VAANANEN, Mikko

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 15, 2020

15409576 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 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.
15/409,576 01/19/2017 Mikko VAANANEN P150609US1 4302
129597 7590 06/15/2020
Mikko Kalervo Vaananen
PO Box 346
Street address: Unioninkatu 20-22, Suite B351
Helsinki, 00131
FINLAND
EXAMINER
BUCHANAN, CHRISTOPHER R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2020 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):
patents@suinno.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIKKO VAANANEN
____________

Appeal 2019–0001191
Application 15/409,576
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Oral arguments were presented April 27, 2020.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Mikko Vaananen (Appellant3) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
a final rejection of claims 6–21 and 34–38, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of providing location information to a
drone system, continuously or at random or short intervals which the drone
can use to approach a user dynamically. Specification 2:23–26.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 11, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
11. A method for delivering products and/or services,
comprising
[0.1] at least one mobile subscriber terminal,
[0.2] at least one drone
and/or
[0.3] at least one server computer,
and

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed June 15, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 2,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 25, 2018),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 9, 2018).
3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant does not identify a separate real party in
interest.

Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

3

[0.4] a communication network,
characterised [sic] in that,
[1] the mobile subscriber terminal application allows the user to
select a product or service,
[2] the application receives the user choice and transmits the
choice and/or social network profile or personal data of the user
to the drone directly and/or via the cloud server computer with
the location of the mobile subscriber that made the selection,
[3] the location of the mobile subscriber terminal is sent
automatically and multiple times to the drone,
[4] at least one drone retrieves the product and/or prepares for
delivery of service and approaches the moving mobile
subscriber location that is sent multiple times to the drone as the
location changes until the product or service is delivered to the
mobile subscriber terminal location of the mobile consumer.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Jones US 2014/0277854 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Ganesh US 2016/0068264 A1 Mar. 10, 2016
Claims 6–21 and 34–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 6–21 and 34–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ganesh and Jones.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether Jones describes
sending location information multiple times.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

4

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Ganesh
01. Ganesh is directed to security for a delivery drone to prevent
tampering and malicious acts by third parties. Ganesh para. 3.
02. Ganesh describes a drone delivering a package of goods to a
delivery destination and providing a notification to a device of a
purchaser, and that the drone has arrived near the delivery
destination. The drone may hover at a secure altitude from a
landing zone at the delivery destination. The drone may receive a
purchase code associated with a purchase of the package of goods.
The drone may authenticate the purchase code as a condition for
landing. The drone may land in the landing zone at the delivery
destination when the purchase code is authenticated. When the
purchase code is not authenticated, the drone may abort the
landing in the landing zone at the delivery destination. Ganesh
para. 3.
03. Ganesh describes how the purchaser may have moved to a
new destination and may have modified the delivery destination.
The new destination information may be conveyed to the drone
through one or more of the wireless connections. Ganesh para.
51.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

5

04. Ganesh describes the landing pad using a wireless connection
with the drone for communicating landing related information.
Ganesh para. 72.
Jones
05. Jones is directed to a drone and methods for use. Jones para. 1.
06. Jones describes receiving location information of a customer
and a message, and piloting the drone to a location near the
customer. Jones para. 11.
07. Jones describes customers using a mobile device to access the
internet from a location within the mall. Customers may interact
with a social networking application provided by application
server or a third-party application hosted on a database server,
with which application server may also interact. When a customer
opts-in to a promotion system linked to application server, the
mobile device may transmit the customer's location to the
application server via the internet. In various embodiments, the
mobile device may connect to a local wi-fi network to transmit the
location data to application server. The location data may reach
the drone network at firewall, and travel through router, switch,
and any other nodes necessary to reach application server. The
application server may use the location data to select target
customers and to generate a travel path. The application server
may transmit the travel path including way points to drone via
wireless access point. The location information and travel path
may be updated continuously. The drone may use the travel path
to navigate to the customer location and may communicate with
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

6

customer using audio or visual communication, and may deliver
coupons, receipts, and other promotional materials, for example
advertisements physically attached to the drone. Jones para. 68.
08. Jones describes the network receiving location data of
customers. Customers may provide location data to the network.
For example, the application server may receive location data via
Facebook, Foursquare, QRC Check-In, Google Maps, or any other
location indicating service. The customer may use the social
networking application and a customer mobile device to provide
real-time location information to the network. Jones para. 81.
ANALYSIS
Claims 6–21 and 34–38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 14
Claim 11, 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

4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

7

else is there in the 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. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, 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 the 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, 84 Fed. Reg. 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 11 recites selecting data, receiving and transmitting choice data,
sending location data, and processing drone data. Selecting data is
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

8

rudimentary analysis. Sending data is transmitting data. Thus, claim 11
recites analyzing, receiving, transmitting, and processing data. None of the
limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
Claim 11 additionally recites that a drone retrieves a product and approaches
for delivery. The mere physicality of this limitation is insufficient to confer
eligibility.
[R]eliance on the asserted claims being directed to “physical
real world manifestation[s] of an improved machine” is
misplaced. Without more, the mere physical nature of CGI’s
claim elements (e.g., controller, interface, and wireless data
transmitter) is not enough to save the claims from abstractness,
where the claimed advance is directed to the wireless
communication of status information using off-the-shelf
technology for its intended purpose.
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2019). See also In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157,
1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the abstract idea exception does not turn solely on
whether the claimed invention comprises physical versus mental steps”).
From this we see that claim 11 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 in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts5, (2) certain methods of organizing

5 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 America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

9

human activity6, and (3) mental processes7. Among those certain methods of
organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or
legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 11 recites the concept of
managing customer delivery. Specifically, claim 11 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to deliver to a customer at a
location indicated by the customer mobile. The advice to deliver to a
customer at a location indicated by the customer mobile involves delivering
products and/or services, which is an economic act, and retrieving the
product and preparing for delivery of service, which is an act ordinarily
performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 11 recites
“delivering products and/or services,” which is an activity that would take
place whenever one is fulfilling a commercial transaction. Similarly, claim
11 recites “retrieves the product and/or prepares for delivery of service,”
which is also characteristic of fulfilling a commercial transaction.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to purchase and
delivery of a product or service. Final Act. 2. The preamble to claim 11
recites that it is a method for delivering products and/or services. The steps
in claim 11 result in managing customer delivery by delivering to a customer
at a location indicated by the customer mobile absent any technological
mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.

6 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).
7 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 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

10

As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–4 recite generic and
conventional analyzing, receiving, transmitting, and processing of customer
delivery data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
results. The limitations thus recite advice for delivering to a customer at a
location indicated by the customer mobile. To advocate delivering to a
customer at a location indicated by the customer mobile is conceptual advice
for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at 2:23–26 describes the invention as relating to
providing location information to a drone system, continuously or at random
or short intervals which a drone can use to approach a user dynamically.
Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 11 recites managing
customer delivery. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing customer
delivery fulfills a commercial transaction. The concept of managing
customer delivery by delivering to a customer at a location indicated by the
customer mobile is one idea for managing the information for the delivery.
The steps recited in claim 11 are part of how this might conceptually be
premised.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 11 recites
managing customer delivery by delivering to a customer at a location
indicated by the customer mobile, 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.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

11

STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 11 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.8
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 “ ‘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 2 and 3 recite basic conventional
data operations such as receiving, transmitting, generating, updating, and
storing data. Steps 1 and 4 recite generic computer processing expressed in
terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no
more than conceptual advice.
Claim 11 additionally recites that a drone retrieves a product and
approaches for delivery. As to this limitation,

8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

12

[t]he appropriate question is not whether the entire claim as a
whole was “well-understood, routine [and] conventional” to a
skilled artisan (i.e., whether it lacks novelty), but rather, . . .
whether each of “the [elements] in the claimed [product] (apart
from the natural laws themselves) involve well-understood,
routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by
researchers in the field,”
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348–49
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). Examples of drones used
as such is so conventional, many have seen them on the evening news. To
the extent Appellant considers such use in a waitressing context to be
inventive, context cannot confer eligibility. “The Supreme Court and this
court have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the
abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not
render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV,
LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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 11 simply recites the concept of
managing customer delivery by delivering to a customer at a location
indicated by the customer mobile 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 11 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
a computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

13

technology or technical field. The 25+ pages of specification (excluding
references page) do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different
generic equipment9 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of managing customer delivery by delivering to a customer at a
location indicated by the customer mobile under different scenarios. They
do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer
functions. Instead, claim 11 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more
than an instruction to apply managing customer delivery by delivering to a
customer at a location indicated by the customer mobile 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 reflects 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 the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.

9 The Specification describes a mobile subscriber terminal, a drone, a server
computer, and a communication network. Spec. 5:13–15.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

14

The limitation of a drone delivering some product is a conventional
and generic operation and the limitations recite normal and ordinary drone
operation and use10. As such this recites no more than the conceptual idea
for doing so. To the extent limitation 3 is interpreted as improving the
ability of a drone to find a moving target, this limitation and the remaining
claim limitations recite no implementation details for doing so. Limitation 3
simply recites the conceptual idea of repeatedly sending data. The
Specification provides no more implementation details, only stating that “the
at least one drone 120 is configured to retrieve the product and/or prepare for
delivery of service and/or product and approach the mobile subscriber
location that is optionally being sent multiple times to the drone 120 until the
product or service is delivered.” Spec. 12:20–23. Also
at least one drone (120) is configured to retrieve the product
and/or prepare for delivery of service and approach the mobile
subscriber location that is optionally being sent multiple times
to the drone 120 until the product or service is delivered.
Alternatively, the product or service is delivered to another
location specified by the user from the mobile subscriber
terminal, and this location can also be sent multiple times,
especially when it changes, e.g. due to the movement of the
person and/or drone to whom the delivery has been sent.
Spec. 14:5–12. Also
the drone prepares for delivery of service and approaches the
mobile subscriber terminal location while carrying the mug of
Diet Coke. This location is optionally being sent wirelessly
multiple times to the drone until the Diet Coke is delivered in
phase 340, which allows the customer to move around, as the
drone will bring the Diet Coke to where ever he happens to be

10 The Specification defines a drone as “the drone is essentially a robot, a
quadrocopter or any flying drone, or a self driving car.” Spec. 3:30–31.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

15

with his mobile subscriber terminal that is transmitting the
location.
Spec. 15:13–18.
All descriptions only state that the location data is sent wirelessly and
multiple times. The limitations do not narrow or otherwise describe the path
the location data traverses in doing so or how such transmission occurs. The
absence of further details as to how this is done enforces the idea that
navigation proceeds in the same conventional and generic manner. This is
no more than the conceptual idea of refreshing information with time
passage. This is not a technological application or implementation detail. It
is conceptual advice.
We conclude that claim 11 is directed to achieving the result of
managing customer delivery by advising one to deliver to a customer at a
location indicated by the customer mobile, 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 11 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.
[T]he 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
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

16

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 “implement[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 generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[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 analyzing, receiving, transmitting, and processing 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. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 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 is used in some
unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

17

Appellant does not contend it 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 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 11 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data analysis-reception-
transmission-processing 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 11 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 11 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

18

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 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 managing customer delivery by advising one to deliver to
a customer at a location indicated by the customer mobile, without
significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Applicant firmly disagrees with the decision that waitressing
technology is not patent eligible. The USPTO is inconsistent
and arbitrary, because many waitressing technologies, such as
reservation and invoicing systems are being patented all the
time, and rightfully so.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

19

The claims define a previously unknown, unconventional social
drone. The social drone waiter that can find customers when
they roam inside the restaurant and with which the customers
can interact with ease via the social network is a concrete idea
that was unknown and highly unconventional at the time of the
invention.
Appeal Br. 6. The issue is not whether a technology is eligible. The issue is
whether the claims are eligible. Appellant’s contention that such technology
is patented previously only highlights this distinction. Such patents are
eligible because the claims as drafted in those patents are eligible. Appellant
does not show how any of the claims in such patents are similar to the
instant claims. The claims do not define or recite a previously unknown,
unconventional social drone. Instead, exemplary claim 11 recites “at least
one drone,” a generic drone. None of the claims further limit the drone
structure other than it be capable of delivering some package and be able to
receive data signals. Such limitations are generic and conventional.
Appellant tellingly defines “the social drone waiter that can find customers
when they roam inside the restaurant and with which the customers can
interact with ease via the social network” as an idea, which is a concept.
That such an idea is unconventional cannot confer eligibility. The inventive
element cannot be an abstract idea.
Yet wireless transmission is the only aspect of the claims that
CGI points to as allegedly inventive over the prior art. . . .
Wireless communication cannot be an inventive concept here,
because it is the abstract idea that the claims are directed to.
Because CGI does not point to any inventive concept present in
the ordered combination of elements beyond the act of wireless
communication, we find that no inventive concept exists in the
asserted claims sufficient to transform the abstract idea of
communicating status information about a system into a patent-
eligible application of that idea.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

20

Chamberlain Grp., 935 F.3d at 1349. Chamberlain Group (CGI) patented a
wireless process for controlling a garage door. Much as Appellant argues as
to drones, garage doors are the subject of numerous prior patents. But in
Chamberlain, the Court found the claims were directed to wirelessly
communicating status information about a system. Id. All the remaining
limitations were conventional. That they were physical did not confer
eligibility. The inventive concept was wireless communication, which the
Court held to be an abstract idea.
Analogously, in the instant claims, the drone, mobile terminal, and
server, along with communications among them, are all conventional. The
inventive concept is that of sending a location signal to the drone multiple
times. Much like the concept of wireless communication in Chamberlain,
this idea of transmitting location data multiple times is both conventional
and a conceptual idea. Sending locating signals to aid navigation multiple
times is the conceptual basis for conventional homing beacons.11
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
claims 6–10 and 16–21 and 34–38 should still be allowed. At
best, only the method claims might be argued to describe or
relate to a "business practice". However, it is clear that the

11 See, e.g., Homing System definition as a navigational system for homing
in on a beacon, transponder, or other target, Morris, Christopher G., Morris,
Christopher W. Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology.
Faroe Islands: Elsevier Science, p. 1038, 1992.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Academic_Press_Dictionary_
of_Science_and/nauWlPTBcjIC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Also see e.g., Radio Homing Beacon, New Construction Navigational Aids:
Construction Design Information. United States: Department of the Air
Force, p. 91, 1958. https://www.google.com/books/edition/
New_Construction_Navigational_Aids/N_wL10NjgesC?hl=en&gbpv=0
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

21

software program and the drone system claims relate to
computers and robotics which are both patent eligible fields.
Reply Br. 2. Fields are never eligible, claims sometimes are. The eligibility
of the claims, not of entire fields, is at issue. The analysis supra supports the
conclusion that the claims are ineligible.
Claims 6–21 and 34–38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ganesh and Jones
Claims 6, 11, 16, and 34 are independent. Claims 6 and 16 are
software claims. Claim 11 is a method claim. Claim 34 is a system claim.
Apart from the differences in such drafting style, the substance of all four
claims is similar. A customer selects a product or service and a drone
delivers the product or service. To do so, some application receives location
information from a customer wireless device and transmits the location data
multiple times to the drone. The result is that if the customer moves, the
drone still delivers the product or service because the location is transmitted
multiple times. The sole issue argued is whether it was known or otherwise
predictable to transmit the location multiple times to the drone.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
Jones does not disclose the mobile station sending the location
multiple times. The customer location is given only once. The
drone path may be updated continuously in Jones. However,
this drone path update of Jones is not even similar to the
"homing in" type of implementation of the invention, where the
location of the customer is updated multiple times, and the
destination is continuously changing. In Jones, the customer
stays still, but the path to the customer may be updated. In the
invention the customer can move, as the destination (=customer
location) of the drone path is continuously updated.
App. Br. 6. Also
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

22

[w]ith regard to 103, paragraph 68 of Jones reference describes
updating a path of a drone, and mobiles updating location data.
This is all very general and the conclusion of the Examiner is
incorrect. Mobiles are updating data all the time. Drones are
changing paths all the time. In paragraph 81 the customer can
provide location data to the network. Of course he can. There
is nothing in paragraphs 68, 81 that would suggest that the
location of the mobile of the consumer, to whom the delivery is
aimed at, is updated multiple times to the drone to
accommodate for the movement of the consumer, and allow the
drone to "home in" on the consumer to make the delivery.
Reply Br. 2–3. The problem for Appellant is that Jones is fairly explicit and
on point, so Appellant is left with arguing that Jones does not really mean
what a reader would think.
To begin, Jones at paragraphs 67–68 describes a customer at a mall, a
forum in which customers are ambulatory and generally non-stationary.
Jones is not describing delivery to a fixed home address or location in this
example. The customer’s mobile device transmits location information to a
drone via an application server. Jones also describes updating the location
and travel path, which includes the location, continuously. One of ordinary
skill would take from this that the drone cannot rely entirely on the initial
location, meaning the customer is potentially moving, particularly as this
occurs in a shopping mall context. In any event, Jones explicitly describes
resending location information continuously, which means multiple times.
Although Jones does not say this continuous update reaches the drone in the
same sentence, this description immediately follows the sentence describing
the location information reaching the drone. This is a classic example of a
transitive formulation, i.e. the location information is sent to the drone; the
location information is updated continuously; therefore the location
information is understood to be sent to the drone continuously. Jones
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

23

describes the drone using this information to navigate to the customer
location in a mall and describes the drone communicating at least indirectly
with the customer device. FF 07. Jones describes an alternate context in
which customer location is provided to the drone in real time through
Google Maps. FF 08. Appellant does not provide evidence to counter these
facts, but provides conclusory argument instead. An additional problem for
Appellant is that the customer is not part of the system, and so the argued
customer movement is neither a process step nor structural component of
any of the claims. The claims require multiple sending of location data to
the drone, not customer movement.
Thus, one of ordinary skill would understand Jones to describe the
customer mobile device sending location data automatically and multiple
times to the drone as recited in claim 11, limitation 3. The final limitation of
claim 11 recites the drone relying on this data, which one of ordinary skill
would understand to be the expected outcome of Jones’s transmissions.
Again, Jones describes the drone using this information to navigate to the
customer location.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 6–21 and 34–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 6–21 and 34–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ganesh and Jones is proper.
Appeal 2019-000119
Application 15/409,576

24

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 6–21 and 34–38 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
6–21, 34–38 101 Eligibility 6–21, 34–38
6–21, 34–38 103 Ganesh, Jones 6–21, 34–38
Overall Outcome 6–21, 34–38

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