity”); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (holding the use of
well-known techniques to establish inputs to the abstract idea as extra-
solution activity that fails to make the underlying concept patent eligible);
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (recognizing “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”).
Similarly, to the extent Appellant relies on BASCOM Glob. Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred. See Appeal Br. 21–25. In BASCOM, the
court found “the patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

14

is a technical improvement” and, when construed in favor of BASCOM,3 the
claims may be read to improve an existing technological process. BASCOM,
827 F.3d at 1350. As discussed above, claim 1 does not improve an existing
technological process, but rather uses existing data to add a system to
perform the abstract idea to meet a desired functional goal (improving
supply chain performance). Additionally, unlike the arrangement of
elements (i.e., installation of a filtering tool at a specific location)
in BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349–50, claim 1 does not recite a non-
conventional and non-routine arrangement of known elements because the
additional system and the using a variable step is so broadly recited as to
encompass any known system as long as it performs an additional quality
check and improves supply chain performance.
Thus, we are not persuaded the using a variable step recites a
technological improvement. Rather, this step merely recites insignificant
activity that outputs a variable used to improve a business process, without
claiming or explaining any alleged improvement to technology. For at least
the foregoing reasons, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application and, therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Because we determine claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we
analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine whether there are
additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure
the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,

3 In BASCOM, BASCOM appealed the district court’s granting of a motion
to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1341
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

15

566 U.S. 66, 72–73, 77–79 (2012)). As stated in the Guidance, many of the
considerations to determine whether the claims amount to “significantly
more” under step two of the Alice framework are already considered as part
of determining whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a
practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our
analysis, we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination
of limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in
the field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
at a high level of generality. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
“Appellant contends that none of the recited elements are well-
understood, routine, and conventional” and argues the Examiner failed to
provide evidence showing “the alleged features are well-understood, routine,
and conventional in the field.” Reply Br. 6–8. Appellant appears to focus on
the using a variable to implement an additional system step. See Reply Br. 8.
An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of
nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd.
v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (explaining that, after determining
a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there
in the claims before us?’” (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an
element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to
the judicial exception and sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts
to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at
218–19 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

16

Court in Alice “only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-
understood, routine and conventional,” (emphasis added)).
Claim 1 fails to recite specific limitations (or a combination of
limitations) that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Rather,
the only additional elements (i.e., the “application stored in a non-transitory
memory on a server and executable by a processor” and the using a variable
step, which we previously noted we alternatively consider an additional
element for purposes of this Decision) are generic computer components
recited at a high level of generality or extra-solution activity, which do not
recite limitations beyond what was well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the field. See Berkheimer Memo § III.A.1. Notably, as
discussed above, the using a variable limitation is recited so broadly that it
encompasses using the variable to implement any “additional system” as
long as it performs an additional quality check and improves supply chain
performance. As discussed in the example above, this step encompasses
implementing an additional visual inspection prior to product packaging and
having a person determine whether the product should be packaged, which
does not even arguably constitute an action beyond what was well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the field of supply chain
management.
Finally, Appellant asserts, without further explanation, that “[t]he
pending claims do not preempt all improvements of supply chain.” Reply
Br. 6. We disagree that the lack of complete pre-emption demonstrates
patent eligibility in this case. Claim 1 limits the performance of the recited
mental processes only by: (1) requiring the steps to be performed by a
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

17

generic “application stored in a non-transitory memory on a server and
executable by a processor”; (2) identifying the particular functional areas of
a supply chain; (3) broadly specifying criteria on which the filtering steps
are based (i.e., “a first factor” comprising one of various elements, “a first
absolute value,” and “a second absolute value”); and (4) using a variable to
implement an additional system to perform an additional quality check. Such
limitations either constitute details that simply refine the abstract idea or, for
the reasons discussed above, are well-understood, routine and conventional
elements insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.
Moreover, although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject
matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility. . . . Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent
ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case,
preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
see also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“And [the fact] that the claims do not preempt all price optimization
or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do[es] not
make them any less abstract.”).
For the above reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner
error, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16,
17, 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2018-006968
Application 14/226,803

18

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, 17, 20 § 101 1–6, 8–12, 14, 16, 17, 20

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

AFFIRMED