CNH Industrial America LLC et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 6, 2020

2020001455 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
15/145,361 05/03/2016 Christopher Alan Foster 52354 (CNHA:0360) 5370
71475 7590 11/06/2020
CNH Industrial America LLC
Intellectual Property Law Department
700 STATE STREET
RACINE, WI 53404
EXAMINER
MOORE, REVA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2020 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):
napatent@cnhind.com
vannette.azarian@cnhind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ALAN FOSTER, JOHN HENRY POSSELIUS,
BRET TODD TURPIN, and DANIEL JOHN MORWOOD
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–22. See Final Act. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CNH Industrial
America LLC and Autonomous Solutions, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an equipment library with link to
manufacturer database. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
storing in non-volatile memory a plurality of equipment
configuration code files, each equipment configuration code file
comprising configuration code for configuration and control of a
work vehicle, for configuration and control of an attachment to
be carried or towed by the work vehicle, or for combined
configuration and control of both the work vehicle and the
attachment in combination;
populating a library of equipment configuration code files
with the plurality of stored equipment configuration code files,
wherein populating the library of equipment configuration code
files comprises sorting the plurality of stored equipment
configuration code files by manufacturer, equipment type,
intended task, agricultural product, model, trim level,
compatibility with one or more other pieces of equipment, or a
combination thereof;
generating a graphical user interface that displays the
library of sorted equipment configuration code files;
providing access to the library of equipment configuration
code files to one or more authorized entities;
receiving a request for one or more of the plurality of
equipment configuration code files within the library of
equipment configuration code files;
transmitting the one or more of the plurality of equipment
configuration code files within the library of equipment
configuration code files;
receiving an altered version of at least one equipment
configuration code file, the altered version comprising OEM data
provided by or altered by an original equipment manufacturer of
the work vehicle or the attachment, dealer or distributor data
provided by or altered by a dealer or distributor of the work
vehicle or the attachment, and user data provided by or altered
by a user of the work vehicle or attachment, wherein the altered
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
3
version is altered to adapt configuration and control of the work
vehicle, the attachment, or both for a specific user, a vehicle-
attachment combination, a season, an agricultural task, a
geographic location, or a combination thereof;
storing the altered version in the non-volatile memory of
the library, wherein the altered version is accessible by one or
more other users; and
updating the library of equipment configuration code files
to reflect the altered version of the one or more of the plurality
of equipment configuration code files.
REJECTION
Claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
OPINION
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. Section 101
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 U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. 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 Court’s two-part 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
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
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 (1853))); 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
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr,
450 U.S. at 187; 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 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. (citation omitted)
(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.”).
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
5
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 (quotation marks 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.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, 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 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
6
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); 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))
(“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, 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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.

3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.

Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
7
Abstract idea
Appellant addresses the claims as a group (see Appeal Br. 6–17) and,
as a result, we treat claim 1 as representative. Turning to Step 2A, Prong 1,
the claimed invention is for inputting equipment settings into an agricultural
equipment command and control system. Spec ¶ 1.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations:
storing in non-volatile memory a plurality of equipment
configuration code files, each equipment configuration code file
comprising configuration code for configuration and control of
a work vehicle, for configuration and control of an attachment to
be carried or towed by the work vehicle, or for combined
configuration and control of both the work vehicle and the
attachment in combination;
populating a library of equipment configuration code files
with the plurality of stored equipment configuration code files,
wherein populating the library of equipment configuration code
files comprises sorting the plurality of stored equipment
configuration code files by manufacturer, equipment type,
intended task, agricultural product, model, trim level,
compatibility with one or more other pieces of equipment, or a
combination thereof;
generating a graphical user interface that displays the
library of sorted equipment configuration code files;
providing access to the library of equipment configuration
code files to one or more authorized entities;
receiving a request for one or more of the plurality of
equipment configuration code files within the library of
equipment configuration code files;
transmitting the one or more of the plurality of equipment
configuration code files within the library of equipment
configuration code files;
receiving an altered version of at least one equipment
configuration code file, the altered version comprising OEM
data provided by or altered by an original equipment
manufacturer of the work vehicle or the attachment, dealer or
distributor data provided by or altered by a dealer or distributor
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
8
of the work vehicle or the attachment, and user data provided by
or altered by a user of the work vehicle or attachment, wherein
the altered version is altered to adapt configuration and control
of the work vehicle, the attachment, or both for a specific user, a
vehicle-attachment combination, a season, an agricultural task,
a geographic location, or a combination thereof;
storing the altered version in the non-volatile memory of
the library, wherein the altered version is accessible by one or
more other users; and
updating the library of equipment configuration code files
to reflect the altered version of the one or more of the plurality
of equipment configuration code files.
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea grouping listed in the 2019 Eligibility
Guidance: “mental processes.” See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52, 53 (listing “[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the
“enumerated groupings of abstract ideas” (footnote omitted)). The guidance
explains that “mental processes” include acts that people can perform in
their minds or using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic
computer component performs the acts. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is
nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed
by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”), quoted in 2019 Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
9
implemented method for “‘anonymous loan shopping’” was an abstract idea
because it could be “‘performed by humans without a computer’”); quoted in
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
The method recited in claim 1 executes steps that people can perform
in their minds or using pen and paper. A person can perform the “storing”
and “populating” steps of claim 1 by using his or her mind (or pen and
paper) in the claimed manner. For example, a person can store “a plurality of
equipment configuration code files” using his or her mind or pen and paper.
A person can “populat[e] a library of equipment configuration code files
with the plurality of stored equipment configuration code files,” using pen
and paper. A person can “provid[e] access to the library of equipment
configuration code files to one or more authorized entities,” using pen and
paper. A person can “receiv[e] a request for one or more of the plurality of
equipment configuration code files within the library of equipment
configuration code files,” using pen and paper. A person can “transmit[] the
one or more of the plurality of equipment configuration code files within the
library of equipment configuration code files,” using pen and paper. A
person can “receiv[e] an altered version of at least one equipment
configuration code file,” using pen and paper. A person can “stor[e] the
altered version in the . . . library, wherein the altered version is accessible by
one or more other users,” using pen and paper. A person can “updat[e] the
library of equipment configuration code files to reflect the altered version of
the one or more of the plurality of equipment configuration code files,”
using pen and paper. Accordingly, claim 1 recites a mental process, and thus
an abstract idea.
Turning to Step 2A, Prong 2, the remaining elements recited in claim
1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition to
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
10
the steps discussed above, claim 1 recites a “non-volatile memory” and a
“graphical user interface.” The non-volatile memory and graphical user
interface encompass generic components. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 38 (“The
memory 212 may include volatile memory, such as random access memory,
or non-volatile memory, such as hard disk drives, read-only memory, optical
disks, flash memory, and the like.”). Simply programming a general-purpose
computer to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a
practical application. See 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea
on a computer” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been
integrated into a practical application).
In addition, “generating a graphical user interface that displays the
library of sorted equipment configuration code files” is insignificant post-
solution activity, because it is merely ancillary to the focus of the claimed
invention, namely, updating the library of equipment configuration code
files to reflect the altered version of the configuration code files, given the
display’s high level of generality and context in the claimed invention.
Where, as here, the recited display function is merely ancillary to updating
the library, the focus of the claimed invention, given its high level of
generality and context in the claimed invention, the recited display function
is insignificant post-solution activity and, therefore, does not integrate the
exception into a practical application for this additional reason. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for
a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
11
to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any 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. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that
claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.

Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept” pursuant to Step 2B
of the 2019 Eligibility Guidance. The Examiner determined claim 1 does not
recite an inventive concept because the additional elements in the claim do
not amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. See Final Act. 6–7.
We agree with the Examiner’s determination. As noted above, the
claimed invention merely uses generic computing components to implement
the recited abstract idea. The additional elements recited in the claim include
the “non-volatile memory” and a “graphical user interface.” The claim
recites these elements at a high level of generality, and the written
description indicates that these elements are generic computer components.
See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 38. Using generic computer components to perform
abstract ideas does not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to
“significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
Appellant contends various elements recited in the claim provide the
necessary inventive concept. Appeal Br. 7, 16, 17; Reply Br. 6. But these
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
12
elements form part of the recited abstract ideas and thus are not “additional
elements” that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78); see also
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses
the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or
steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.”
(Emphasis added)); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281,
1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining the Alice “Court only assessed whether the
claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to
which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional” and
“did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional
to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic
computer”) (emphasis added).
Rather, the recited (1) non-volatile memory; and (2) user interface are
the additional recited elements whose generic computing functionality is
well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Intellectual Ventures, 792
F.3d at 1368 (noting that a recited user profile, database, and communication
medium are generic computer elements); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting
that components such an “interface,” “network,” and “database” are generic
computer components that do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement).
Accord Final Act. 6, 7 (Concluding that the claims’ additional generic
computer components do not add significantly more than the abstract idea.).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us claim 1 is “directed to” a patent-
eligible concept.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of the pending claims.
Appeal 2020-001455
Application 15/145,361
13
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–15,
17–22
101 Patent Eligibility 1–7, 9–15,
17–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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