Ex Parte WHITEHOUSE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2019

12857446 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/857,446 08/16/2010
909 7590 03/05/2019
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harry T. WHITEHOUSE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
080839-0387967 4017
EXAMINER
TRAN,HAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/05/2019 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):
docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARRY T. WHITEHOUSE
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-54 and 63---68. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held February 14, 2019.
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's invention relates "to integrating an international shipping
label with a customs form to provide a shipping label having postage,
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is PSI Systems, Inc.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
addressing, customs, and other information for international shipping."
(Spec. ,r 10.)
Claims 1, 19, and 3 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 3 7
is illustrative. It recites:
3 7. A method for managing landed cost and harmonization for
international packages shipped within an international postal
system, comprising:
receiving through a network a request through a graphical
user interface from a user computer for an international shipping
label, wherein the request is received at an online postage
computer system, and wherein receiving the request includes
receiving via the graphical user interface at least a description of
contents for a package onto which the international shipping
label is to be placed and a destination country outside of the
United States of America where the package is to be delivered
and the contents of the package are to be exported;
selecting one or more import harmonization tariff codes
from a plurality of import harmonization tariff codes of the
destination country stored in a database in communication with
the online postage computer system, the one or more import
harmonization tariff codes being selected from the plurality of
import harmonization tariff codes by performing a search on the
database based on a keyword, the keyword inputted at the
graphical user interface and containing at least a portion of the
description of the contents of the package to be shipped to the
destination country;
causing the graphical user interface to display the selected
one or more import harmonization codes corresponding to the
description of the contents of the package to be shipped to the
destination country;
generating a unique self-validating postage indicium or
mark at the online postage computer system in response to the
request, wherein the unique self-validating postage indicium or
mark indicates that landed cost for delivering the package
containing the contents to be exported to the destination country
has been pre-paid, the landed cost including customs duties to be
2
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
paid to the destination country based on the selected one or more
import harmonization tariff codes; and
in response to a payment for the landed cost or an
acknowledgement from the user computer that indicates
agreement to pay the landed cost, enabling at the graphical user
interface the user computer to instruct a printer in
communication with the user computer to print the international
shipping label with the unique self-validating postage indicium
or mark,
wherein the international shipping label further has a
customs declaration form that includes printed thereon the
description of the contents of the package and the selected one or
more import harmonization tariff codes corresponding to the
description, each tariff code in the selected one or more import
harmonization tariff codes being associated with custom duties
to be paid at the destination country for the contents when
shipped to the destination country, the selected one or more
import harmonization tariff codes providing descriptive
information of the contents of the package not provided by a
standard harmonization tariff code.
REJECTION
Claims 1-54 and 63---68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 19, and 37 together. We
select claim 37 as representative. Claims 1 and 19 will stand or fall with
claim 37. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101, however,
3
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
"'contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."' Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. If the claims
are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second
step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the
claim ... contain[] an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 221 ( citing
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a "directed
to" two prong test to: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether
the claim "appl[ies ], rel[ies] on, or use[ s] 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." See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "2019 Guidance").
Here, the Examiner determines that claim 3 7 is directed to the abstract
idea "of using a flow of sequence of GUis [ (graphical user interfaces)] to
4
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
guide a user to enter appropriate input data or parameter [sic] (harmonization
tariff codes) for the calculation of the postage (landed cost) and generating
unique self-validating postage indicia." (Final Action 6.) The Examiner
also determines that claim 37 "includes a GUI to enable a shipper to print
out the shipping label having a unique self-validating postage indicium."
(Id. at 6-7.)
Appellant disagrees and argues that "the Examiner overgeneralized
the claims, stripping away features recited in the claims, in order to identify
an abstract idea." ( Appeal Br. 11.) Appellant also argues that the Examiner
erred in determining that the claims recite, e.g., calculating postage costs.
(Id. at 12.)
Under step one of the Alice framework, we "look at the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The 'directed to' inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products
and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon
.... Rather, the '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.' Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F .3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In
other words, the first step of the Alice framework "asks whether the focus of
the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant
technology] or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for
5
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. at 1335-36; see also
2019 Guidance at 54--55.
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the invention relates
"to integrating an international shipping label with a customs form to
provide a shipping label having postage, addressing, customs, and other
information for international shipping." (Spec. ,r 10.) Claim 37 provides
additional evidence. Claim 3 7 recites "[a] method for managing landed cost
and harmonization for international packages ... comprising: receiving ...
a request ... for an international shipping label," "selecting one or more
import harmonization tariff codes," "causing the graphical user interface to
display the selected ... harmonization codes," "generating a unique self-
validating postage indicium," and "in response to a payment ... or an
acknowledgement ... that indicates agreement to pay ... enabling ... the
user computer to instruct a printer ... to print the international shipping
label." Claim 37 recites additional matter that is printed on the shipping
label, i.e., "a customs declaration form" that includes a "description of the
contents of the package" and the "the selected one or more import
harmonization tariff codes." However, we accord no patentable weight to
this additional matter printed on the label. 2
The Examiner determines that claim 3 7 does no more than "guid[ e] a
user to enter appropriate input data from a menu for calculating postage
2 The Federal Circuit has "long held that if a limitation claims (a) printed
matter that (b) is not functionally or structurally related to the physical
substrate holding the printed matter, [as is the case here,] it does not lend
any patentable weight to the patentability analysis." In re DiStefano, 808
F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
6
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
(landed cost) based on data input (harmonization tariff codes) and print[] out
the shipping label and postage indicimn." (Final Action 7.) The Examiner
further determines that "[ t ]his amounts to a method of organizing human
activity ( creating a contractual relationship) and a mathematical relationship
(formula for computing landed cost)." (Id.)
As an initial matter, we agree with Appellant that claim 37 does not
recite calculating postage. Claim 37 merely receives a request for a shipping
label, aids a user in selecting and displaying a tariff code from a database
through use of a GUI, generates a unique self-validating postage indicium,
and, in response to, e.g., an agreement to pay, enables printing of the
shipping label. Claim 3 7 is silent as to how the postage is determined or
entered. It may simply be determined by a user using pencil and paper and
manually entered.
However, we agree with the Examiner that claim 3 7 is directed to a
method of organizing human activity. In particular, claim 37 is directed to
commercial interactions. Indeed, claim 37 requires payment or
acknowledgement of an agreement to pay, before the step of enabling an
instruction to print a shipping label. (See 2019 Guidelines at 52.)
Additionally, "[ t ]he focus of the asserted claim[] ... is on collecting
information, analyzing[/processing] it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. "[W]e have
treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content
(which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of
abstract ideas." Id. "In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the
7
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
abstract-idea category." Id. at 1354. "And we have recognized that merely
presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information, without more ( such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis."
Id. "Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those
abstract-idea processes." Id. Claim 37 merely implements the abstract idea
of guiding the user to provide input data, generating postage indicium based
on cost for delivery, and printing a label in the field of international
shipping.
With regard to the recited "unique self-validating postage indicium or
mark," we note that the only recited requirement of the indicium or mark is
that it "indicates that landed cost for delivering the package ... has been
pre-paid." (Claim 37; see also Spec. ,r 32.) Appellant does not persuasively
argue why a postage label generated by, e.g., a standard postage meter that
identifies the meter, date, and amount, would not be unique and would not
indicate that cost for delivery has been pre-paid.
Nor does Appellant argue that Appellant invented GUis, an online
postage computer system, or a database. Nor do we see how the recitation
of a GUI, an online postage computer system, or a database, even in
conjunction with the recited functions, "ensure[ s] 'that the [claim] is more
than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]." Alice, 573
U.S. at 221 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). In short,
claim 3 7 uses generic computer and peripheral hardware as tools to perform
the abstract idea. See, e.g., Credit Acceptance Corp., 859 F.3d at 1055 (and
cases cited therein).
8
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
Additionally, here, the limitations do not recite implementation
details. Instead, they recite functional results to be achieved. In other
words, the claims do not recite "a particular way of programming or
designing the software ... , but instead merely claim the resulting
[method]." Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir.
2016). "Indeed, the claim language here 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).
Appellant further argues that "the Examiner has not provided any
explanation supported by any evidence with regard to how the claimed
invention as a whole is a well-understood, conventional activity" and that
"[a] patent examiner cannot properly reject a claim under Section 101 if the
examiner does not provide any evidence that at least a non-computer-
implemented version of a computer-implemented process required by the
claims was a well-understood, routine, conventional activity." (Appeal Br.
13-14.) To the extent Appellant is arguing that the Examiner must provide
evidence regarding whether a process was well-understood, routine, and
conventional in reaching a determination as to whether the claim is directed
to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice framework, we disagree.
When the question arises, it is in the context of step two, e.g., in step two we
ask if the computer functions implementing the abstract idea are well-
understood, routine, or conventional activities. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S.
at 225.
In view of the above, we agree with the Examiner that claim 3 7 is
directed to an abstract idea.
9
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
Step two of the Alice framework has been described "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."' Id. at 217-18
(brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines that "the recited generic computer
components perform no more than their basic computer functions. These
additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional
limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea."
(Final Action 10; see also Spec. ,r 27.)
Appellant disagrees and seeks to analogize the claims to those in
BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Appeal Br. 16-17.) In particular, Appellant argues
that in BASCOM, the Federal Circuit
noted that the "limitations of the claims, taken individually,
recite generic computer, network and Internet components, none
of which is inventive by itself." [BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349.]
Yet the Court still ruled those claims to be patent eligible. This
was because the district court's reliance on these facts was
insufficient to support a ruling of patent ineligibility.
(Appeal Br. 16.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. In BASCOM, the court
determined that "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional
and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." BASCOM,
827 F.3d at 1350. Specifically, "[t]he inventive concept described and
claimed in the '606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific
location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features
specific to each end user." Id. at 1350. The Federal Circuit determined that
10
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
this "particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over
prior art ways of filtering." Id. Here, however, Appellant does not indicate
what technical improvement is achieved. Instead, Appellant's argue that
"there was no showing that the combination as a whole failed to provide an
inventive concept." (Appeal Br. 17.) We disagree.
The Examiner determined that "[ t ]he claim does no more than call on
a 'computing device' online with a flow of sequence of GUis for guiding a
user to enter appropriate input data ... and printing out the shipping label
and postage indicium." (Final Action 7.) In short, and as discussed above,
claim 3 7 is directed to the abstract idea of guiding the user to provide input
data, generating postage indicium based on cost for delivery, and printing a
label in the field of international shipping. The additional elements of, e.g.,
receiving the request "at an online postage computer system," and import
harmonization tariff codes being "stored in a database in communication
with the online postage computer system," do not recite significantly more
than the ineligible concept itself. Nor, as discussed above, does Appellant
argue that Appellant invented GUis, an online postage computer system, or a
database. Rather, the Specification discloses use of a generic personal
computer connected to a generic server "via an Internet-type network."
(Spec. ,r 27.) In short, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]hese details
(GUis, codes, self-validating postage indicia, and print) further narrow the
idea but they do not change the 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract
idea does not make it any less abstract." (Final Action 7.)
[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
11
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
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 "implemen[ t ]" an abstract idea
"on . . . a computer," that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (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." Id. at 225. They do not. Claim 37 relates to receiving
information, analyzing information, and printing information to produce a
shipping label.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
generic computer components at each step is purely conventional.
Receiving, analyzing/processing, and printing information are basic
computer functions, i.e., they are well-understood, routine, and conventional
functions previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d
at 1356 (The claims "do not include any requirement for performing the
claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use
of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims
therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept .... "); 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.").
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer
components of Appellant's method add nothing that is not already present
12
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
when the steps are considered separately. For example, claim 37 does not
purport to improve the functioning of the components themselves. Nor does
it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead,
claim 3 7 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply
the abstract idea using generic computer components. That is not enough to
transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 225-26.
Regardless, Appellant argues that "the claims recite at least a
particular technical solution for facilitating automated online postage
printing." (Appeal Br. 17.) We do not find this argument persuasive. At
best, claim 37 describes the automation of the abstract idea of guiding the
user to provide input data, generating postage indicium based on cost for
delivery, and printing a label in the field of international shipping. See OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But
each step does no more than require generic computer components to
perform routine computer functions, and "relying on a computer to perform
routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
claim patent eligible." Id.
Appellant also seeks to analogize the claims to those in McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
( Appeal Br. 18-19.) Specifically, Appellant argues that "like the claims at
issue in McRo [sic], the claimed solution in the instant application focuses
on a specific improvement in another technology or technical field ( e.g.,
automated postage printing computer systems)." (Id. at 18.) We do not find
this argument persuasive.
13
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
In McRO, the court determined that
the claimed improvement here is allowing computers to produce
"accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions
in animated characters" that previously could only be produced
by human animators. As the district court correctly recognized,
this computer automation is realized by improving the prior art
through "the use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph
weights and transitions between phonemes." The rules are
limiting in that they define morph weight sets as a function of the
timing of phoneme sub-sequences.
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (citations omitted). Here, unlike McRO, the
asserted improvement is to a commercial/business practice regarding
preparing an international shipping label with a customs form. (See Spec.
,r 10; see also McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 ("We therefore look to whether the
claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves
the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself
is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.").)
Appellant's other arguments, including those directed to now-
superseded USPTO guidance, have been considered but are not persuasive
of error. (See 2019 Guidance at 51 ("Eligibility-related guidance issued
prior to the Ninth Edition, R---08.2017 of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018)
should not be relied upon.").)
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 3 7. Independent claims 1 and 19 fall with claim 3 7. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
With regard to the dependent claims, Appellant argues that "the
Section 101 rejection is clearly improper at least because the Examiner only
provides ... mere assertions ... on pages 10-11 of the Office Action as the
bases for rejecting all of the dependent claims." (Appeal Br. 14.)
14
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
Specifically, the Examiner determines:
Dependent claims 38-54, 65, and 68 do no more than
providing [sic] additional instructions to implement the abstract
idea in claim 3 7.
Claim 3 8 contains more details about shipping label
( nonfunctional descriptive materials);
Claim 39 contains more details about self-validating
postage indicium (nonfunctional descriptive materials);
Claim 40 contains more details about harmonization
tariff codes (nonfunctional descriptive materials);
Claim 41 contains more details about valuation (generic
function);
Claims 42 and 45 contain more details about taxes
calculations (generic function);
Claim 43 contains more details about tracking (generic
function);
Claim 44 contains more details about querying database
(generic function);
Claim 46 contains more details about transmitting codes
and contents (generic function);
Claims 47-50 contain more details about collecting fees
and paying funds (generic function);
Claims 51 and 52 contain more details about sending
notification (generic function);
Claim 53 contains more details about shipping label
(nonfunctional descriptive materials);
Claim 54 contains more details about tariff payments
(generic functions);
Claim 65 contains more details about customs declaration
form (nonfunctional descriptive materials); and
Claim 68 contains more details about generating billing
instructions (generic function).
(Final Action 10-11.)
The Examiner further determines that "[d]ependent claims 38-40, 53,
and 65 recite the previously noted generic computer components performing
generic computing functions as contained in the independent claim 3 7.
15
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
These claims further detailing the shipping label, self-validating postage
indicium, harmonization tariff codes, and customs declaration forms."
(Answer 13.) In short, the Examiner determines that these claims merely
add non-functional descriptive material to claim 37. (Final Action 10-11.)
Appellant does not persuasively argue why the Examiner's determinations
are in error or why the addition of non-functional descriptive material to a
claim to patent-ineligible subject matter would transform that claim into
patent eligible subject matter.
With regard to claims 41-52, 54, and 68, the Examiner determines
that the claims merely recite "additional details and do not make the idea
less abstract because they do not result in significantly more than the
abstract idea itself." (Answer 14.) Appellant does not persuasively argue
why the Examiner's determinations are in error or why the additional details
recited in the dependent claims transform the claims into patent eligible
subject matter.
By way of example, claim 68 recites: "The method of claim 37,
further comprising generating instructions for billing a shipper of the
package or charging an account of the shipper for the landed cost."
Appellant does not persuasively argue why the additional step of generating
instructions without a recitation of "a particular way of programming or
designing the software ... , but instead merely claim[ing] the resulting
[ method]" would transform the claim into patent eligible subject matter. See
Apple, Inc .. , 842 F.3d at 1240. As discussed above, "the claim language
here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how
a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more." Intellectual Ventures
I LLC, 850 F.3d at 1342.
16
Appeal2017-005989
Application 12/857,446
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claims 38-54, 65, and 68. Dependent claims 2-18, 20-
36, 63, 64, and 67 are not separately argued and fall with claims 37-54, 65,
and 68. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-54 and 63---68 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is affirmed.
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
17