Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 10, 2020

2019005357 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 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.
14/516,253 10/16/2014 Donna L. Polehn 20141073 8006
170054 7590 07/10/2020
VERIZON - AK
VERIZON PATENTING GROUP
1300 I STREET NW
SUITE 500 EAST
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/10/2020 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):
VZPatent170054@verizon.com
docket@ak-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONNA L. POLEHN, KENT W. HUGHES, KUMAR SANJEEV,
STEVEN R. RADOS, THOMAS W. HAYNES,
NITHYA KRISHNASWAMY, and DAVID CHIANG
____________________

Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, and 21–27. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure generally relates to techniques for identifying
vehicle information (e.g., license plate numbers or other textual information

1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary
companies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

2
associated with the vehicle) using optical character recognition (OCR) and
presenting targeted advertisements on smart billboards based on trends
associated with the vehicles and/or users associated with the vehicles.
Abstract; see Spec. ¶¶ 18, 19, Fig. 1. More specifically, the claimed subject
matter correlates user devices with license plates and presents targeted
advertisements based on trends associated with a user device correlated to an
identified license plate. Spec. ¶ 18, Fig. 1. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are
independent claims, and claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more devices, information regarding
a first set of license plates, associated with a first set of vehicles,
that have been visually detected by a first set of video input
devices that have a field of view that includes a first region, are
located within the first region during a first time period;
receiving, by the one or more devices, a first set of location
information indicating one or more geographical locations at
which a first set of user devices have been physically located, the
first set of location information having been determined via at
least one of:
a network-based triangulation technique, or
a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique
performed by one or more user devices, of the first set of user
devices,
determining, by the one or more devices and based on the
first set of location information, that the first set of user devices
are located within the first region during the first time period;
receiving, by the one or more devices, information
regarding a second set of license plates, associated with a second
set of vehicles, that have been visually detected, by the first set
of video input devices, as being located within the first region
during a second time period;
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

3
receiving, by the one or more devices, a second set of
location information indicating one or more geographical
locations at which a second set of user devices have been
physically located, the second set of location information having
been determined via at least one of:
a network-based triangulation technique, or
a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique
performed by one or more user devices, of the second set of user
devices,
determining, by the one or more devices and based on the
second set of location information, that the second set of user
devices are located within the first region during the second time
period;
identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular user
device that is present in both the first and second sets of user
devices;
identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular
license plate that is present in both the first and second sets of
license plates;
correlating, by the one or more devices, the particular user
device to the particular license plate by identifying that the
particular user device and the particular license plate are present
in both the first and second sets of user devices and license plates,
respectively;
receiving, by the one or more devices, information
indicating that the particular license plate has been visually
detected, by a second set of video input devices that have a field
of view that includes a second region, as being present on a
particular vehicle in the second region, wherein a billboard
device is within a line of sight of the second region;
identifying, by the one or more devices and based on the
information indicating that the particular license plate has been
visually detected on the particular vehicle in the second region,
one or more trends associated with the particular user device that
is associated with the particular license plate;
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

4
selecting, by the one or more devices and based on the
correlation of the particular user device to the particular license
plate, content to display on the billboard device, the content
being selected further based at least in part on the one or more
trends associated with the particular user device; and
outputting, by the one or more devices, an instruction to
the billboard device, the instruction causing the billboard device
to present the selected content.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, and 21–27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 5–15.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 21–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious in view of Scofield (US 2014/0279012 A1; Sept. 18,
2014), Jana (US 2003/0096621 A1; May 22, 2003), Evans (US
2004/0220917 A1; Nov. 4, 2004), and Wasserman (US 9,293,042 B1;
Mar. 22, 2016). Final Act. 16–34, 45–50.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious in view of Scofield, Jana, Evans, Wasserman, and Harrison
(US 2013/0325629 A1; Dec. 5, 2013). Final Act. 50–55.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in
view of Scofield, Wasserman, and Evans. Final Act. 34–45.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in
view of Scofield, Wasserman, Evans, and Outwater (US 2013/0262275 A1;
Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 55–57.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

5
ANALYSIS
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Although Appellant provides separate headings for various claim
groups, Appellant substantively argues the rejection of all claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as a group. See Appeal Br. 20–22 (arguing the rejection of
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper for the reasons presented with
respect to claim 1). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of all pending claims on appeal with respect to the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner concludes the claims are patent-ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 5–15. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s
rejection, arguing the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the claims
are integrated into a practical application, and the claims recite significantly
more than any alleged abstract idea that are not well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Appeal Br. 14–20; Reply Br. 6–7.
If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility, the Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101—i.e., evaluating whether the claim
is directed to a judicially recognized exception. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). We also consider the United States Patent
and Trademark Office’s revised guidance for applying the Alice framework
when evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”); USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility
Guidance Update (Oct. 18, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/PatentEligibility
(“Guidance Update”).
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

6
As part of our inquiry, we “look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance
over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is
directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217 (“First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts.”). The Guidance breaks this “directed
to” inquiry (“Step 2A”) into two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite
a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) (“Prong 1”), and (ii) if so, is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application (“Prong 2”).
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
If we determine the claim is directed to an abstract idea, we then
examine “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive
concept,” “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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration
in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (directing us to consider whether the additional claim elements
add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[]
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry” (“Step 2B”)).
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

7
Guidance Step 2A (The Alice “Directed To” Inquiry)
The Examiner characterizes the claims as being directed to
“determining an advertisement to display based on collected user
information.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that this idea is
similar to ideas the Federal Circuit has found to be abstract, such as
“customizing information based on . . . information known about the user.”
Final Act. 6 (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838
F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner also determines the claimed
subject matter is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity,
specifically “commercial or legal interactions (including . . . advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Ans. 4.
In general, we agree with the Examiner’s characterization. More
specifically, we determine the claims are directed to correlating user devices
to license plates and selecting targeted advertisements based on trends
associated with the user device in response to detecting the correlated license
plate (hereinafter “selecting targeted advertisements”). Therefore, we
conclude representative claim 1 is directed to certain methods of organizing
human activity (i.e., advertising, marketing, and sales activities) and,
alternatively, mental processes (i.e., a concept performed in the human mind,
such as, an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), which are
abstract ideas. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
This is consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed
embodiments of the invention. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 18 (“Some
implementations, describe[d] herein, may provide a ‘smart’ billboard, which
may be used to present targeted ad content . . . selected based on one or more
other types of information, such as user information that has been linked to
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

8
vehicle information.”), 20 (“The smart billboard controller may use the
license plate information, of the set of vehicles, to select ad content for
display on the smart billboard.”), 21 (“The smart billboard controller may
identify other types of information associated with the user . . . and may use
such information when selecting ad content for display on the smart
billboard.”); Title (“PRESENTING SMART BILLBOARD CONTENT
BASED ON OPTICAL PATTERN RECOGNITION OF VEHICLE
INFORMATION”); see also Appeal Br. 2 (asserting “the claims recite
features generally related to selecting and presenting targeted content to
present on a ‘smart’ billboard device” (citing Spec. ¶ 18)), 3 (“Information
regarding the user device can then be identified and used to select the
targeted content to present on the billboard.” (citing Spec. ¶ 21)).
Although we describe the abstract idea slightly differently than the
Examiner, the Examiner’s characterization of the idea is not erroneous. “An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
level of abstraction an examiner uses to describe an abstract idea need not
“impact the patentability analysis.” Apple, 842 F.3d at 1241. That is true
here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea
recited, the claims recite an abstract idea. Cf. Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH
v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(“Although not as broad as the district court’s abstract idea of organizing
data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.”).
Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, we conclude that
selecting targeted advertisements (i.e., gathering known information about a
user to identify customized advertisements or recommendations) is an
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

9
abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity
(e.g., a commercial interaction—specifically, advertising, marketing or sales
activities or behaviors). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (determining that “[t]his sort of information tailoring is ‘a
fundamental . . . practice long prevalent in our system’” (quoting Alice, 573
U.S. at 219), “newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on
information known about the customer,” and “[p]roviding this minimal
tailoring . . . is an abstract idea”); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d
1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“[T]argeted advertising is [a well-known]
concept, insofar as matching consumers with a given product or service ‘has
been practiced as long as markets have been in operation.’” (quoting Tuxis
Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CV 13-1771-RGA, 2014 WL
4382446, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014))), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 915 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).2 Finally, under Office guidance, fundamental economic
principles or practices and subject matter related to “advertising, marketing
or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” such as targeted

2 See, e.g., In re Greenstein, 778 F. App’x 935, 936–40 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(providing recommendations over the Internet regarding a purchase or lease
of goods or services); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362–64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (offer-based price optimization); Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. J. Crew Grp., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-196-JRG, 2016 WL
4591794, at *5–6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016) (recommending products to
customers based on purchase history), aff’d sub nom. Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. FTD Companies, Inc., 703 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d
325, 337–38 (D. Del. 2015) (providing personalized recommendations),
aff’d sub nom. Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com Inc.,
671 F. App’x 777 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

10
advertising fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity
category of abstract ideas. Guidance Update at 4–6. We thus agree with the
Examiner that representative claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing
human activity.
Alternatively, authorizing a user to purchase content is a mental
process that is applied and performed in a computing environment. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(concluding that “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”); see also Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (concluding “the collection, storage, and recognition of data” was
abstract). We see no meaningful difference between the method recited in
claim 1 and other broadly worded methods that courts have determined are
directed to mental processes. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1353–56; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307,
1316–19 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary
Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 761–65 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370–77 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). Like the method steps in many of these decisions, the method
steps in claim 1 are so broadly drawn that they encompass acts that people
can perform in their minds or using pen and paper. It is well settled that
merely reciting generic computer components performing steps that could
otherwise be performed mentally does not change their characterization as
mental steps. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

11
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 (Recite an Abstract Idea)
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the
following claim limitations that recite aspects of the advertising activity or
mental steps constituting the abstract idea of selecting targeted
advertisements, emphasized in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by one or more devices, information regarding
a first set of license plates, associated with a first set of vehicles,
that have been visually detected by a first set of video input
devices that have a field of view that includes a first region, are
located within the first region during a first time period;
receiving, by the one or more devices, a first set of location
information indicating one or more geographical locations at
which a first set of user devices have been physically located, the
first set of location information having been determined via at
least one of:
a network-based triangulation technique, or
a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique
performed by one or more user devices, of the first set of user
devices,
determining, by the one or more devices and based on the
first set of location information, that the first set of user devices
are located within the first region during the first time period;
receiving, by the one or more devices, information
regarding a second set of license plates, associated with a second
set of vehicles, that have been visually detected, by the first set
of video input devices, as being located within the first region
during a second time period;
receiving, by the one or more devices, a second set of
location information indicating one or more geographical
locations at which a second set of user devices have been
physically located, the second set of location information having
been determined via at least one of:
a network-based triangulation technique, or
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

12
a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique
performed by one or more user devices, of the second set of user
devices,
determining, by the one or more devices and based on the
second set of location information, that the second set of user
devices are located within the first region during the second time
period;
identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular user
device that is present in both the first and second sets of user
devices;
identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular
license plate that is present in both the first and second sets of
license plates;
correlating, by the one or more devices, the particular
user device to the particular license plate by identifying that the
particular user device and the particular license plate are
present in both the first and second sets of user devices and
license plates, respectively;
receiving, by the one or more devices, information
indicating that the particular license plate has been visually
detected, by a second set of video input devices that have a field
of view that includes a second region, as being present on a
particular vehicle in the second region, wherein a billboard
device is within a line of sight of the second region;
identifying, by the one or more devices and based on the
information indicating that the particular license plate has been
visually detected on the particular vehicle in the second region,
one or more trends associated with the particular user device
that is associated with the particular license plate;
selecting, by the one or more devices and based on the
correlation of the particular user device to the particular license
plate, content to display on the billboard device, the content
being selected further based at least in part on the one or more
trends associated with the particular user device; and
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

13
outputting, by the one or more devices, an instruction to
the billboard device, the instruction causing the billboard device
to present the selected content.
In other words, the abstract advertising activity or mental process of
selecting targeted advertisements comprises analyzing received information
to tailor an advertisement to information about a user associated with a
detected license plate and, more specifically, (i) determining device
locations based on received lists; (ii) identifying a device in both the first
and second sets of device data; (iii) identifying a license plate in both the
first and second sets of plate data; (iv) correlating the device and the plate
based on the device and plate being in both of the respective sets of data;
(v) based on detecting the plate, determining trends associated with the
device correlated to the plate; and (vi) selecting a target advertisement to
display based on the correlation and the determined device trends.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (explaining that certain methods of organizing
human activity that constitute abstract ideas include “commercial or legal
interactions (including . . . advertising marketing or sales activities or
behaviors . . .)”). Each of these steps merely constitute necessary steps of
the abstract idea because they all analyze collected user information to select
an advertisement targeted to the user.
Additionally, at least these same steps recite mental processes
comprising aspects of the abstract idea of selecting targeted advertisements.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (describing the mental process category of
abstract ideas as including concepts performed in the human mind, such as
observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). Identifying elements of
data within data sets (determining locations from a data set, identifying
plates or devices within multiple data sets), analyzing the data to correlate
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

14
two data elements (i.e., a license plate and a device), and determining trends
associated with a device are merely observations and evaluations, and
selecting a targeted advertisement based on the data analysis is merely a
judgment or opinion.
Appellant asserts, without further explanation, that “none of the
features of claim 1 are mere ‘methods of organizing human activity . . . [or]
mental processes.’” Appeal Br. 14–15. For the reasons stated above, we
disagree, and Appellant’s unsupported and unexplained assertion does not
persuade us otherwise. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318; Capital One, 792
F.3d at 1369; accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; Guidance Update 9;
Final Act. 6 (quoting Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266).
Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas—i.e., mental processes
and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrate Into a Practical Application)
Because claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we next determine whether it
integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application, we identify whether there are “any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those
elements to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a
recognized practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Here, we find the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. More particularly and contrary to
Appellant’s assertions, the claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

15
functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)); (ii) using a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial
exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an
article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other
meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55.
The additional limitations (i.e., those limitations not included in the
recited abstract idea) recite (1) receiving information, specifically regarding
(a) license plates detected in a first region at first and second times, (b) user
device location information (determined by triangulation or GPS), and
(c) information indicating a particular license plate was detected at a second
location within line of sight of a billboard, and (2) outputting an instruction
causing the billboard to display the selected targeted advertisement. Merely
receiving data from or outputting data to an electronic device does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the
claims merely use computers that operate in their normal, expected manner.
See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Additionally, as the court in Enfish explained, “the first step in
the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process
that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). As discussed above, the focus of the pending claims is on
selecting targeted advertisements, and the recited computing elements are
invoked merely as a tool to apply the abstract idea in a particular
environment. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

16
The receiving information and outputting an instruction steps are
insignificant extra-solution activity that merely obtain information necessary
to perform the abstract idea and outputting the selected content, respectively.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31 (explaining that pre-solution data
gathering steps to perform analysis and post-solution activity, such as
outputting the results of an abstract idea, are insufficient to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application). Such pre- and post-solution
activity does not confer patent eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at1375 (explaining that data gathering is
insignificant extra-solution activity); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590
(1978) (adjusting an alarm limit based on output of the abstract idea was
insufficient to render the claimed method patent eligible). Even considering
the additional elements in combination with the abstract idea, using the
generic computer system to perform these steps, at most, limits the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment, which is insufficient to
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55.
Appellant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because the recited correlation of a plate to a device imposes a
meaningful limit on the alleged abstract idea by limiting the claimed subject
matter to visually detecting plates and selecting targeted advertisements
based on a device correlated to the plate. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also
argues characterizing the additional steps as merely displaying the results of
the determination ignores the majority of the claim language relating to how
the determination is done, and Appellant contends the Examiner’s analysis
fails to consider the claims as a whole. Reply Br. 6–7.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

17
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions because the details
regarding how the determination is done involve (1) mere data gathering
(receiving information) and (2) the mental processes or elements of the
certain methods of organizing human activity that are the abstract idea itself
(correlating plates to devices and selecting targeted advertisements).
Moreover, even considering the claims as a whole, the additional elements
(i.e., (1) data gathering using video cameras and optical character
recognition to identify plates and triangulation or GPS to identify devices
and (2) outputting the selected targeted advertisement using digital
billboards) merely apply the abstract idea (i.e., analyzing the received
information and selecting targeted advertisements) using generic devices.
The alleged improvement lies in the data analyzed when selecting targeted
advertisements. Although the claims may use information not previously
used to select targeted advertisements for digital billboards, Appellant has
not persuasively demonstrated that the claimed subject matter recites an
improvement to the computer itself or another technology because applying
different information to select a targeted advertisement merely improves the
abstract idea itself.
Appellant’s claims are similar to those at issue in Capital One. In
Capital One, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims, which
customized electronic content based on user information, were directed to
abstract ideas. Notably, the Federal Circuit has explained that the addition
of computer functionality (such as the video cameras, OCR, and digital
billboard technologies in representative claim 1) to abstract concepts does
not confer patent eligibility. Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1370.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

18
To the extent Appellant contends the claims do not seek to preempt an
abstract idea, see Appeal Br. 15 (arguing claim 1 is not a drafting effort to
monopolize the judicial exception), we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
“[W]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence
of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362–63 (“[T]hat
the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract.”). Further, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose
patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in
this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa,
788 F.3d at 1379.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are
directed to abstract ideas.
Guidance Step 2B (Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
Because we determine representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea or combination of abstract ideas, we evaluate whether claim 1 includes
an inventive concept. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As stated in the
Guidance, many of the considerations to determine whether the claims
amount to “significantly more” under step two of the Alice framework
already are considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception
has been integrated into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56. Thus, at this point of the analysis, we determine whether the claims
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

19
(1) add a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or (2) simply append
well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant argues the claims include significantly more than the
abstract idea because the recited “features of claim 1 are not well-
understood, routine, or conventional.” Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant asserts
that identifying the individual devices (i.e., the cameras, billboard, and OCR
technique) as generic does not address whether the combination of elements
is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Appeal Br. 16. In particular,
Appellant asserts it was “not well-understood or routine for a billboard,
camera, and/or mobile phone to correlate a particular user device to a
particular license plate” using the technique recited or to select targeted
advertisements based on correlating a device to a license plate. Appeal
Br. 17–18.
Appellant also argues the rejection does not properly support the
finding that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Appeal Br. 18–19. Specifically, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s citation to cases demonstrating that sending and receiving
information over a network and storing information in a memory does not
address the claimed features that recite (1) how content is selected and
(2) correlating devices to license plates. Appeal Br. 18–19. Finally,
Appellant argues the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea
because the claims recite a technical benefit of using a correlation between a
device and a license plate to selected targeted advertisements based on
trends associated with the device when detecting the associated license plate
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

20
without needing to use triangulation or GPS in the second region. Appeal
Br. 19–20.
As explained above, the only additional elements recited in the claims
are receiving license plate information and device location information,
receiving an indication that a particular license plate was identified in a
region near a billboard, and sending an instruction to display the selected
targeted advertisement on the billboard. These elements and steps,
considered alone and in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept.
As the Examiner notes, when describing the devices (i.e., cameras,
billboard, user devices) as well as the location (e.g., GPS and triangulation)
and OCR technologies, Appellant describes and claims the devices and
technologies at a high level of generality. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 19, 20, 34, 85, 86). Although “Appellant does not acquiesce in the
Examiner’s summary of Appellant’s Specification,” Appeal Br. 16 n.74,
Appellant does not dispute that these elements individually are well-known,
routine, and conventional elements.
Additionally, our reviewing court has recognized that receiving,
processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a
network are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2016); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d 1350. There is no indication that these elements override
the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional
arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination
of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine,
and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

21
mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v.
Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he
invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly
asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of what is well-
understood, routine, and conventional.’” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).
Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum,3 we agree with the
Examiner’s findings that the claims merely recite generic computer
components (e.g., a configured computing system) performing generic
computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional
(e.g., obtaining/receiving data, processing data, and presenting the results of
the data processing). Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 34, 85, 86; See Mortg. Grader, 811
F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components, such as an “interface,”
“network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept
requirement); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a
‘communications controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of
performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions

3 On April 19, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy issued a memorandum titled: Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (i.e., “the Berkheimer Memorandum”)
(discussing the Berkheimer decision, Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2018)) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF). Support
for a finding that an element was well-understood, routine, or conventional
may be shown by citation to one or more court decisions noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the element(s). See Berkheimer
Memorandum 3–4.
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

22
required by the method claims.”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the
information over a network—with no further specification—is not even
arguably inventive.”). Accordingly, the Specification provides the requisite
evidence to support the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence to show that the recited steps (in particular, the recited correlating
and selecting steps) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See
Appeal Br. 17–20. But these steps form part of the recited abstract ideas,
and the Examiner was not required to show that the abstract ideas are well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
Although we evaluate the claims as whole for an inventive concept by
considering how the additional elements interact with the abstract idea, the
inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or
natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial
L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (explaining that, after determining a claim
is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the
claims before us?’” (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78)). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element
or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the
judicial exception and sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to
significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218–
19 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether
the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine. . . . It has
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

23
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.” (first emphasis
added)); Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882,
892 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“At Alice step two we assess ‘whether the claim
limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which
it was directed were well-understood, routine, and conventional.’” (quoting
BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290)). We thus find this argument unpersuasive.
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejects: (1) claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 21–27 as
obvious in view of Scofield, Jana, Evans, and Wasserman; (2) claim 18 as
obvious in view of Scofield, Evans, and Wasserman; (3) claim 19 as obvious
in view of Scofield, Evans, Wasserman, and Outwater; and (4) claims 2, 5,
9, 11, and 14 as obvious in view of Scofield, Jana, Evans, Wasserman, and
Harrison. Final Act. 16–57.
Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds:
(1) Scofield correlates groups of users in order to select a targeted
advertisement to display to that group of users, Final Act. 21 (citing Scofield
¶¶ 49, 50, Fig. 5); Ans. 6 (additionally citing Scofield ¶ 28); (2) Jana
receives first and second sets of location information, identifies a particular
device present in both sets of location information, and identifies a particular
license plates in first and second sets of license plates, Final Act. 22–24
(citing Jana ¶¶ 26, 36, 37, 47, 49, 55, 74, 80, 81); Ans. 7–8; (3) Evans
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

24
teaches an “old known mathematical concept of intersection of two set of
elements . . . to identify[] . . . a particular user device that is present in both
the first and second sets of user devices [and] identify[] . . . a particular
license plate that is present in both the first and second set of license plates,”
Final Act. 25–26 (citing Evans ¶¶ 2–5, 32–46, Fig. 1); Ans. 7; and
(4) Wasserman aggregates various types of information (including vehicle
data, such as a detected license plate, and mobile device data) to determine a
targeted advertisement to display based on the individual data, vehicle data,
and driving data, Final Act. 28 (citing Wasserman 7:15–30, Fig. 4); Ans. 5–6
(additionally citing Wasserman 15:20–50, 7:55–8:10, 8:25–52, 10:60–67,
19:45–20:20). The Examiner finds that, in combination, Scofield, Jana,
Evans, and Wasserman teach or suggest the correlating step, which recites
correlating a particular license plate to a particular user device by identifying
that the particular plate and device are in the first and second sets of plates
and devices, respectively. Final Act. 28–29; Ans. 5–7.
Appellant argues Wasserman does not correlate a particular user
device to a particular license plate and, to the extent Wasserman arguably
teaches any correlation between a particular plate and a particular device,
Wasserman does not correlate the device and plate as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 23–25. Appellant further asserts the additionally cited references
do not cure this deficiency. Appeal Br. 25–26.
Scofield relates to selecting targeted advertisements for a travel region
based on the individuals likely to see the advertisements. Scofield ¶ 4,
Abstract. Scofield “automatically evaluat[es] travel patterns by tracking the
routes of particular individuals[] and inferring demographics for such
individuals based on the locations of their routes” and “[e]xtrapolating such
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

25
individual demographics [to] enable inference of shared demographics at
particular advertisement opportunities” to better target advertisements to
those individuals. Scofield, Abstract; see Scofield ¶¶ 4, 5, 21, 50. Scofield
may track users either by GPS or other location services using individuals’
mobile devices or by tracking vehicle license plates using cameras
employing OCR technology. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 17, 20, 36, 37.
Jana relates to tracking multiple mobile users’ movement and
identifying users who are engaged in a common “location-based activit[y]”
based on the tracked movement. Jana ¶¶ 26, 36–38, 81, Abstract. Jana’s
network may “keep a record (registration) of the current location area of
each mobile.” Jana ¶¶ 47, 85; see Jana, Fig. 5A. Mobile devices may be
tracked using this registration process or using a location sensor (e.g., GPS
or triangulation). Jana ¶¶ 48, 49.
Evans relates to improved Structure Query Language (SQL) queries
and, more specifically, to eliminating unnecessary join statements. Evans,
Abstract. A join statement may be used in SQL to allow a user to view a
single table comprising data from two different tables, one table having
columns that may repeat a value within the table but that refer to elements
that are unique in a second table (e.g., an “EMPLOYEE” table may have a
“DEPT” column that identifies the department ID that the employee works
in and a “DEPARTMENT” table will include one row for each unique
department ID and may include a column such as “DESCRIPTION” that
lists the textual name of the department). Evans ¶¶ 2–7.
Wasserman relates to identifying individual and vehicle information
(“vehicle locations, driving routes, driver and passenger characteristics, and
the like”) “based on data received from traffic cameras, vehicle-based
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

26
devices, personal mobile devices, and/or other data sources” and, presenting
targeted advertisements on digital billboards based on that information.
Wasserman, Abstract; see Wasserman 8:11–25, Figs. 2–4. Wasserman’s
user may include GPS receivers or other location-based services that may
determine vehicle location, speed, direction, etc. Wasserman 7:23–55.
Wasserman also may analyze driving patterns and routes and use that
information when selecting targeted advertisements. Wasserman 7:56–8:10.
Vehicle information “may be based on vehicle identifier information
captured by roadside cameras (e.g., a vehicle’s license plate data).”
Wasserman 8:26–28. “[D]ata identifying the vehicle’s occupants also may
be transmitted by . . . [a] user’s mobile device.” Wasserman 8:46–48.
We disagree with Appellant that Wasserman fails to correlate a
particular user device with a particular license plate. As noted, Wasserman
discloses collecting vehicle identifier information, such as a license plate as
well as information from user devices, and Wasserman uses both sets of
information to select a targeted advertisement. Wasserman 8:11–28, 8:46–
48, Figs. 2–4. Wasserman at least suggests implicitly correlating the user
device from which it receives information with the license plate information.
Without this implicit correlation, Wasserman might get certain information
associated with individuals in a different vehicle than the vehicle identified
by the license plate information.
However, we agree with Appellant that Wasserman fails to teach the
correlating step as recited. Specifically, Wasserman does not teach
correlating “by identifying that the particular user device and the particular
license plate are present in both the first and second sets of user devices and
license plates, respectively,” as recited in independent claim 1 and
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

27
commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 18. The Examiner
relies on Jana to teach identifying a particular user device present in two sets
of user devices (a first set located at a first location at a first time and the
second set located at the same location at a second time) and identifying a
particular license plate is present in two sets of license plates (a first set
detected at the first location at the first time and the second set located at the
same location at the second time). See Final Act. 22–24. The Examiner
finds Scofield generally teaches correlating users having a shared
demographic and Evans teaches joining two SQL tables. See Final Act. 21,
25–26; Scofield ¶¶ 4, 5, 21, 50. However, the Examiner finds Wasserman
teaches the specific correlating step as recited in the claims. Final Act. 28.
Although the Examiner provides a reason for combining the various
teachings, the Examiner fails to explain how the proposed combination
results in the limitations as claimed. Specifically, the Examiner does not
explain how the combination of Jana’s identification of devices and plates
would be combined in order to correlate a particular plate to a particular user
device, as recited. Therefore, we agree with Appellant’s contention that the
cited prior art does not teach or suggest correlating a particular plate to a
particular device in the manner recited in claim 1 and commensurately
recited in claims 10 and 18.
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant and we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejections of independent claims 10
and 18, which recite a commensurate limitation. Nor do we sustain the
rejections of the dependent claims because (1) each dependent claim
ultimately depends from one of claims 1, 10, and 18 and, therefore,
Appeal 2019-005357
Application 14/516,253

28
incorporates the disputed correlating step, and (2) the Examiner does not
find any of the additionally cited references cure this deficiency.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References
or Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8–12,
14, 17–19,
21–27
101 Ineligible Subject
Matter (Abstract Idea)
1–3, 5, 8–
12, 14, 17–
19, 21–27

1, 3, 8, 10, 12,
17, 21–27
103 Scofield, Jana, Evans,
Wasserman
1, 3, 8, 12,
17, 21–27
2, 5, 9, 11, 14 103 Scofield, Jana, Evans,
Wasserman, Harrison
2, 5, 9, 11, 14
18 103 Scofield, Evans,
Wasserman
18
19 103 Scofield, Evans,
Wasserman, Outwater
19
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5, 8–
12, 14, 17–
19, 21–27

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED