MOBILETRAC LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

2020000350 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/825,582 08/13/2015 JAMES MICHAEL IRISH 015535-18069B-US 1988
154659 7590 11/17/2020
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC / KAR Auction Services
KAR Auction Services Inc.
20 S. Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
GEORGALAS, ANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES MICHAEL IRISH
____________

Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6, 9, 21, 22, 25, 26, 35, 37–40, 42,
45, and 48–58.2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
MobileTrac, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 10–20, 23, 24, 27–34, 36, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 47 have
been canceled previously.
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “methods and apparatus for
delivering information regarding a plurality of vehicles for sale, the
information being updated based on real-time entry of changes thereto.” See
Spec. 2:12–16.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A system configured to provide item information,
the system comprising:
at least one interface configured to communicate with an
item information source, the item information source
configured to obtain information relating to an item quality for
a plurality of vehicles;
a processor in communication with the interface, the
processor configured to:
send, to an item information source, an indication
of a predetermined query end entry;
receive a list of vehicle identification numbers
(VINs) from at least one client device;
send, to the item information source, the list of
VINs, the list of VINs comprising a plurality of VINs and
indicative to the item information source to perform
baseline searches for vehicle history reports for the
plurality of VINs in the list, wherein, responsive to
receipt of the plurality of VINs, the item information
source is configured to perform the baseline searches to
generate a respective vehicle history report for each of
the plurality of VINs;
send, to the item information source, an indication
of a time interval, the indication of the time interval
indicative to the item information source the time interval
at which to perform updated searches for the VINs in the
list, wherein, responsive to receipt of the indication of the
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

3
time interval, the item information source is configured
to perform the updated searches;
wherein responsive to receipt of the plurality of
VINs, the item information source is configured to:
search results generated by performing the
baseline searches and the updated searches;
identify specific VINs that have associated
therewith the predetermined query end entry; and
responsive to identifying the specific VINs
that have associated therewith the predetermined
query end entry, thereafter stop performing
subsequent searches for the identified specific
VINs that have associated therewith the
predetermined query end entry;
in response to sending the list of VINs and the
indication of the time interval, receive a plurality of
baseline vehicle history reports from the item information
source, each of the plurality of baseline vehicle history
reports correlated to a respective VIN from the list of
VINs, the baseline vehicle history reports being
performed at a baseline date;
transmit at least a part of the plurality of baseline
vehicle history reports to a client device;
receive updated entries from the item information
source, wherein the updated entries are indicative of an
updated search performed at a later date, the later date
being the time interval after the baseline date, the
updated entries correlated to a subset list of VINs,
wherein a respective VIN in the subset list of VINs
responsive to the updated search is indicative that the
respective VIN in the subset list of VINs includes an
entry correlated to the respective VIN that is dated after
the baseline date, wherein at least a portion of VINs in
the subset list of VINs include the updated entries that
comprise the predetermined query end entry such that the
item information source thereafter stops performing
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

4
searches for the portion of VINs in the subset list of
VINs; and
transmit to the client device at least some of the
updated entries for the respective VINs in the subset list
of VINs that are dated after the baseline date.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–3, 6, 9, 21, 22, 25, 26, 35, 37–40, 42, 45, and 48–58 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
See Final Act. 7–12.
Claims 55–58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hecklinger (US 2006/0178793 Al; pub. Aug. 10, 2006)
and Yanagihara (US 6,161,102; iss. Dec. 12, 2000). See Final Act. 14–30.

ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We agree with the Examiner and
highlight the following for emphasis.
Rejection and Arguments
The Examiner finds the claimed invention “is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner identifies the
functions recited in the independent claims, which generally relate to
querying data regarding purchasable vehicles and providing information
regarding the vehicles, as abstract idea (Final Act. 7–11) and further
explains:
The claimed elements recite an idea of itself, i.e., receiving and
classifying information, similar to other identified abstract ideas
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

5
such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis (See Electric
Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d
1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and data recognition and storage (See
Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2014)).
Final Act. 11. The Examiner also determines that the additional elements
recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because “the claims recite a processor, a client device, and a
database, which are considered to be generic computer components
performing generic computer functions” whereas “[t]he use of generic
computer components performing generic computer functions does not
impose any meaningful limits on the computer implementation of the
abstract idea.” Final Act. 11–12. Additionally, the Examiner determines
that the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea recited in the
independent claims and further add elements that relate to same abstract idea
or “do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.” Final Act. 12.
Appellant contends the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
because they “describe a specific, novel and patentable application for
performing searches and providing results” and more specifically, “the
claims are a novel implementation in which the item information source,
typically tasked as a passive device, includes additional intelligence in one
of two respects: (1) identifying when to end performing updated searches; or
(2) when to provide additional information to the requesting device.”
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further contends that under these two situations,
“the item information has the intelligence to determine, itself, when to stop
performing updated searches” and “the item information source has the
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

6
intelligence to determine when to provide additional information (and under
what conditions) to the requesting device,” which provide the technical
benefit of improving bandwidth, usage, processing power, and speed.
Appeal Br. 11–12. According to Appellant, similar to the claims in
BASCOM,3 “the present claims are directed to installation of functionality at
a specific location, remote from the conventional device - namely, at the
item information source, remote from the requesting system - in order to
derive technical benefits described above of bandwidth, efficiency, and
speed.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant also asserts that, similar to the claims in
Amdoc,4 “the present claims place the intelligence as to when to end the
searching at the item information source - resulting in both an
unconventional solution and resulting in a technical benefit that achieves an
improvement in computer functionality.” Appeal Br. 15. Lastly, Appellant
argues that “[t]he claims recite limitations that amount to significantly more
than the exception itself, limitations that are not well routine or conventional
in the field.” Appeal Br. 16.
Legal Principles
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).

3 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
4 Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

7
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme 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
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

8
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. USPTO, 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under
the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

9
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, 2018) (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Step 2B.)
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Discussion
Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a system including an interface in
communication with an item information source and “a processor in
communication with the interface, the processor configured to” perform the
following functions:
send, . . ., an indication of a predetermined query . . .;
receive a list of vehicle identification numbers (VINs)
from at least one client device;
send, . . ., the list of VINs, . . ., wherein, responsive to
receipt of the plurality of VINs, the item information source is
configured to perform the baseline searches . . .;
send, . . ., an indication of a time interval, . . .;
wherein responsive to receipt of the plurality of VINs, the item
information source is configured to:
search results generated by performing the baseline
searches and the updated searches;
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

10
identify specific VINs that have associated therewith the
predetermined query end entry;
. . ., stop performing subsequent searches . . .;
. . ., receive a plurality of baseline vehicle history reports
transmit at least a part of the plurality of baseline
vehicle history reports to a client device; [and]
receive updated entries . . .;
transmit to the client device at least some of the
updated entries . . ..
Claim 1 (emphases added).
The aforementioned steps of sending requests, receiving information
about VINs, sending time intervals and performing subsequent searches for
updated entries for a subset of VINs relate to functions that could be
performed alternatively as mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the
human mind or using pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion) under the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
52.5 Contrary to Appellant’s assertion that the claim as a whole “is directed

5 If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human
using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible
under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the Supreme Court has
altered the § 101 analysis since Cyber Source in cases like Mayo and Alice,
we continue to ‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category’” (brackets in original)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes
can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

11
to ‘bulk’ VIN monitoring” that “enables a user to monitor a large volume of
items,” (Reply Br. 5–6), a person can perform the above-mentioned steps of
claim 1 by using their minds (or pen and paper) in the claimed manner. For
example, a person can receive a request to obtain the baseline information
regarding a number of VINs and fulfill the request by searching or writing
down the history and provide an updated search at a later time based on an
indicated time interval, using their mind or pen and paper.
Additionally, the recited functions are similar to collecting and
analyzing information, which was determined to be an abstract idea in
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical
correlations, which was determined to be an an abstract idea in Digitech
Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2014). Courts have also found claims directed to collecting, recognizing,
and storing or transmitting data to be directed to an abstract idea. Content
Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
We observe that the remaining independent claims 9, 38, 48, 52, and
55 recite similar language of commensurate scope that we conclude also
falls into the abstract idea category of a mental process including the abstract
idea subcategories of an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion.
Claim 38 recites the additional non-abstract generic limitation of “an
information system,” claims 48 and 55 recite similar functions included in
“an item information source,” while claims 9 and 52 are directed to methods
for performing similar functions discussed above in claim 1. Claim 1 recites
the additional non-abstract generic limitations of a device including an
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

12
interface, a processor, a client device, and an item information source for
performing the functions recited in claim 1.
We also note the recited “perform the baseline searches” and
“receiving updated entries,” as well as “transmit to a client device” functions
of claim 1, and similar language recited in other independent claims merely
access and manipulate information. Courts have found such data gathering
steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545
F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski, 561 U.S. 593
(characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).
See also Ans. 6.
Because we conclude all claims on appeal recite an abstract idea, as
discussed above, under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong
Two. Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on these mental
processes, we, nevertheless, must still determine whether the abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies,
relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54–55. We, therefore, (1) identify whether there are any additional
recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements
individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application. See id.
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Further pursuant to the Revised Guidance, we consider whether there
are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

13
at 54–55. We have identified supra, the additional non-abstract limitations
recited in independent claims 1 and 9 as an interface, a processor, a client
device, and an item information source. Claims 38, 48, 52, and 55 recite
additional elements, such as a system and a database. See Appeal Br. 22–33
(Claims App.).
Under MPEP § 2106.05(a) (“Improvements to the Functioning of a
Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”), Appellant
contends the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea and
assert that “the current claims are integrated into a practical application for
providing information associated with VINs.” Appeal Br. 13. According to
Appellant, the improvement to the functioning of the recited item
information source “has the intelligence to scan the information received in
order to determine when to stop performing updated searches” and “has the
intelligence to compile information received in real time in order to send a
predetermined intervals.” Appeal Br. 13. We, however, note the remaining
elements recited in claim 1, as well as other independent claims, do not
integrate the above-identified abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claims do not improve computer functionality, improve another
field of technology, utilize a particular machine, or effect a particular
physical transformation. Rather, we determine that nothing in the claims
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims
are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception. For
example, in claim 1 the steps of (1) “send, . . ., an indication of a
predetermined query . . .;” (2) “receive a list of vehicle identification
numbers (VINs) from at least one client device;” (3) “send, . . ., the list of
VINs, . . ., wherein, responsive to receipt of the plurality of VINs, the item
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

14
information source is configured to perform the baseline searches . . .;” (4)
“send, . . ., an indication of a time interval, . . .;” (5) “wherein responsive to
receipt of the plurality of VINs, the item information source is configured
to:” (6) “search results generated by performing the baseline searches and
the updated searches;” (7) “identify specific VINs that have associated
therewith the predetermined query end entry;” (8) “. . ., stop performing
subsequent searches . . .;” (9) “. . ., receive a plurality of baseline vehicle
history reports;” (10) “transmit at least a part of the plurality of baseline
vehicle history reports to a client device;” (11) “receive updated entries . . .;”
and (12) “transmit to the client device at least some of the updated
entries . . .” are merely steps performed by a generic computer that do not
improve computer functionality. That is, these recited steps (1)–(12) “do not
. . . purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” but are merely
generic functions performed by a conventional processor. Alice, 573 U.S. at
221. Likewise, these same steps (1)–(12) listed above do not improve the
technology of the technical field and merely use generic computer
components and functions to perform the steps.
Also, the recited method steps (1)–(12) above do not require a
particular machine and can be utilized with a general purpose computer, and
the steps performed are purely conventional. In this case, the general
purpose computer is merely an object on which the method operates in a
conventional manner. See Figs. 1–3, Spec. 8–10 (describing generic
processors, databases, and interfaces). Further, the claims as a whole fail to
effect any particular transformation of an article to a different state. The
recited steps (1)–(12) fail to provide meaningful limitations to limit the
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

15
judicial exception and rather are mere instructions to apply the method to a
generic computer.
Additionally, we are not persuaded that the focus of the claims is on a
technical improvement of a computer or its components’ functionality or
efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices function. To the
extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention uses a particular item
information source, user interface, or search techniques to improve a
computer’s functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way that
device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention. See Appeal Br. 13–16.
We also agree with the Examiner that the argued “intelligence” refers
to different algorithms for speech recognition, search or error checking
programs. Ans. 8–9, 12–13. The written description indicates that each of
these elements encompass commonplace generic components. See Spec.
3:30,–14:2, 15:14–23, 38:7–15. Appellant does not describe “intelligence”
or other elements, such as the “processor,” “interface,” and “database” with
any specificity. For example, Appellant’s Specification describes the terms
“computer program,” “database,” “processor,” and other components for
displaying, storing, and transmitting information as generic and typical.
Other than disclosing these additional elements performing their accustomed
functions utilizing standard techniques, the written description describes
these components in functional, result-oriented terms with no technical
details. See Spec. 8–10, Figs. 1–3.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the claimed invention can
automatically identify the vehicle history and the associated updates at
specific time intervals more efficiently than a human, the increased
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

16
efficiency comes from the capabilities of the generic computer components,
not the recited process itself including the searching and updating. See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[T]he 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.” (Quoting Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)))
(alteration in original); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem.
Co., 711 F. Appx. 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (alteration in
original) (citation omitted) (“Though the claims purport to accelerate the
process of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have 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.’”). Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of the
present claims is not on an improvement in computer systems or databases
as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use generic
computing components to lookup values in a database as tools. See
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
As such, Appellant’s reliance on BASCOM (Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply
Br. 6–7) is also unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to
a technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing
problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering
solution—namely a “one-size-fits-all” filter at an Internet Service Provider
(ISP)—more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP.
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution
improved the computer system’s performance and, therefore, was patent-
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

17
eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM
that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed
invention here uses generic computing components to implement an abstract
idea. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 15–16) that Appellant has
failed to establish that the present claims include a similar or analogous
arrangement or “ordered combination” of components, and, instead, make
only the conclusory statement that the recited item information source has
some type of intelligence “to scan the information received in order to
determine when to stop performing updated searches” and “to compile
information received in real time in order to send a predetermined intervals.”
App. Br. 13. Similarly, Appellant’s claims can be distinguished from patent-
eligible claims such as those in Amdocs that require the generic components
operate in an unconventional manner. See Appeal Br. 14–15; Ans. 16.
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for
a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article
to a different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” Under the Revised
Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

18
integrate that exception into a practical application, we then look to whether
the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56.
The Examiner finds that “the claims recite various transmitting,
receiving, storing, and generating report steps,” whereas according to MPEP
2106.05(d)(II), “elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a
network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving
information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.” Ans. 7 citing
Versata,6 OIP Techs,7 buySAFE8). The Examiner also finds that the other
claims recite elements that fall into the same category of abstract ideas
related to requesting, collecting, and transmitting information. Ans. 7–8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and further observe that Appellant
has not identified any disclosure in the Specification to rebut the assertion
that the additional elements including the “intelligence” or the components
used in receiving, storing and transmitting vehicle information are routine
and well-understood. See Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 8–10.
As discussed above, the additional elements recited in claim 1 include
the computer components used to carry out the steps of receiving data,

6 Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
7 OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
8 buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

19
performing searches, and generating different reports, and transmitting data,
which are recited at a high level of generality. See claim 1. Additionally,
the written description indicates that the recited steps are performed by
generic computers or computer components. See, e.g., Figs. 21–3. Spec.
pages 8–10 (describing generic processors, databases, and interfaces). We
also observe that, as discussed above, the additional elements recited in other
independent claims are described as generic components.
Additionally, we observe the Examiner has made the above findings
as required by the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132. See also In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (declining “to impose a
heightened burden on examiners beyond the notice requirement of § 132”).
In rejecting the pending claims under § 101, the Examiner notified Appellant
that the claims recite steps that describe the abstract concept of “receiving
and classifying information, similar to other identified abstract ideas such as
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis,” a method directed to mental processes, and that the
claims do not include additional elements that would amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. See Final Act 11–12; Ans. 3–6. In particular,
the Examiner found “[w]hen viewed either as individual limitations or as an
ordered combination, the claims do not add significantly more to the abstract
idea.,” in accordance with Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed.
Cir. 2018). See Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 12–18. The Examiner specifically
cited portions of Appellant’s Specification and Court decisions to establish
the recited database-related functions, storing and retrieving information,
and transmitting data over a network constitute elements that are well-
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

20
understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan. Id.; Ans. 6–8, 10–
11, 18.
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that
independent claims 1, 9, 38, 48, 52, and 55 are “directed to” an abstract idea
and do not recite an “inventive concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, 38, 48, 52, and 55, as well as the
remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
SECTION 103 REJECTION
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 14–30) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 19–24) to the
extent they are consistent with our analysis below.
Claim 55
Regarding claim 55, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred
because the combination of Hecklinger and Yanagihara fails to disclose that
“the additional information is received in real time” and “the subsequent
searches at the time interval (used to generate the updated vehicle history
report) are responsive to identifying the subsequent information (previously
received in real time),” where “the subsequent searches at the time interval
are conditioned on the identifying of subsequent information,” as recited in
claim 55. Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 11–12. According to
Appellant, the cited portions of Yanagihara in column 9 “merely teaches that
subsequent searches are performed, and the results of the subsequent
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

21
searches are transmitted” rather than the claimed “conditions under which
the subsequent searches are performed.” Appeal Br. 19–20.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. First, the Examiner finds
Yanagihara teaches obtaining subsequent information in real time when “the
user selects radio button 726 to automatically search for any new or
modified documents and deliver the results at a scheduled time to the client
system.” See Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 19 (citing Yanagihara 15:60–16:19).
Second, as further pointed out by the Examiner, Yanagihara teaches
scheduling the days and/or times for both the searching and the delivery of
the subsequent searches after identifying documents that have been modified
or updated subsequent to the previous search or the baseline search. See
Final Act. 18–19; Ans. 19–20 (citing Yanagihara 15:25–40, 16:45–51, Figs.
4a, 7b). That is, the scheduling is done in real time that causes the
information source to receive the schedule information and identify the
searches for items that have been updated subsequent to the initial or the
baseline search. The Examiner specifically explained that Yanagihara
discloses the recited conditional subsequent searches as “generating a report
that lists documents found that match the search parameters that have last-
modified dates which are subsequent to the date that the first search (i.e., the
baseline search) was run or subsequent to the last scheduled search” to
identify “documents that have last-modified dates which are subsequent to
the baseline date (i.e., the first search).” Ans. 21 (citing Yanagihara 16:45–
51).
Claims 56–58
With respect to claims 56–58, Appellant contends that the Examiner
erred because Yanagihara fails “to condition its searches based on
Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

22
subsequent information” and “to identify information based on type and fails
to perform searches based on the identified type.” Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply
Br. 12–13. For the same reasons discussed above for claim 55, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the remaining
claims.
103 Conclusion
Therefore, because the Examiner has correctly mapped the claimed
limitations to the specific portions of the applied prior art, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred in concluding that the combination
of Hecklinger and Yanagihara renders independent claims 55–58 obvious.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 9,
21, 22, 25,
26, 35, 37–
40, 42, 45,
48–58
101 Eligibility 1–3, 6, 9,
21, 22, 25,
26, 35, 37–
40, 42, 45,
48–58

55–58 103 Hecklinger,
Yanagihara
55–58
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6, 9,
21, 22, 25,
26, 35, 37–
40, 42, 45,
48–58

Appeal 2020-000350
Application 14/825,582

23
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED