Cecil O. Lynch et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14092168 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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.
14/092,168 11/27/2013 Cecil O. Lynch 10022-2355 9645
28164 7590 09/03/2019
BGL/Accenture - Chicago
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
P O BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
DURANT, JONATHAN W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CECIL O. LYNCH, DENNIS CARROLL, and
ANDREW J. TRUSCOTT1
________________

Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Summary of the disclosure
The Specification discloses a patient anonymizing system using salted
hashing of confidential protected health information (PHI) to generate an

1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, Accenture Global
Services Limited. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

2

anonymized record. Abstract. The Specification further discloses a master
patient index server that aggregates anonymized records using match
confidence levels produced: (1) through the use of comparison vectors
generated by comparing hash values of confidential PHI for anonymized
records and (2) through the use of a confidence vector weighing match
conditions. Id.
Exemplary claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A system for anonymizing and aggregating protected health
information (PHI) from a plurality of data sources, the system
comprising:
a plurality of data hashing appliances each operatively coupled
to a respective data source, each hashing appliance configured
to receive from the respective data source, one or more patient
medical records, each patient medical record containing at least
one data element corresponding to confidential protected health
information (PHI), and a master record number (MRN)
assigned by the respective data source, each data hashing
appliance configured to:
append a salt value to each data element corresponding to
confidential PHI in the patient medical record;
generate a hash value for each data element
corresponding to salted confidential PHI;
replace the data element corresponding to confidential
PHI with the corresponding generated hash value to
generate an anonymized patient medical record;
a master patient index server coupled to a data repository,
configured to cluster a plurality of anonymized patient medical
records received from the plurality of data hashing appliances
under a unique patient identifier;
a vector and cluster matching engine operatively coupled to the
master patient index server and the data repository that includes
a processor and non-transitory computer readable media
coupled to the processor for causing the processer to determine
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

3

if a newly received anonymized patient medical record received
from a hashing appliance is related to anonymized patient
medical records clustered under the unique patient identifier by:
generating a comparison vector by comparing the hash
values corresponding to the confidential PHI in the newly
received anonymized patient medical record with
corresponding hash values of the anonymized patient
medical records clustered under the unique patient
identifier;
providing a confidence vector that defines a two-
dimensional matrix of elements, wherein:
each row in the two-dimensional matrix is
associated with one field of possible fields of an
anonymized patient medical record, a first column
of the two-dimensional matrix lists elements to be
selected when a value of a field of the newly
received anonymized patient medical record
matches a value of a corresponding field in a
cluster of anonymized patient medical records,
a second column of the two-dimensional matrix
lists elements to be selected when the value of a
field of the newly received anonymized patient
medical record does not match any values of a
corresponding field in a cluster of anonymized
patient medical records, and
a third column of the two-dimensional matrix lists
elements to be selected when the value of a field of
the newly received anonymized patient medical
record is not provided;
selecting elements of the confidence vector based on the
comparison vector;
multiplying the selected elements together to thereby
obtain a match confidence level, wherein the match
confidence increases with an increase in a magnitude of
the match confidence level;
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

4

comparing the match confidence level to a predetermined
threshold; and
clustering the newly received anonymized patient
medical record to the unique patient identifier if the
confidence level is greater than the predetermined
threshold.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 6–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite. Final Act. 11–19.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–5.
35 U.S.C. § 112(A)
In rejecting claim 1 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement, the Examiner finds that the recitation of a “‘confidence vector
that defines a two-dimensional matrix of elements’ is not described in the
specification.” Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner finds that although
the Specification “depicts the confidence vector with elements designated by
subscripts,” it nonetheless “fails to provide any description of the actual
numerical values represented by these elements or how they might be
generated.” Id. at 7 (citing Spec. Fig. 3B); see also id. at 7–8 (further citing
Spec. Fig. 3A, ¶¶ 6, 54, 56); Ans. 3–5. Therefore, the Examiner concludes
“the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and
algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the
disclosed computer to perform the claimed function.” Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

5

Appellant contends the Examiner erred because claim 1 does not
“recite limitations related to the generation of the elements” of the
confidence vector. Br. 10 (emphasis added). Appellant further argues that
the “specification does, in fact, disclose certain methodologies for selecting
the elements.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 56).
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. The actual values of the
confidence vector selected or generated would affect the performance of the
claimed invention in practice, and the actual values would depend on factors
such as the confidential protected health information and the predetermined
threshold selected. But we agree with Appellant that there is sufficient
evidence that the inventors had possession of providing a confidence
vector—loading values for purposes of performing the claimed algorithm.
Confidence vector values could be selected or generated through one
of the processes disclosed in the Specification, which discloses both
automatable methods (e.g., relying on historical statistics) and manual
methods (e.g., tuning calculated values). See Spec. ¶ 56. Or the values
could be generated in a manner not explicitly disclosed (e.g., using intuition
or experience to select numbers that would express how much weight to give
to different match conditions, such as a missing gender field versus a non-
matching gender field). Id. The values could even be randomly generated,
in which case the algorithm disclosed would still execute in the recited
manner (with suboptimal results likely).
However the values of the confidence vector are generated, the claim
only recites providing or loading the confidence vector, which means that
particular techniques used to generate the values of the confidence vector
fall outside the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the Examiner’s
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

6

finding that the Specification “does not describe any of the elements which
are included in the confidence vector” (Final Act. 7) fails to show that the
Specification provides insufficient written description support for the
claimed invention.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–20, which the Examiner similarly rejects.
Id. at 9–10.
35 U.S.C. § 112(B)
The Examiner’s findings regarding written description support for
claim 1 are, for the reasons discussed above, similarly unpersuasive with
respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. See Final Act. 11–14. The Examiner, however, sets forth
an entire series of alternative findings, based on other recitations in claims
1–20, to support the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Id. at
14–18. As the Examiner correctly notes, Appellant fails to address these
alternative findings. See Ans. 5; Br. 10–11. Not only does Appellant fail to
raise any issues in the Appeal Brief with respect to these findings, Appellant
also fails to file a Reply Brief.
The Examiner’s alternative findings of indefiniteness are reasonable
and unrebutted. Final Act. 14–18. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1–20.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Principles of law
To be statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be
a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
or [a] new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

7

implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified
in § 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and
(3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with
claims directed to these implicit exceptions “from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 217 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The
evaluation follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if so,
then determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the
claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more
than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217–18.
“[A]ll inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 71. We “‘must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims’ by looking
at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the
claims.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published
revised guidance on the application of the two-part analysis. USPTO, 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (“Memorandum”). Under that 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
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

8

of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (see id. at 54 (step 2A, prong
one)); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see id. at 54–55 (step 2A,
prong two); MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See Memorandum, 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, 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.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Memorandum step 2A, prong one
In rejecting claim 1 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter, the Examiner determines that claim 1’s recited “steps of
anonymizing and aggregating health information are directed to collecting
information,” “analyzing” collected information, “and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner—noting
the use of techniques such as salting and hashing, crossing vectors, and
making a comparison—further determines claim 1 is “directed to an abstract
idea amounting to mathematical relationships and/or formulas to anonymize
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

9

records . . . and determine whether to map a record to records clustered
under a unique identifier.” Id. at 3–4.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the claimed invention
solves “the technical problem . . . [of] the inability to gather information
regarding a patient from any one existing system in a secure manner” by
“anonymiz[ing] and then aggregat[ing] the data from various disparate
systems to build a more complete picture of information regarding the
patient.” Br. 13.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive under step 2A, prong one, of
the Memorandum because claim 1 recites concealing who medical records
pertain to and identifying medical records that are likely to relate to the same
subject. This limited sharing of information and aggregation of related
information based on what is shared represents a method of managing
interactions between people (e.g., between medical professionals creating
medical records and researchers relying on aggregated anonymized medical
records), which is a certain method of organizing human activity. See, e.g.,
In re Salwan, 681 F. App’x 938, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom.
Salwan v. Matal, 138 S. Ct. 278 (2017), reh’g denied, 138 S. Ct. 496 (2017)
(claim reciting “storing, communicating, transferring, and reporting patient
health information in a network . . . [described] little more than the
automation of a ‘method of organizing human activity’ with respect to
medical information”); Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Subject Matter
Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, USPTO, 17–20, available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_
20190107.pdf (Jan. 7, 2019) (claims reciting “a network-based patient
management method that collects, converts and consolidates patient
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

10

information from various physicians and health-care providers” recite
methods of organizing human activity).
Because claim 1 recites a certain method of organizing human
activity, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Memorandum step 2A, prong two
Appellant further argues that claim 1 “requires specific components
such as hashing appliances to replace data elements in patient medical
records with hashed versions of the data elements” and “unique logic for
correlating patient medical records from different sources to one another
such as a unique confidence vector of matrix elements.” Br. 14. The
Examiner, in response, finds “Appellant’s contribution to what is well-
understood, routine, and conventional is not the basic approach to
anonymization and clustering, but instead to the particular mathematical
approach which is employed as part of this analysis and considered as part of
2A of the [Alice/Mayo] analysis.” Ans. 6.
The Examiner’s analysis is unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites the use of
salted hash values for protected health information—salted hash values that
are used to generate a comparison vector that is used to select elements of a
confidence vector for multiplication to obtain a match confidence level.
These recitations set forth limited rules structured to reflect a specific
implementation. The Examiner’s findings do not demonstrate that this
specific implementation is one that health care providers or researchers
engaged in the anonymization of medical records and the aggregation of
anonymized medical records would likely have used. McRO, 837 F.3d at
1316.
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

11

The Examiner also broadly characterizes these steps as merely
analyzing collected information. See Final Act. 3 (citing Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner does
not show, however, that the claimed steps are ones “people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more.” Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.
We further note that the Examiner’s findings fail to show, and it is not
apparent from the record, that the additional elements of claim 1: (1) merely
recite applying a judicial exception; (2) “merely includes instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer”; (3) merely use “a computer as a
tool to perform an abstract idea”; (4) merely add insignificant post-solution
activities; or (5) do “no more than generally link the use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
For these reasons, we conclude that claim 1 merely recites, but is not
directed to, an abstract idea. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1, or claims 2–20, which are similarly
rejected. Final Act. 2–5. Because our analysis under step 2A, prong two, of
the Memorandum is dispositive, we do not reach step 2B of the
Memorandum.
Appeal 2018-004059
Application 14/092,168

12

DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Because we sustain at least one rejection of each claim, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20.
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