John Simms et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 17, 20212021000119 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/626,896 06/19/2017 John Simms 4686 84403 7590 05/17/2021 Dennis Clarke 6717 Corner Lane McLean, VA 22101 EXAMINER EL-BATHY, IBRAHIM N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/17/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN SIMMS, NOEL SIMMS, and JOHN SIMMS JR. ____________ Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 John Simms, Noel Simms, and John Simms Jr. (Appellant2) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 6–13, 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 associating a delivery with a network platform which enables conducting the transaction utilizing a mobile device. Specification 3. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 6, which is reproduced below (paragraphing added). 6. A method for the delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage container being associated with a corresponding customer, wherein said delivery is associated with a processor- implemented system programmed in a non-transitory processor-readable medium, the system comprising at least one server processor, and storing instructions that are executable by a processor, said instructions adapted to: (a) receive from said customer a request for a mobile app, (b) deliver the mobile app to a mobile device of said customer, 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed June 4, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 2, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 21, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 7, 2020). 2 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 the inventors. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 3 (c) receive from said customer, via said mobile device, a request for authentication, (d) authenticate said customer. (e) generate a token that uniquely identifies said customer, and (f) deliver the token to the mobile device of said customer, wherein said token enables said customer to transact said delivery of said at least one item to said at least one locked storage container. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Miller US 2004/0254802 A1 Dec. 16, 2004 Carpenter US 2013/0124606 A1 May 16, 2013 Rellas US 2014/0201001 A1 July 17, 2014 Sadler US 2018/0060928 A1 Mar. 1, 2018 Claims 6–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, and Carpenter. Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, and Sadler. 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 the art describes the claim limitations. Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 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 Rellas 01.Rellas is directed to the distribution of products. Rellas para. 1. 02. Rellas describes a supplier managing deliveries of products to people at locations in accordance with orders received from customers of the supplier. This includes receiving the orders, receiving payments for the orders, tracking deliveries of the orders, receiving confirmation that the recipients of the deliveries were the people at the locations, and tracking inventory of products based on the orders and deliveries. Rellas para. 7. 03. Rellas describes a user application on a mobile device for some implementations of the system. Rellas para. 130. 04. Rellas describes the user logging-in to the user application and making purchases. Rellas para. 136. Miller 05.Miller is directed to delivery and collection of goods to and from secure lockers in response to orders received over the internet or telephone. Miller para. 1. 06. Miller describes collection and/or delivery of at least one item from/to at least one automated delivery facility, the system including a delivery organisation serving a plurality of customers; the automated delivery facility including at least one secure enclosure, locking means for regulating access to the enclosure, Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 5 and security code input means for controlling the locking means; characterised in that there is provided a database containing a plurality of identifiers, each identifier being a telephone number or email address associated with a customer; and the locking means unlocks the enclosure when at least a first said identifier is entered into the security code input means. Miller para. 16. 07. Miller describes generating and communicating a one-time collection code to the customer awaiting the delivery. Miller para. 45. Carpenter 08.Carpenter is directed to automatic personalization of apps after they are downloaded onto mobile devices. Carpenter para. 2. 09. Carpenter describes downloading and personalizing a mobile app. Carpenter para. 10. ANALYSIS Claim Construction Two issues as to claim construction arise from the record. Both relate to recitations as to item deliveries to lockers. The first is to the claim preamble phrase “for the delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage container being associated with a corresponding customer.” The issue is whether this limits the claim. “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.” Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Where a patentee uses the claim preamble to recite structural limitations of his claimed invention, Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 6 the PTO and courts give effect to that usage. See id.; Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Conversely, where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation. See Bell Commc’ns, 55 F.3d at 620; Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152 (CCPA 1951). What is immediately apparent is that the phrase at issue is not a description of structure. It describes an aspirational operation of delivering an item. Therefore there is no issue as to whether the phrase is needed to structurally define the invention. Even with corresponding system claim 10, the equivalent phrase is a similar aspirational operation. As to the body of the claims, none of the steps is that of delivering an item, or of an operation that depends on such a delivery. Instead all steps copy an app to a user’s device and then send a digital token, i.e. data, to the device. Thus, the preamble phrase is unnecessary to even define the steps of the claims. Both the claims and the Specification at 3 go only so far as to say the token so sent somehow enables a future transaction to occur after the final step of token delivery. Therefore the Specification does not warrant making the phrase a claim limitation. We conclude the phrase “for the delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage container being associated with a corresponding customer” is a statement of intended use and does not limit the claims. The second issue is how to construe the final limitation of “wherein said token enables said customer to transact said delivery of said at least one Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 7 item to said at least one locked storage container.” As we determine above, this phrase recites an aspiration as to what is hoped to occur after the final step. As such it is aspirational rather than functional, and is therefore also a statement of intended use. Even granting the phrase patentable weight, the only requirement is that the token enables something. But enablement (as recited in the claims, not the patent law concept as to 35 U.S.C. § 112) is very broad and encompasses anything that allows something. As the phrase relies on a token that is generated and sent to a mobile device, the token is data. The phrase does not narrow or recite how such enablement is implemented. Any data item enables anything so long as software is provided that appropriately responds to that data to perform that anything. So the phrase is construed to mean wherein the token comprises data for which some software would allow subsequent delivery. Such a data item is itself insensitive to the nature of the delivery, including whether it would be to a locked container. That would be a matter for the software the token is entered into, which is again outside the scope of the claims. Claims 6–13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 13 Claim 6, 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. 3 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 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 8 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 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 Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 9 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 6 recites receiving request data, delivering app data, receiving more request data, authenticating a customer, generating token data, and delivering token data. Delivering data is transmitting data. Authenticating a customer is conventional generic data reception and analysis. Thus, claim 6 recites receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and generating 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. From this we see that claim 6 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 ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing 4 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 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 10 human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 6 recites the concept of managing commercial product deliveries. Specifically, claim 6 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to generate and deliver customer app tokens. The advice to generate and deliver customer app tokens involves generating customer identifiers, which is a commerce act, and customers making requests, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 6 recites “generate a token that uniquely identifies said customer,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing customer transactions. Similarly, claim 1 recites “receive from said customer a request,” which is also characteristic of customer transaction management. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to individuals communicating with one another to inquire about an available locker to store a customer’s package. Ans. 4. The preamble to claim 6 recites that it is a method for the delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage container being associated with a corresponding customer. The steps in claim 6 result in managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app 5 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). 6 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 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 11 tokens absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations a and c recite receiving data. Limitations b and d–f recite generic and conventional transmitting, analyzing, and generating of app data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for generating and delivering customer app tokens. To advocate generating and delivering customer app tokens is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at page 3 describes the invention as relating to associating a delivery with a network platform which enables conducting the transaction utilizing a mobile device. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 6 recites managing commercial product deliveries. 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 deliveries is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app tokens is one idea for setting up a way to manage such deliveries. The steps recited in claim 6 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting, recognizing, and storing data). Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, transmitting, Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 12 analyzing, and generating data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 6, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, transmission, analysis, and generation and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 6 recites receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and generating data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 6 recites managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app tokens, 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. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 6 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.7 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 13 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) (alterations in original). 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 a and c are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step b recites basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps e and f are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step d recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are 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 6 simply recites the concept of managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app tokens as performed by a generic computer. This is no more Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 14 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 6 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The 18+ pages of specification do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app tokens under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 6 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing commercial product deliveries by generating and delivering customer app tokens 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 8 The Specification describes a mobile phone, a tablet, a personal digital assistant (PDS), a laptop, and the like. Spec. page 18. Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 15 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. We conclude that claim 6 is directed to achieving the result of managing commercial product deliveries by advising one to generate and deliver customer app tokens, 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 6 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. the 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 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 Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 16 “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) (alterations in original). “[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 receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and generating data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. The limitation of “said token enables said customer to transact said delivery of said at least one item to said at least one locked storage container” is not a step, but a recitation of prospective purpose of the token generated in the claim, viz. an intended use, which is aspirational rather than functional. 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. 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 Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 17 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 Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 6 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-transmission- analysis-generation 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 Commc’ns, 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 6 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 6 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 18 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 (citation omitted) (alteration in original). 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 commercial product deliveries by advising one to generate and deliver customer app tokens, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 8. The claims differ from those found patent eligible in Enfish, where the claims were “specifically directed to a self- referential table for a computer database.” 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims thus were “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate” rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 19 purport to accelerate the process of communicating delivery data, our reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer “do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in FairWarning, wherein claims reciting “a few possible rules to analyze audit log data” were found directed an abstract idea because they asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades.” 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are analogous to those in Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Appeal Br. 8. Claims related to “customizing information based on information known about the user and specific data are directed to abstract ideas. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 888 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (similar) (citing Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1346). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification directs us to confer eligibility as described in Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 9. Rather, as in Affinity Labs, “[n]othing in the flow chart or the text of the specification provides any details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplishes the recited functions.” Id. at 1260. Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 20 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification directs us to confer eligibility as described in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appeal Br. 9. Rather, as in Intellectual Ventures v Capital One Fin. Corp, “the patent claims are, at their core, directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” Id. at 1340. Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims found patent-eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 9. But the Court in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) addressed Appellant’s Core Wireless argument. Relying principally on Core Wireless, TT argues the claimed invention provides an improvement in the way a computer operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093 (citations omitted). The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists users in processing information more quickly. The district court likened this case to Core Wireless. In Core Wireless, we determined that claims drawn to improved interfaces for electronic devices with small screens that allowed users to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of applications included in, the electronic devices were not drawn to the abstract idea of an index. We concluded that the claims recited “a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 21 an improved user interface for electronic devices.” The same is not true here, where the claims merely recite a system that communicates status information, in the same “well understood” manner that wireless transmissions have always occurred. Unlike Core Wireless, no specific manner of performing the abstract idea is recited in these claims. Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citations omitted). Claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, and Carpenter We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Rellas does not describe a system which enables delivery of at least one item to at least one of a plurality of locked storage containers, each locked storage container being associated with a corresponding customer. Rellas is concerned solely with enabling a user to automatically interact with a competitor that has the exclusive right to deliver to a specific territory, without automatically enabling the user to interact with a competitor that does not have an exclusive right. Rellas is completely silent as to a plurality of locked storage containers. Appeal Br. 10. The highlighted phrase is in the claim preamble, which we determine above is undeserving of patentable weight. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that as to the wherein clause in limitation (f), “the limitation in question does not appear in the preamble of the claim, but rather is present in the body thereof. Accordingly, it must ‘get patentable weight.’” Reply Br. 3. We construed this limitation above as meaning wherein the token comprises data for which some software would allow subsequent delivery. Miller describes the Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 22 generation and transmission of a collection code that mirrors steps e and f, and such a collection code is used for delivery. Claims 8 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, and Sadler This rejection is not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 6–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 6, 7, 9–11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, and Carpenter is proper. The rejection of claims 8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, and Sadler is proper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 6–13 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6–13 101 Eligibility 6–13 6, 7, 9–11, 13 103 Rellas, Miller, Carpenter 6, 7, 9–11, 13 8, 12 103 Rellas, Miller, Carpenter, Sadler 8, 12 Overall Outcome 6–13 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). Appeal 2021-000119 Application 15/626,896 23 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation