Lievens, Daniel et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 5, 2019

14200267 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 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.
14/200,267 03/07/2014 Daniel Lievens IPP201327903/258415 4217
143177 7590 12/05/2019
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(United Parcel Service, Inc.)
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2019 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
docketing.shb@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DANIEL LIEVENS, VINCENT DETHIER, and
LUC PIRENNE
________________

Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS,
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–21, which constitute all of the pending
claims.1 Appeal Br. 1. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter
without significantly more. Final Action mailed Dec. 15, 2017 (“Final
Act.”), 4–5. 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 United
Parcel Service of America, Inc. Appeal Brief filed May 15, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”), 4.
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A system for enabling users to reserve space at attended
delivery/pickup locations to at least substantially guarantee that
the attended delivery/pickup locations will have capacity to
receive parcels requested to be delivered to them. In various
embodiments, the system is configured to substantially
automatically reserve space in response to receiving a request to
delivery one or more parcels to a particular attended
delivery/pickup location. In other embodiments, the system is
configured to enable users to reserve space at attended
delivery/pickup locations.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1 illustrates the appealed claims.2 It is reproduced
below with formatting modified for clarity and emphasis added to the claim
language that recites an abstract idea:
1. A computer-implemented method of delivering a parcel
to an attended delivery/pickup location, comprising:
[i] providing, by at least one server, a selection of a first set
of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations to a
communicatively coupled device associated with a first user;
[ii] receiving, by said at least one server, a request from the
communicatively couple device associated with said first user to

2 Appellant argues all of the claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 10–36.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

3
deliver a first parcel to a first attended delivery/pickup location
of said first set of said one or more attended delivery/pickup
locations;
[iii] receiving, from a mobile scanning device
communicatively coupled to the at least one server and
configured to determine location data upon scanning machine-
readable indicia associated with a parcel, an indication that at
least a first set of parcels was scanned at drop off, the indication
comprising location information corresponding with the drop off
as determined by the mobile scanning device upon scanning the
first set of parcels;
[iv] determining, by a processor associated with the at least
one server, that the first set of parcels is located at the first
attended delivery/pickup location based on the location
information, the determining comprising;
identifying a geolocation of each of the first set of
one or more attended delivery/pickup locations;
comparing the location information to the
geolocations of the first set of one or more attended
delivery/pickup locations; and
determining that the location information
corresponds to the geolocation of the first attended
delivery/pickup location, thereby determining that the first
set of parcels is located at the first attended
delivery/pickup location;
[v] estimating, by the processor associated with said at least
one server, an available capacity of said first attended
delivery/pickup location to store parcels based on a comparison
of a total volume of storage space of said first attended
delivery/pickup location and a total volume of parcels located at
said first attended delivery/pickup location, wherein the total
volume of parcels is at least partially based on the determining
that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended
delivery/pickup location;
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

4
[vi] based on said available capacity, determining that said
first attended delivery/pickup location is able to accept a delivery
of the first parcel;
[vii] substantially automatically reserving space, by said at
least one server, for said first parcel at said first attended
delivery/pickup location; and
[viii] facilitating, by said at least one server, said delivery of
said first parcel from an origin location to said first attended
delivery/pickup location.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. SECTION 101
A. SECTION 101:
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject 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. 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 Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–
77). 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’
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

5
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 (1854))); 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. at 191 (citing
Benson and Flook) (citation omitted); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

6
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 (internal 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
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE:
In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (jointly referred to as “the
2019 Guidance”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update,
84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the availability
of the October update).
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

7
Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites
the following:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 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 to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, [and] 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 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

ANALYSIS
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

8
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic principles or
practices, or mental processes). 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
Limitation [i] recites “providing . . . a selection of a first set of one or
more attended delivery/pickup locations to . . . a first user.”
Providing information to another reasonably can be characterized as a
certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, providing
information reasonably can be characterized as a method of managing
interactions between people in the form of teaching. The 2019 Guidance
expressly recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity that
include managing interactions between people in the form of teaching as
constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52. Accordingly, limitation [i] reasonably can be characterized as reciting
a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Limitation [ii] recites “receiving . . . a request from . . . said first user
to deliver a first parcel to a first attended delivery/pickup location of said
first set of said one or more attended delivery/pickup locations.” Receiving
a request to deliver a package also can be characterized reasonably as a
certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, such a
request reasonably can be characterized as a commercial or legal interaction.
The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes commercial and legal interactions
as certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute a patent-
ineligible abstract idea. Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitation [ii]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Limitation [iii] recites “receiving . . . an indication that at least a first
set of parcels was scanned at drop off, the indication comprising location
information corresponding with the drop off as determined by the mobile
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

9
scanning device upon scanning the first set of parcels.” Receiving such an
indication reasonably can be characterized as a certain method of organizing
human activity. More specifically, receiving a notification of an event (that
at least a first set of parcels was scanned at drop off) reasonably can be
characterized as managing interactions between people, such as commercial
or legal interactions in the form of business relations. Likewise, receiving
an indication that comprises location information also reasonably can be
characterized as managing interactions between people, such as in the form
of teaching or learning.
The additional language “as determined by the mobile scanning
device upon scanning the first set of parcels” relates to an intangible
property of the received location information—the intangible property of the
manner in which the received location information was generated or
determined. However, the manner in which the location information was
determined is not affirmatively recited in limitation [iii]. As such, this
intangible property of the received data does not add any additional elements
or make the limitation [iii] any less abstract.
For the reasons explained in relation to limitations [i] and [ii], then,
limitation [iii] reasonably can be characterized as reciting patent-ineligible
abstract ideas that are recognized by the 2019 Guidance.
Limitation [iv] recites
determining . . . that the first set of parcels is located at the
first attended delivery/pickup location based on the location
information, the determining comprising;
identifying a geolocation of each of the first set of
one or more attended delivery/pickup locations;
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

10
comparing the location information to the
geolocations of the first set of one or more attended
delivery/pickup locations; and
determining that the location information
corresponds to the geolocation of the first attended
delivery/pickup location, thereby determining that the first
set of parcels is located at the first attended
delivery/pickup location;
Limitation [iv], including the three sub-steps, reasonably can be
characterized as reciting mental processes that entail concepts that can be
performed in the human mind. More specifically, the sub-steps of
(1) identifying geolocations, (2) comparing the location information to the
geolocations, and (3) determining that the location information and the
geolocation correspond all reasonably can be characterized as entailing
observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be performed in
the human mind. The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes mental
processes, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that
can be performed in the human minds as patent-ineligible abstract ideas.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitations [iv], including
its three sub-steps reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial
exception to patent-eligible subject matter.
Limitation [v] recites
estimating . . . an available capacity of said first attended
delivery/pickup location to store parcels based on a comparison
of a total volume of storage space of said first attended
delivery/pickup location and a total volume of parcels located at
said first attended delivery/pickup location, wherein the total
volume of parcels is at least partially based on the determining
that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended
delivery/pickup location.
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

11
Performing an estimation reasonably can be characterized as a mental
process that can be performed in the human mind. As such, limitation [v]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-
eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance.
Limitation [vi] recites “based on said available capacity, determining
that said first attended delivery/pickup location is able to accept a delivery of
the first parcel.” Making such a determination reasonably can be
characterized as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
As such, limitation [vi] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial
exception to patent-eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance.
Limitation [vii] recites “. . . reserving space . . . for said first parcel at
said first attended delivery/pickup location.” Making a reservation
reasonably can be characterized as a certain method of organizing human
activity. More specifically, making a reservation of space reasonably can be
characterized as a commercial or legal interaction including business
relations. As such, limitation [vii] reasonably can be characterized as
reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter recognized by
the 2019 Guidance.
Limitation [viii] recites “facilitating . . . said delivery of said first
parcel from an origin location to said first attended delivery/pickup
location.” Appellant does not expressly define what acts facilitating a
delivery covers or is limited to. See RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF
NON-COMPLIANT APPEAL BRIEF (filed June 29, 2018), 3 (citing
Spec. 1:21–23 for support for the “facilitating” limitation of claim 1); see
also Spec. 1:21–23 (tautologically stating that the computer-implemented
method of delivering a parcel to an attended delivery/pickup location
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

12
comprises “facilitating by at least one processor, delivery of the parcel from
an origin location to the particular one of the one or more attended
delivery/pickup locations”).
We understand, then, that the claimed step of facilitating the delivery
of a parcel is not limited merely to the final act of physically delivering the
parcel, but additionally can read on any of various actions that further the
delivery of the parcel. For example, facilitating the delivery reasonably can
be interpreted as reading on the act of scheduling the parcel’s delivery,
informing a person that the parcel is ready for delivery, or instructing a
person to deliver the parcel.
Facilitating the delivery of a parcel reasonably can be characterized,
then, as a certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically,
instructing an employee to deliver a parcel reasonably can be characterized
as a commercial interaction including business relations or managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including
teaching or following rules and instructions. As such, limitation [viii]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-
eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance.
For these reasons, each of limitations [i]–[viii] reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter
under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether claim 1 recites additional elements that individually or in
combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance provides
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

13
exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or
combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical
application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the
functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or
technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to patent-ineligible
abstract ideas because
the claims expressly recite features [that], at minimum, require
the use of a mobile scanning device communicatively coupled to
the at least on server and configured to determine location data
upon scanning machine-readable indicia associated with a parcel
to produce an indication that at least a first set of parcels was
scanned by the device at drop off.
Appeal Br. 26. Appellant asserts that “The Office has not articulated a way .
. . that a human mind with or without the aid of pen and paper could perform
this function.” Id.
This argument is unpersuasive. The fact that a claim recites that
computer components carry out an abstract idea does not necessarily make
the claim patent eligible. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. “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.
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to unsubstantiated
mental processes or abstract ideas because Appellant’s claims recite a
specific and concrete order of occurrence. Appeal Br. 23–26. This
argument is unpersuasive. The fact that Appellant’s claims may recite a
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

14
very specific order of steps does not mean the claims recite improvements to
the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.
See, e.g., Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 (“respondent incorrectly assumes that if a
process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it
automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”).
We additionally note that a claim need not be addressed to a single
abstract idea to be patent ineligible. As our reviewing court has held,
combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less
abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does
not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims
were directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
Appellant argues that “the instant claims recite a specific, discrete
implementation of features that improves the computer’s capabilities, which
is supported by the Specification.” Appeal Br. 31. Appellant further
explains,
the specific, discrete implementation of features . . . offer[s] an
improvement to, among other things, to a computer’s ability to
infer the storage location (i.e. the attended delivery/pickup
location) of parcels based upon geolocation data generated by a
scanning device configured to capture the devices geolocation at
the time a parcel is scanned at drop off. Moreover, the instant
claims recite a specific application that, among other things,
estimates the available capacity of a delivery/pickup location,
reserve space for a specific parcel at that location, and facilitate
delivery of the specific parcel to that location based on the
inferred storage location.
Id.
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

15
This argument is unpersuasive. Some of what Appellant alleges to be
improvements in the computer’s capabilities are, in fact, recitations of, or at
most improvements to, the underlying recited abstract ideas, themselves. As
explained in step 2A, prong 1, of the analysis above, inferring a parcel’s
location, estimating the storage capacity of a storage location, and reserving
space constitute abstract ideas that fall within the recognized categories of
certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of
the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive
concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible
concept.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”)
(emphasis omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract
application realm.”).
Under Appellant’s theory, essentially all software applications for
carrying out pre-Internet abstract ideas would be patent eligible because all
software applications improve generic computers by enabling the computers
to perform new functions. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 31. This is not the law.
Instead, the method of using a computer system, as presently claimed,
merely enables one to perform more efficiently the abstract steps of inferring
locations, estimating storage capacity, and reserving space. That is, claim 1
merely entails using a computer system to aid in more efficiently carrying
out the underlying abstract ideas.
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

16
See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com., L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (distinguishing a claimed solution necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks from claims that “merely recite the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world
along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet”); see also Trading
Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (where an
“invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer . . .
[, it] is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”); Bancorp Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“the fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Relying on a “processor” to “perform
routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
claim patent eligible.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859
F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “mere automation of manual processes
using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in
computer technology.”).
Furthermore, claim 1’s first three steps of (1) a server providing a
selection attended delivery/pickup locations, (2) a server receiving a request
to deliver a parcel, and (3) receiving from a mobile scanning device an
indication of a set of parcels was scanned all can be characterized reasonably
as merely constituting insignificant pre-solution activity:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for
use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

17
claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 is
directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor is claim 1 directed
to a particular machine or transformation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c). Nor
has Appellant persuasively demonstrated that claim 1 adds any other
meaningful limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(e). Accordingly, Appellant has
not persuaded us that claim 1 integrates the recited abstract ideas into a
practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Step 2B
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 1 adds any specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 2019 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Appellant argues that “the Specification provides factual evidence that
embodiments include individual limitations that overcome challenges in
facilitating delivery of parcels in a digital logistics system.” Appeal Br. 34.
In support, Appellant cites the following passages of Appellant’s
Specification:
The use of such attended delivery/pickup locations may have a
variety of different advantages. First, in certain situations, the
recipient of a parcel may not typically be home when parcels are
commonly delivered. In such situations, it may be useful to have
the parcels delivered to an attended location where an individual
is available to accept and/or sign for a particular parcel and
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

18
maintain the parcel in a safe location until the recipient is
available to pick up the parcel.
Id. (citing Spec. 5).
the system may be adapted to: (1) receive an indication that a
particular parcel has been scanned at drop off; (2) receive data
regarding the location at which the parcel was scanned at drop
off (e.g., using GPS functionality associated with a handheld
device or other electronic device); (3) compare the location with
the geolocations of one or more attended delivery/pickup
locations; and (4) in response to determining that the location at
which the parcel was scanned at least generally corresponds to
the geolocation of a particular attended delivery/pickup location,
verify that the parcel has been delivered to the particular attended
delivery/pickup location
Id. at 34–35 (citing Spec 16–17).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the cited examples do
not support the Appellant’s position that the claimed invention overcomes
technical challenges. That is, the cited passages merely explain what the
invention entails. They do not explain that the invention improves some sort
of computer technology.
We instead agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification
supports the Examiner’s determination that “the claims do not include
additional elements that, when considered both individually and in ordered
combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception.” Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 28, 2018 (“Ans.”), 5. More
specifically, the Examiner notes that the additional elements recited beyond
the abstract idea only entail the claimed “server,” “mobile scanning device,”
“user device,” “processor,” “scanning device,” and global positioning
system.” Id. Furthermore, the Examiner quotes, for example, the following
passage of Appellant’s Specification to support the determination:
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

19
the computer 120 may operate in the capacity of a server or a
client computer in a client-server network environment, or as a
peer computer in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network
environment. The Computer 120 may be a desktop personal
computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal
Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a
server, a network router, a switch or bridge, or any other
computer capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or
otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that computer.
Further, while only a single computer is illustrated, the term
“computer” shall also be taken to include any collection of
computers that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple
sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the
methodologies discussed herein.
Ans. 5–6 (citing Spec. ¶ 29).
For these reasons, Appellant fails to persuasively demonstrate that the
Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within
the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55;
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We,
likewise, sustain the 101 rejection of claims 2–8 and 10–21, which Appellant
does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 10–36.

CONCLUSION

35 U.S.C. § Claims Affirmed Reversed
Overall Outcome § 101 1–8 and 10–21
Appeal 2019-001254
Application 14/200,267

20
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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED