Speich, Jan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

14860865 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
14/860,865 09/22/2015 Jan Speich 510672 4070
53609 7590 07/01/2020
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C.
2215 PERRYGREEN WAY
ROCKFORD, IL 61107
EXAMINER
ZEROUAL, OMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
RockMail@reinhartlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAN SPEICH,
TOBIAS LARSSON, and
MICHAEL HEIART

Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final decision to reject claims 1–20.1 We have jurisdiction 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(a). Appellant identifies Deutsche Post AG as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “the handling of information on
incidents, in particular the handling of information on incidents potentially
affecting shipments.” (Spec. para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below with
emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of responding to an incident so as to minimize
disruption of a supply chain, the method being performed by at
least one apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of the incident;
determining whether the incident is located in an area that
is defined to surround an entity of a supply chain network, the
entity being one of a supply chain node and a supply chain lane,
and whether the entity of the supply chain network is relevant for
a shipment associated with a company; and
causing a report of the incident to be sent to a user in case
at least one criterion is met, the at least one criterion comprising
that it is determined that the incident is located in an area that is
defined to surround an entity of a supply chain network and that
the entity of the supply chain network is relevant for a shipment
associated with the company.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Williams US 2015/0046361 A1 Feb. 12, 2015
Harring US 2013/0342343 A1 Dec. 26, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
judicially-excepted subject matter without significantly more..
Claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Williams.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

3
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Williams and Harring.
OPINION
The rejection of claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to judicially-excepted subject matter.
The Appellant argues these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 6–15.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 1–24 stand or fall with claim 24. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Preliminary comment
Previous Office guidance on patent subject matter eligibility has been
superseded by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter “2019 Revised 101 Guidance.”
See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related
guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP
(published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, we will not
address arguments on the sufficiency of the Examiner’s position relative
prior guidance but rather our analysis that follows will comport with the
2019 Revised 101 Guidance. We will pay particular attention to the
Examiner’s position taken in the Answer and Appellant’s arguments made in
the Reply Brief which are expressed in the context of the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance.

Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

4
Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever 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.”
In that regard, claim 1 covers a “process” and is thus statutory subject
matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is not in dispute.
However, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 provision “contains an important
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)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
In that regard, notwithstanding claim 1 covers statutory subject
matter, the Examiner has raised a question of patent eligibility on the ground
that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Alice step one — the “directed to” inquiry:
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
218 (emphasis added).
The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to “receiving data
about an incident, determining whether the incident affects a node of a

2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which
requires determining whether “the claim is to a statutory category.” 84 Fed.
Reg. at 53. See also id. at 53–54 (“consider[] whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. 101.”).
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

5
supply chain and presenting the results of the determining to the user.” Final
Act. 9. Specifically,
While independent claims 1, 10 and 20 do not explicitly recite
“receiving data about an incident, determining whether the
incident affects a node of a supply chain and presenting the
results of the determining to the user,” the concept of “receiving
data about an incident, determining whether the incident affects
a node of a supply chain and presenting the results of the
determining to the user” is described by the “receiving,
determining and causing” steps/functions of independent claim
1, 10 and 20. “Receiving data about an incident, determining
whether the incident affects a node of a supply chain and
presenting the results of the determining to the user” is a concept
similar to the collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis of Electric Power
Group.
None of independent claims 1, 10 and 20 improve
computer performance similar to Enfish, include rules that allow
a computer to perform new functions similar to McRo, or solve a
computer or computer network problem with a computer
solution similar to DDR. For these reasons independent claims 1,
10 and 20 are directed to a judicial exception.
Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea but rather an improvement in the technical field of logistics.
See Reply Br. 10.
Accordingly, there is a dispute over whether claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea. Specifically, is claim 1 directed to “receiving data about an
incident, determining whether the incident affects a node of a supply chain
and presenting the results of the determining to the user” (Final Act. 9) or an
improvement in the technical field of logistics (Reply Br. 10)?

Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

6
Claim Construction3
We consider the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable
construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the Specification at the time of filing.4,5,6
Claim 1 recites 3 steps (“receiving,” “determining,” and “causing”)
for “responding to an incident so as to minimize disruption of a supply
chain, the method being performed by at least one apparatus.” Claim 1,
preamble.
The first step is “receiving an indication of the incident.” While the
preamble calls for an “apparatus” to perform this step, this step is
nevertheless not attached to any particular apparatus. Apart from the

3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
‘claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.’ However, the threshold of § 101 must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).
5 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims. .
. . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is
important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part) (citing Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), among others.
6 See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, footnote 14 (“If a
claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation.”) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

7
“apparatus,” this step could be performed purely mentally. Human minds
have long been able to “receiv[e] an indication of [an] incident,” including in
attendant to responding to an incident.
The second step is “determining whether the incident is located in an
area that is defined to surround an entity of a supply chain network, the
entity being one of a supply chain node and a supply chain lane, and whether
the entity of the supply chain network is relevant for a shipment associated
with a company.” Apart from said “apparatus,” this step, too, could be
performed purely mentally. All this steps calls for is determining (a) whether
an incident is located in a certain area surrounding an entity and (b) whether
the entity is relevant for a shipment.
The last step is
causing a report of the incident to be sent to a user in case at least
one criterion is met, the at least one criterion comprising that it
is determined that the incident is located in an area that is defined
to surround an entity of a supply chain network and that the entity
of the supply chain network is relevant for a shipment associated
with the company.
According to this step, if an incident is located in a certain area surrounding
an entity and the entity is relevant for a shipment, then a report is sent to a
user. How the report is sent is left open. The step is reasonably broadly
construed as encompassing emailing the report. Notwithstanding that the
preamble calls for an “apparatus” to perform this step, printing and mailing
would be another common way to “caus[e] a report . . . to be sent to a user.”
Putting it together, the claim is reasonably broadly construed as
directed to a scheme for minimizing disruption of a supply chain by
reporting on an incident located in a certain area surrounding an entity
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

8
relevant for a shipment. This is in line with the Specification’s general
description of the invention. See, e.g., paras. 2 (“The invention relates to the
handling of information on incidents, in particular the handling of
information on incidents potentially affecting shipments”) and 7 (“It is an
object of the invention to enhance the reporting of incidents to users.”)
Given the method as claimed as reasonably broadly construed above
and in light of the Specification’s description of the objective of the
invention, we reasonably broadly construe claim 1 as being directed to
minimizing disruption of a supply chain by reporting on an incident located
in a certain area surrounding an entity relevant for a shipment.

The Abstract Idea7
Above, where we reproduce claim 1, we identify in italics the
limitations we believe recite an abstract idea.8 Based on our claim
construction analysis (above), we determine that the identified limitations
describe a scheme for minimizing disruption of a supply chain by reporting
on an incident located in a certain area surrounding an entity relevant for a
shipment. Minimizing supply chain disruptions, including via reporting on
incidents, is a commercial interaction. It falls within the enumerated
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” as grouping of abstract

7 This corresponds to Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A
determines “whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an
abstract idea. Step 2A is two prong inquiry.
8 This corresponds to Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance. “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong
One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the
claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner
believes recites an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

9
ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance.9 2019 Revised 101
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.

Technical Improvement10 (Appellant’s Argument)
Our characterization of what the claim is directed to is similar to that
of the Examiner’s. The Examiner describes it in somewhat more detail,
paralleling the steps of the claimed method; that is, at a lower level of

9 This corresponds to Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
Judicial Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the
[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This case implicates
subject matter grouping “(b):” “(b) Certain methods of organizing human
activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including
agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including
social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Id. at 52.
10 This corresponds to Prong Two [“If the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a
Practical Application”] of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A
claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will
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.” 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an
additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the
exception into a practical application” is if “[a]n additional element reflects
an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to
other technology or technical field.” Id. at 55.

Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

10
abstraction. But “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240–41
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The Board’s slight revision of its abstract idea analysis
does not impact the patentability analysis.”).
We have reviewed the record and are unpersuaded as to error in our or
the Examiner’s characterization of what claim 1 is directed to.
Appellant presents a section entitled “A. The Examiner erred by
distilling the claims down to a gist in identifying the alleged abstract idea”
(Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)) that contends that the Examiner wrongly
distilled the claims into a gist of the invention and in doing so failed to
identify an abstract idea recited in the claims. We disagree with that
assessment.
Above we stated that the Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed
to “receiving data about an incident, determining whether the incident
affects a node of a supply chain and presenting the results of the determining
to the user.” Final Act. 9. Accordingly, the Examiner did identify an abstract
idea. That the Examiner used words such as “data” and “affects” that do not
precisely mirror what is recited in the claim does not change the fact that, in
following step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner provided a
characterization of the subject matter to which the claim is directed to and
properly determined that said subject matter is an abstract idea. As we have
shown by our claim construction analysis set forth above, whereby we
considered the claim as a whole giving it the broadest reasonable
construction as one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it in
light of the Specification at the time of filing, the Examiner’s
characterization of what the claim is directed to is similar to ours. We are
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

11
satisfied that the Examiner did not distill the claim into a gist of an invention
so unrelated to what is claimed as to undermine the determination under step
one of the Alice framework that the claim is directed to an abstract idea as
the Examiner has characterized it.
The section entitled “B. The Examiner erred by admittedly not
considering the claims in their entirety, including the preamble” (Appeal Br.
8) (emphasis omitted) makes a similar contention. But we are satisfied that
that the Examiner did not overlook claim limitations, such as the preamble,
in reaching the determination under step one of the Alice framework that the
claim is directed to an abstract idea as the Examiner has characterized it. At
any rate, we have done so in our claim construction analysis.
Appellant also argues that
The limitations in the body of claims 1, 10, and 20 invoke the
limitations of the preamble (e.g., with reference back to the
incident introduced in the preamble and to segments of a supply
chain, such as nodes and lanes) so as to provide a specific method
for addressing a specific problem in a specific way. Vanda
Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int'l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 1136
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (discussing the identification of a specific
problem and specific steps for addressing that problem).
Appeal Br. 8. According to Appellant, “the claims do not recite an
abstract idea with a step of applying it, and instead, the claims identify a
specific problem and recite specific steps to address that problem.” Id. A
similar argument is made in the section entitled “C. The Examiner erred by
relying on a inapposite comparison to the claims of Electric Power Group in
determining that the present claims are directed to an abstract idea.” Id.
(emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

12
The difficulty with this argument is that identifying a specific problem
and reciting specific steps to address the problem is not determinative of
whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice
framework. Vanda does not say otherwise. “In Vanda, the claims recited an
actual improved treatment for schizophrenia,” INO Therapeutics LLC v.
Praxair Distribution Inc., 782 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis
added). Here, no technical improvement is evident, notwithstanding the
claim recites steps to address a problem.
Regarding any technical improvement, Appellant does argue that
the claims amount to an improvement to a technical field,
specifically the technical field of logistics. In particular, the
method according to the present claims provides the “advantage
that data on shipments that is available and regularly updated
anyhow can be exploited,” which allows “the data for a supply
chain network [to] be assembled automatically and quite
comprehensively with no or reduced burden on the company.”
Specification, para. [0022]. Additionally, the method has the
advantage “that detected incidents may be filtered to reduce the
number of incidents that are reported to the user.” Specification,
para. [0011]. . . . [T]he method is distinguished by the ability to
store information about a supply chain network, not just about a
current journey. In this regard, data regarding the supply chain
network is readily available whenever needed, such as re-routing
when a different incident affects a current journey. Accordingly,
the claims represent an improvement in the technical field of
logistics.
Reply Br. 10.
The difficulty with this argument is that it is not commensurate in
scope with what is claimed. Regular updating of data, automatic assembling
of data, and storing information, to name a few of the argued-over features,
are nowhere mentioned in the claim.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

13
The claim is not focused on any technical improvement but rather on a
scheme for minimizing disruption of a supply chain by reporting on an
incident located in a certain area surrounding an entity relevant for a
shipment. Minimizing disruption in the general way claimed, devoid of
technical details explaining how it is accomplished, is not a technical
improvement. Cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378,
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims are focused on providing information to
traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, ’556
patent at 2:26–39, not on improving computers or technology.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant’s logistics-improvement
argument is unpersuasive as to error in the Examiner’s or our
characterization of what the claim is directed to because the record fails to
adequately support it. Without more, the argument alone is unpersuasive.
See generally In re Glass, 474 F.2d 1015, 1019 (CCPA 1973); see also In re
Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA
1965).
We have carefully reviewed the claim. Per our previous claim
construction analysis, claim 1 is reasonably broadly construed as a scheme
for minimizing disruption of a supply chain by reporting on an incident
located in a certain area surrounding an entity relevant for a shipment. We
see no specific asserted improvement in logistics or computer capabilities
recited in the claim.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

14
The claim provides no additional structural details that would
distinguish the recited “apparatus” from any other generic counterparts.11
With respect to the “receiving,” “determining,” and “causing a report”
steps, the Specification attributes no special meaning to any of these
operations, individually or in the combination, as claimed. In our view, even
if assuming arguendo that the claimed “apparatus” was limited to a
computer, these are common computer processing functions that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have known
generic computers were capable of performing and would have associated
with generic computers. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Beyond the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization, the
claims merely recite “well-understood, routine conventional
activit[ies],” either by requiring conventional computer activities
or routine data-gathering steps. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting
Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) . . . . For example, claim 1 recites
“sending a first set of electronic messages over a network to
devices,” the devices being “programmed to communicate,”
storing test results in a “machine-readable medium,” and “using
a computerized system . . . to automatically determine” an
estimated outcome and setting a price. Just as in Alice, “all of
these computer functions are ‘well-understood, routine,
conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.”
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)
(alterations in original); see also buySAFE[, Inc. v. Google, Inc.],
765 F.3d [1350,] 1355 [(Fed. Cir. 2014)] (“That a computer

11 Cf. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) (“Claim 1 is aspirational in nature and devoid
of any implementation details or technical description that would permit us
to conclude that the claim as a whole is directed to something other than the
abstract idea identified by the district court.”).
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

15
receives and sends the information over a network—with no
further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
At best, the “apparatus” distinguishes over other generic devices
known at the time the application was filed in the type of information being
processed — such as, “an indication of the incident.” But that alone is not
patentably consequential. This is so because “[c]laim limitations directed to
the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are
not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent
eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v.
Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance,
we find there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical
application.
We have considered Appellant’s other arguments challenging the
Examiner’s determination under step one of the Alice framework and find
them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the record supports the
Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.

Alice step two — Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?12
Step two is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in

12 This corresponds to Step 2B, of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 “if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial
exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the
additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to
determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the
additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).”
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

16
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)).
In that regard, the Examiner determined that the claim(s) do not
include “additional elements” that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements,
which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional
computer functions that “do not [add] meaningful limitations [to] practicing
the abstract idea.” Ans. 6, 12; see also Final Act. 3. We agree.
We addressed the matter of whether there were any purported specific
asserted improvements in logistics and computer capabilities in our analysis
above under step one of the Alice framework. This is consistent with the
case law. See Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have several times held claims to pass muster under
Alice step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements.”). Such an
argument can also challenge a determination under step two of the Alice
framework. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354–55. “[R]ecent Federal Circuit
jurisprudence has indicated that eligible subject matter can often be
identified either at the first or the second step of the Alice/Mayo
[framework].” See 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53, n.17.
Be that as it may, we are unpersuaded that claim 1 presents an element
or combination of elements indicative of a specific asserted technical
improvement in logistics or computer capabilities, thereby rendering the
claimed subject matter sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
amounts to significantly more than a patent upon a scheme for minimizing
disruption of a supply chain by reporting on an incident located in a certain
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

17
area surrounding an entity relevant for a shipment. We have reviewed the
claim in light of the Specification and, as explained above, we can find no
suggestion of any improvement as a result of performing the steps as broadly
as they are recited.
The Specification is evidence that the claimed “apparatus” is
conventional. See Spec. e.g., para. 12 (“The apparatus can be for example
a server or a module for a server. The means could be hardware means,
software means or a combination of both.”) In so citing to the Specification,
we have followed “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject
Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v.
HP Inc.[, 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)],” USPTO Memorandum, Robert
W. Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy, April 19,
2018 (the “Berkheimer Memo”)).
Here, the Specification indisputably evidences the recited “apparatus”
individually and in the context as claimed was conventional at the time of
filing. Accordingly, there is sufficient factual support for the well-
understood, routine, or conventional nature of the claimed “apparatus,”
individually or in the combination as claimed.
The Appellant argues that
With respect to Mayo’s “significantly more” analysis in
Step 2B, the Examiner has erred by only looking at hardware
components themselves recited in the claims, such as processors,
memory, apparatus, etc. . . . Here, the Examiner has ignored
whether the way in which the method is performed is, in and of
itself, unconventional, non-routine, or not well-understood.
Indeed, the Examiner has failed to consider whether, e.g., a step
of determining if the incident near an entity involves “the entity
of the supply chain network [that] is relevant for a shipment
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

18
associated with a company” is routine, convention, or well-
understood.
Appeal Br. 11.
The difficulty with this argument is that it looks to the claim’s result-
based functional language as the basis for contending that the claim is
something that is not routine, conventional or well-understood and thereby
adds “significantly more.” Rather than being based on any technical details,
the argument looks to the very scheme (“receiving,” “determining,” and
“causing to report”) that we have already characterized as being an abstract
idea. In effect, the Appellant is arguing that the abstract idea is not routine,
conventional or well-understood. But “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or
even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n
for Molecular Pathology, 569 U.S. at 591. The non-routine, unconventional
and not well-understood nature of the abstract idea does not affect the
determination that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea
itself cannot amount to “‘significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 218, (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 73), whether or not it is non-routine, unconventional and not well-
understood.
We are unpersuaded that claim 1 presents an element or combination
of elements indicative of a specific asserted technical improvement, thereby
rendering the claimed subject matter sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon a scheme for
minimizing disruption of a supply chain by reporting on an incident located
in a certain area surrounding an entity relevant for a shipment.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

19
No other persuasive arguments having been presented, we conclude
that no error has been committed in the determination under Alice step two
that claim 1 does not include an element or combination of elements
circumscribing the patent-ineligible concept it is directed to so as to
transform the concept into an inventive application.
We have considered all of the Appellant’s arguments (including those
made in the Reply Brief) and find them unpersuasive.
Accordingly, because we are not persuaded as to error in the
determinations that representative claim 1, and claims 2–24 which stand or
fall with claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea and do not present an
“inventive concept,” we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that they are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter for being judicially-excepted
from 35 U.S.C. § 101. Cf. LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x
991, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have considered all of LendingTree’s
remaining arguments and have found them unpersuasive. Accordingly,
because the asserted claims of the patents in suit are directed to an abstract
idea and do not present an ‘inventive concept,’ we hold that they are directed
to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”); see, e.g., OIP Techs.,
788 F.3d at 1364; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The rejection of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Williams.
All the independent claims (claims 1, 10, and 20) require
“determining whether the incident is located in an area that is defined to
surround an entity of a supply chain network, the entity being one of a
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

20
supply chain node and a supply chain lane, and whether the entity of the
supply chain network is relevant for a shipment associated with a company.”
According to the Examiner this is described in paragraphs 4, 28–31,
65, 76, 87 of Williams. Final Act. 11. The cited passages are reproduced
below:
• [0004] In one disclosed embodiment, a method for managing a
shipped physical object is disclosed. The method comprises
receiving data associated with a journey of the shipped object,
determining, using a processor, an alert condition based on the
received data, wherein the alert condition is representative of a risk
of damage, loss, or delay associated with the shipped object,
transmitting one or more alternative options for mitigating the alert
condition to a user, receiving a selection of one of the alternative
options, and modifying the journey based on the received selection.
• [0028] In some embodiments, host carrier system 130 may receive
data from one or more third party systems 150 by a data interface
such as, for example, an application programming interface (API).
Third party system 150 may be operated by a third party entity such
as a partner carrier, a news service, a weather service, a government
agency, or any other entity involved in the shipping process.
• [0029] Partner carriers may include, for example, airlines, shipping
lines, trucking lines, railways, or couriers. Host carrier system 130
may receive data associated with a journey from one or more third
party systems 150 operated by partner carriers such as, for example,
scheduling data, delay data, pricing data, and package scan data.
Scheduling and delay data may include, for example, timetables,
information regarding delays, mechanical breakdowns, accidents,
and cancellations. Pricing data may include, for example, price rates
for different package sizes, weights, routes, modes of transportation,
and shipping speed. Package scan data may include, for example,
time-stamped location information of a package. Package scan data
may also include, for example, annotations for each scan to indicate
package arrival at a location, processing, departure, hand-off to
customs, receipt from customs, hand-off to another carrier, and final
destination delivery. In some embodiments, host carrier system 130
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

21
may maintain a database of flight data including host carrier flights
and partner carrier flights.
• [0030] In some embodiments, one or more third party system 150
are operated by a local or national news service. Host carrier system
130 may receive news data from the news service regarding events
that may impact shipping efficiency such as, for example, road, rail,
airport, or sea port closures, natural disasters, evacuations, holidays,
crime reports, and any other local or national news regarding
situations that may impact the shipping industry.
• [0031] In some embodiments, one or more third party system 150
are operated by a local or national weather service. Host carrier
system 130 may receive weather data from the weather service such
as, for example, precipitation forecasts, storm and inclement
weather forecasts, storm path tracking and forecasts, heat alerts,
temperature forecasts, weather trends, historical weather data, and
any other weather data that may be relevant to shipping efficiency.
• [0065] In step 460, server 210 determines whether one or more alert
conditions have been identified. Alert conditions may include, for
example, the risk of damage to package contents from heat or
excessive motion sensed by sensor device 120. As another example,
alert conditions may include flight delays due to weather, holiday
high volume congestion, or delays in customs ports/terminals.
• [0076] In step 516, server 210 may update third party data 226 stored
in database 220 with newly received third party data. Data models
may be updated in step 517. One or more data models may be
created and updated using predictive analytics module 217. The data
models may incorporate various portions of host carrier data 221,
customer data 222, journey data 224, third party data 226, and/or
analytics data 228. Furthermore, data for all of the host carrier’s
customers may be anonymized and incorporated into the data
models, to improve accuracy. Data models may allow predictive
analytics module 217 to predict future alert conditions based on data
for a current journey. For example, a data model may be generated
to simulate the effects of seasonal weather patterns on package
contents, using sensor device 120 temperature readings, historical
weather data, weather forecast data, and historical reports of heat
damage. Such a data model may alert customer 112 and host carrier
system 130 of probable heat damage, based on the current journey
data input into the data model. As another example, one or more data
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

22
models may simulate the effects of various journey modifications,
to provide better recommendations to customer 112. Expanding
upon the weather model example discussed above, the data model
may incorporate weather patterns of alternative routes, weather
effects on different transportation methods, or the temperature effect
on different shipping speeds. Server 210 may use such a model to
generate recommendations for customer 112 to highlight the
alternative options that would best suit customer 112’s needs,
further discussed with regard to FIG. 6.
• [0087] FIGS. 9-13 illustrate exemplary graphic user interfaces
generated by server 210 based on detected alert conditions and
outputs of predictive analytics module 217. Predictive analytics
module 217 may perform continuous background processing of
some or all data received from sensor device 210, third party
systems 150, customer device 110, and host carrier terminal 230, as
well as host carrier data 221, customer data 222, journey data 224,
third party data 226, and analytics data 228. Predictive analytics
module 217 may determine aspects for a current journey, or for a
new journey being created by customer 112, by analyzing
historically collected data to detect trends and patterns. Aspects may
include, for example, cost, estimated time of journey, probability
that the package will become off pace (e.g., delayed) or off track
(e.g., lost), arrive safe and sound, experience tampering, damage, or
other types of loss. Probabilities of delay may be determined by
analyzing, for example, occurrences and patterns of flight or trip
cancellations by different carriers, weather patterns at certain times
of the year, traffic due to holidays, or average times for passing
through different ports of customs agencies.
We are unable to discern from reading these passages whether
Williams describes, expressly or inherently, the claimed determining step.
The Final Action is of little assistance because it does not fully explain what
in these passages the Examiner has equated to the “supply chain network,”
the “entity,” and the “supply chain lane,” among other elements, of the
claimed determining step. Although, the Examiner does appear to equate
Williams’ “airport, terminal” to the claimed node. See Final Act. 11. The
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

23
Answer makes an effort but it, too, is insufficient. Various terms in the
claimed determining step (e.g., “supply chain lane”) are not mentioned in
Williams and the Examiner does not point us to anything specific in these
disclosures. Factual findings that “each and every limitation is found either
expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference” is required before
a determination is made that a claim is anticipated. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v.
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Since that has
not been done, a prima facie case of anticipation has not been made out in
the first instance and for that reason the rejection is not sustained.

The rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Williams and Harring.
Claims 6 and 15 depend from independent claims 1 and 10,
respectively. The Examiner relies on Williams for describing the subject
matter of claims 1 and 10. Since we have been unable to discern whether
Williams in fact describes the determining step of said subject matter and
given that claims 6 and 15 necessarily include the subject matter of the
independent claims from which they depend, a prima facie case of
obviousness for the subject matter of claims 6 and 15 has also not been made
out in the first instance.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
More specifically:
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to judicially-excepted subject matter is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2019-004250
Application 14/860,865

24
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Williams is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Williams and Harring is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 1–20
1–5, 7–14,
16–20
102 Williams 1–5, 7–14,
16–20
6, 15 103 Williams, Harring 6, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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