Zolt¿n Nochta

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 11, 2019

11483478 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 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.
11/483,478 07/10/2006 Zoltán Nochta 000005-001900US 7089
58735 7590 10/11/2019
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
SHEIKH, ASFAND M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2019 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZOLTÁN NOCHTA
____________

Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, AMEE A. SHAH, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 4–10, 13–15, 18–22, and 24.
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. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP
SE. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Appellant’s invention “relates to data management systems, and
in particular, to data management systems for managing product tracking
data.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with
added bracketing for reference):
1. A computer-implemented method of managing product
tracking data for tracking products in a supply chain, said method
comprising the steps of:
[(a)] storing, by a hardware component, a database,
wherein said hardware component implements a tracking
system, and wherein an operator of said tracking system is
associated with said hardware component;
[(b)] authorizing, by said operator of said tracking system,
a first entity to have access to said database;
[(c)] generating, by a first device associated with said first
entity, first tracking data of a product to be tracked in said supply
chain, wherein said first tracking data is encrypted such that said
first device is authenticated to said hardware component and is
authorized to access said database, and wherein said first device
uses a digital signature for authentication to said hardware
component;
[(d)] accessing, by said first device via a network, a data
record in said database, wherein said data record is associated
with said first tracking data;
[(e)] associating, by said first entity independently of said
operator of said tracking system, said data record with a second
entity, wherein said second entity corresponds to an entity in said
supply chain that will assume control over said product
subsequent to said first entity, and wherein said second entity
was unassociated with said supply chain prior to said first entity
associating said data record with said second entity;
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

3
[(f)] authorizing said second entity to have access to said
database in accordance with said data record having been
associated, by said first entity independently of said operator of
said tracking system, with said second entity;
[(g)] generating, by a second device associated with said
second entity, second tracking data of said product, wherein said
second tracking data is encrypted such that said second device is
authenticated to said hardware component and is authorized to
access said database independently of said operator of said
tracking system;
[(h)] accessing, by said second device via said network,
said data record in said database; and
[(i)] authorizing said first entity to have partial access to
said database, in accordance with said data record having been
associated with said second entity independently of said operator
of said tracking system.
Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App’x.).

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more.

OPINION
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 16. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group with the remaining claims
standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
35 U.S.C. § 101 Framework
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

4
ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice,
573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the
concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
(“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (185))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

5
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
After the Appellant’s briefs were filed and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised
guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT
MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

6
Revised Guidance”). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed Reg. at 54, 56.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework, the Examiner
determines that claim 1 is “directed to the abstract idea of managing product
data for tracking products in a supply chain and/or managing an ad-hoc
supply chain” (Final Act. 4; Ans. 2), which is “an idea ‘it self’ or certain
methods of organizing human activity” (Final Act. 5; Ans. 3 (emphases
omitted)) related to the abstract ideas in Versata Develop. Grp., Inc. v. SAP
America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), In re TLI
Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Electric
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

7
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Final
Act. 4; Ans. 3). When viewed through the lens of the 2019 Revised
Guidance, the Examiner’s analysis depicts the claimed subject matter as
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity—. . . commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations)” under Prong One of Revised Step 2A. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The Appellant does not disagree with the Examiner’s characterization
of the claim, but contends that “claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea,
and that the Office Action’s reliance on Versata, Intellectual Ventures I, TLI
Communications and Electric Power Group is misplaced.” Appeal Br. 17.
Before determining whether the claims at issue are directed to an
abstract idea, we first determine to what the claims are directed. “[T]he
‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light
of the specification, based on whether “their character as a whole is directed
to excluded subject matter.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The question is whether the
claims as a whole “focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology” or are “directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
An examination of claim 1 shows that the claim recites “[a] computer-
implemented method of managing product tracking data for tracking
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

8
products in a supply chain” comprising (a) storing a database in a
component that implements a tracking system, (b) authorizing a first entity
to have access to the database, (c) generating first tracking data that is
encrypted so that a first device is authenticated using a digital signature and
authorized to access the database, (d) the first device accessing in the
database a data record associated with tracking data, (e) associating the data
record with a second entity that will assume control over the product,
(f) authorizing the second entity to have access to the database;
(g) generating second tracking data of the product, the data encrypted and
authenticating a second device to independently access the database, (h) the
second device accessing the data record in the database, and (i) authorizing
the first entity to independently have partial access to the database. The
hardware component that stores a database and implements a system is a
generic “computer system.” Appeal Br. 6; Spec. ¶ 32. The Specification
does not describe what comprises a “device.” As such, the devices can be
any type of generic computer device.
When considered collectively and under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim’s limitations, we agree with the Examiner that the
claim recites a method for managing product data for tracking products in a
supply chain. Storing and accessing data (limitations (a), (d), and (h)) are
extra-solution activities and ordinarily done in managing data. See In re
Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as
insignificant extra-solution activity); Content Extraction & Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The elements of implementing, authorizing, generating, and associating
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

9
(limitations (a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g), and (i)) are functionally recited without
any detail regarding how the results are accomplished, i.e., in what way(s)
technologically or by what algorithm, and thus can be done mentally. The
Specification provides for well-known and generic data authentication
methods to be used. See Spec. ¶¶ 90, 91.
Managing product data for tracking products in a supply chain is
similar to the concepts of collecting, analyzing, and displaying the results of
the analysis in Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–54, of attaching and storing
data in In re TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613, of collecting and analyzing
information for the purpose of preventing improper access in FairWarning
IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), of
tracking data to determine whether they conditions are met in Intellectual
Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1367, and of “providing restricted access to resources”
in Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 696 F. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed.
Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 689 (2018). Accordingly, we conclude
the claim recites a way of managing product data for tracking products in a
supply chain, which is a commercial interaction, one of the certain methods
of organizing human activity as identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52, and thus, an abstract idea. As such, we disagree that the
Appellant’s contention that the Examiner’s reliance on the cases cited in the
Final Action and the Answer is misplaced. See Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply
Br. 2.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54, we look to whether 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
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

10
monopolize the judicial exception,” i.e., “integrates a judicial exception into
a practical application.” Here, the Appellant contends “claim 1 is directed to
an inventive solution presented by combining the various claim elements.”
Appeal Br. 19; see also id. at 21.2 When viewed through the lens of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the Appellant contends that under Prong Two, the
elements of the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
because the combination of the elements “reflects an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We disagree.
Specifically, the Appellant contends that the claim addresses “one
problem with integrating the tracking system with the supply chain system
[of] security . . . [by] recit[ing] elements such as a ‘digital signature’ and
‘encryption.’” Appeal Br. 19–20 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 10–13, 89–92); see also id.
at 21–22. However, the Appellant does not provide reasoning or evidence,
and we do not see from the claim, how the limitations claim a solution
“necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257. The problem of insecure data, i.e., preventing fraudulent
access, existed prior to the Internet, for example with company or military
sensitive/ classified data. See also FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094–95
(determining whether user accesses were authorized or fraudulent

2 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance). Solely for
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office guidance). See 2019 Revised
Guidance at 55.
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

11
incorporated “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different
words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for
decades, if not centuries”); Prism Techs., 696 F. App’x at 1017–18 (holding
that claims providing secure access using conventional, generic computer
components in a customary manner were not similar to DDR Holdings).
Further, the purported solution (even if “new and non-obvious”
(Appeal Br. 21) and/or “inventive” (id. at 22)), comprises the use of generic
computing devices operating in their ordinary and conventional capacities.
See supra. The Appellant does not, and cannot, claim to have invented the
use of digital signatures or that encryption technology as claimed is
unconventional or non-routine. The Specification confirms the methods
disclosed use generic digital signature and encryption technology, which is
used with conventional hardware. See Spec. ¶¶ 32, 41, 90, 91. The “focus”
of the claim is not “on the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities” (Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335), but rather on using the computer
components as a tool to implement the abstract idea in the particular field of
tracking products in a supply chain. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely limiting the
field of use of the abstract idea to a particular . . . environment does not
render the claim any less abstract”).
We disagree with the Appellant’s contention that the clam is similar to
the hypothetical claims of In re TLI Commc’ns because “claim 1 of the
present invention is directed to a new physical combination of a tracking
system and a supply chain management system.” Appeal Br. 20. Rather, we
determine the claim to be similar to the actual claims in In re TLI Commc’ns
in being “directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

12
nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention
reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the
two.” In re TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612. To repeat, the Specification
does not describe a new hardware component, database, or computing
devices. See supra. And the Specification, including the claim, “fails to
provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead
predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional
terms.” In re TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612 Claim 1 provides steps
performed by conventional computer components without reciting details on
how the steps of authorizing, generating, and accessing are performed
technologically other than manually or by using conventional computer
components in their ordinary capacities.
For similar reasons, we disagree with the Appellant’s contention that
the clam is similar to those of McRO, because “the recited features such as a
‘digital signature’ and ‘encryption’ . . . improve the supply chain process, as
the operator of the supply chain management system does not need to be
involved in authorizing each new entity that receives an item as the item
moves in the supply chain.” Reply Br. 2. In McRO, the claims were
directed to a specific improvement in computer animation and used rules to
automate a subjective task of humans to create a sequence of synchronized,
animated characters. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314–15. Unlike Flook, Bilski,
and Alice, it was not the use of the computer but the incorporation of the
rules that improved an existing technological process. Id. at 1314. Here, as
discussed above, there is no such improvement to technology or a
technological process. The Appellant also does not direct our attention to
anything in the Specification to indicate that the invention provides a
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

13
technical improvement in digital signatures; encryption; the storing,
accessing, and generating of data; or in authorizing entities or that it
incorporates rules to automate a subjective task of humans, as in McRO.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination
that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Under the second step in the Alice framework (corresponding to Step
2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance), we find supported the Examiner’s
determination that the claim’s limitations, taken individually or as an
ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception and that the computer components “are recited at a high level of
generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions
routinely used in the database arts relating to inventory management.” Final
Act. 5. We also find supported the Examiner’s determination that the
“[g]eneric computer components recited as performing generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities
amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized
system.” Id.
The Appellant does not offer additional reasoning or argument why
the claims “[a]dd[] a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is
indicative that an inventive concept may be present.” 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Rather, the Appellant argues that the claim
“reflects an inventive solution” (Appeal Br. 22) because it “is novel and
unobvious” (id. at 23), and that the Examiner “does not cite any art to
support” the “assert[ion] that the ordered combination of elements adds
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

14
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually” (id.).
With regard to these contentions that the claim recites an inventive
concept because it claims a “new and non-obvious solution” (Appeal
Br. 21), is itself “novel and non-obvious” (id. at 23), and because no prior art
rejections are made (see id.), an abstract idea does not transform into an
inventive concept just because the prior art does not disclose or suggest it.
See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. “Ground-breaking, innovative, or even brilliant
discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). Indeed,
“[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process
itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim
falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89; see also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91 (rejecting “the
Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the
better established inquiry under § 101”).
The Appellant also argues that the claim’s elements amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea because, like BASCOM Global
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
the claim “recite[s] a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the
additional elements.” Appeal Br. 24; see also Reply Br. 3–4. Specifically,
the Appellant argues
the hardware component and database not only implement a
tracking system, but also implement the system for authorizing
additional devices/entities in the supply chain. The first device
not only generates tracking data, but also associates the second
entity in the supply chain and authorizes the second entity/device
to the tracking system. The digital signatures and encryption are
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

15
not only used to authenticate the first device, but also to manage
security when authorizing the second entity/device. Thus, the
inventive concept of the claims is found in these non-
conventional and non-generic arrangements of the additional
elements.
Appeal Br. 24–25. However, it is not clear how the features of the
component and database being able to implement tracking and authorizing
systems, the first device generating and associating data and authoring the
second device, and the digital signature and encryption authenticating a
device and managing security is similar to BASCOM’s “non-conventional
and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” BASCOM,
827 F.3d at 1350. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit determined that “its
particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art
ways of filtering such content.” Id. The patent at issue “claim[ed] a
technology-based solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented
with generic technical components in a conventional way) to filter content
on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering
systems.” Id. at 1351. The court determined that “[b]y taking a prior art
filter solution (one-size-fits-all filter at the ISP server) and making it more
dynamic and efficient (providing individualized filtering at the ISP server),
the claimed invention represents a ‘software-based invention[ ] that
improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.’” Id. Here, there
is no such improvement to the claimed computer components themselves.
And, the Appellant provides no further arguments how the claim's particular
arrangement and/or integration of elements is a technical improvement or is
otherwise similar to BASCOM.
We note that, as discussed above, the claim simply recites the
functional results to be achieved by a conventional computer. The claim
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

16
“provides only a result-oriented solution[] with insufficient detail for how a
computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Capital One”). Taking the claimed elements separately, the functions
performed by the computer are purely conventional. The claimed hardware
component and devices comprise conventional, general purpose computers.
See supra. We agree with the Examiner that the hardware component,
database, and devices operate in their ordinary and conventional capacities
to perform the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of
storing, implementing a system, authorizing entities, and generating and
accessing data. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (gathering, sending,
monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and presenting information does not
transform the abstract process into a patent-eligible invention); Fair
Warning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (generating a rule related to accessing
information, applying the rule, and storing and announcing the result did not
transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention); Prism Tech.,
696 F. App’x at 1017–18 (receiving data, authenticating the data,
authorizing a device, and permitting access did not transform the abstract
idea into a patent-eligible inventions); In re TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612
(“storing, receiving, and extracting data” are generic computer functions);
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“[A]n invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves
plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved
mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is ‘well-
understood, routine, [and] conventional.’”) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73);
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

17
‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing
the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the
method claims.”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the components of the
Appellant’s claim add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of implementing, authorizing,
generating data, and accessing data is equally generic and conventional or
otherwise held to be abstract. See Capital One, 850 F.3d at 1341 (holding
that the sequence of collecting, organizing, identifying, mapping, organizing,
defining, and detecting was abstract); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354–56
(holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real-
time was abstract); Fair Warning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (holding that sequence
of generating a rule related to accessing information, applying the rule, and
storing and announcing was abstract); Prism Tech., 696 F. App’x at 1017–18
(holding sequence of receiving and authenticating data, authorizing a device,
and permitting access was abstract). Cf. Reply Br. 4 (“The claims are not
directed to each of these functions individually, but to their combination. It
is the combination of features that result in an improvement in the
integration of tracking systems and supply chain management systems.”).
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination
that the limitations of claim 1 do not transform the claims into significantly
more than the abstract idea.
For at least the reasons above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 1 and of claims 4–10, 13–15,
18–22, and 24, the rejection of which stands with claim 1.
Appeal 2018-003434
Application 11/483,478

18

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–10, 13–15,
18–22, and 24
101 Eligibility 1, 4–10, 13–15,
18–22, and 24

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

AFFIRMED