EMOPTI, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 27, 2020

2020004798 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 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.
15/796,394 10/27/2017 Edward BARTHELL 123163-001CT1 1037
27189 7590 11/27/2020
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
525 B STREET
SUITE 2200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
EXAMINER
COBANOGLU, DILEK B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2020 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):
PTONotifications@procopio.com
docketing@procopio.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD BARTHELL, ROBERT HEDGCOCK,
JARED RUFER, and TIMOTHY FISCHER

_____________

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33,
35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 73, and 74. Claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 23, 24, 26,
28, 31, 34, 37, 40, and 43–72 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims 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) (2019). According to Appellant, the “real party in
interest is Emopti, Inc. of Brookfield, Wisconsin.” See Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to “acute medical care
system management and is more specifically related to decreasing delays in
testing and treatment, improvement in patient throughput, and accurate and
timely prediction of the need for an emergency room patient to be admitted
as a hospital observation patient or inpatient.” Spec. ¶ 3.
Representative Independent Claim 1
1. A system comprising:

a command center device, remote from at least one
medical care setting, wherein the command center devices
comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium,

at least one hardware processor communicatively
coupled with the non-transitory computer-readable medium,
and
programmed modules stored in the non-transitory
computer-readable medium and configured to, when executed
by the at least one hardware processor,

receive a plurality of messages, from a plurality of
remote devices in the at least one medical care setting, over at
least one network, wherein each of the plurality of remote
devices is associated with at least one of a plurality of
departments of the at least one medical care setting,

parse each of the plurality of messages to extract patient
information for each of a plurality of patients,

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed June 10, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed September 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief,
filed June 10, 2020.

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

3
for each of the plurality of patients, determine an initial
admission estimate for the patient based on the extracted patient
information for that patient, and, when the initial admission
estimate satisfies a predetermined condition, determine an
estimated admission time for the patient and an estimated bed
type for the patient,

for each of the plurality of departments, prioritize each of
the plurality of patients, for which a message was received from
one of the plurality of remote devices associated with that
department, into a department-specific queue,

across all of the plurality of departments, prioritize each
of the plurality of patients into a global queue,

generate a user interface comprising

a visual representation of the global queue comprising a
selectable representation of one or more patients within the
global queue,

for each department-specific queue, a visual
representation of the department-specific queue comprising a
selectable representation of one or more patients within the
department-specific queue, and

an electronic medical record (EMR) region,

when one of the selectable representations of a patient is
selected, retrieve EMR information associated with the selected
patient, and populate the EMR region within the user interface
with at least a portion of the EMR information, and,

in response to a user operation, initiate a digital
consultation session with a remote device associated with the
selected patient over at least one network, wherein the digital
consultation session comprises substantially real-time audio and
video data.

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

4
Claim 1, Claims Appendix A-1, A-2.

Rejection
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15, 17, 18,
20–22, 25, 27, 29,
30, 32, 33, 35, 36,
38, 39, 41, 42, 73, 74
101 Eligibility

Claim Grouping
Based on Appellant’s arguments, and our discretion under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,
9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42,
73, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the basis of representative claim 1. To
the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for
particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are forfeited.3 See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 See In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, No. 2019-1828, 2020 WL
6685948 at * 3 (Fed. Cir. 2020):
It is well established that “[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.”
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993).[] “Whereas
forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a
known right.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464
(1938)) (additional citations omitted). The two scenarios can
have different consequences for challenges raised on appeal, id.
at 733–34, and for that reason, it is worth attending to which label
is the right one in a particular case.

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

5
Analysis
In reaching this Decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. Throughout this opinion, we give
the claim limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
USPTO 35 U.S.C. § 101 MPEP Guidance
In January and October of 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.4 We note the USPTO current eligibility guidance is found in the
Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent
Examination Procedure (MPEP), and particularly within Sections 2103
through 2106.07(c).
“Because the MPEP now incorporates the 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), October 2019 Patent
Eligibility Guidance Update (October 2019 Update), and the Berkheimer
Memo,5 all references to those materials should now be directed to the
MPEP.” See https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-
regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility

4 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management,
expected to follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. No. 4, 51 (Jan. 7, 2019); see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
5 Referring to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d. 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2018).

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

6
(emphasis added). Accordingly, all references to the MPEP throughout this
Decision are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June
2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Under MPEP § 2106, 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 One”); and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).6

MPEP § 2106, Step 2A, Prong One
The Judicial Exception
Under MPEP 2106.04(a), the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas
are defined as follows:
(1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);

(2) Certain methods of organizing human activity– fundamental
economic principles or practices(including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk);commercial or legal interactions
(including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior
or relationships or interactions between people (including

6 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by (a)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II.
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

7
social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions) (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and

(3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
(see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).

Here, the Examiner concludes that “[t]he claims recite “‘determining
an initial admission estimate for a patient based on the extracted patient
information’, and ‘prioritizing each of the plurality of patients for each
department’, which is a mental process (which can be done in the human
mind or by human using pen and paper).” Final Act. 2 (emphasis added).
Appellant disagrees and contends that “the claims are directed to a
user interface, not to a mental process of determining an initial admission
estimate and prioritizing patients, as asserted by the Office Action.” Appeal
Br. 7.
However, we agree with the Examiner that under MPEP § 2106, Step
2A, Prong One, that at least the “determining” and “prioritizing” functions
of claim 1 can be performed as a mental process, i.e., as concepts performed
in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or
opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III (mental processes).
Further, we conclude the selection involved with the “selectable
representation of one or more patients within the global queue” can also be
performed by a person as a mental process. Claim 1.
Considering the claim as a whole, we additionally note the claim 1
language that: (1) “determine[s] an initial admission estimate for the patient
based on the extracted patient information for that patient” and (2) “initiates
a digital consultation” which “comprises substantially real-time audio and
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

8
video data.” We conclude these limitations recite certain methods of
organizing human activity, including commercial interactions and business
relations, such as managing patients in an acute care setting. See MPEP
§2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. We turn to the Specification for context:
The present invention is generally related to acute medical care
system management and is more specifically related to
decreasing delays in testing and treatment, improvement in
patient throughput, and accurate and timely prediction of the
need for an emergency room patient to be admitted as a hospital
observation patient or inpatient.
Spec. ¶ 3 (emphasis added).
But combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination
any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea
. . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC
v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining
the pending claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
We note that remaining independent claims 22 and 73 recite similar
language of commensurate scope. Thus, we conclude representative
independent claim 1, and independent claims 22 and 73 each recite one or
more abstract ideas, as identified above.
MPEP § 2106.04(a) guides that “[i]f the identified limitation(s) falls
within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to
conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One.” In
such case, “[t]he claim then requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong Two,
to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP§ 2106.04(d).” MPEP
2106.04(a).
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

9
Although independent claims 1, 22, and 73 require the recited steps or
functions to be implemented by a computer or processor, this generic
computer implementation of a mental process is insufficient to take the
invention out of the realm of abstract ideas. “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.” CyberSource Corp.
v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 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.
See id. at 1372–73; see also Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”);
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (Stating
an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it” (with a computer) is
insufficient to confer patent eligibility.).
Moreover, “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental
process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C.
v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir.
2012); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform routine tasks more
quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
Because claim 1 considered as a whole recites an abstract idea, as do
remaining independent claims 22 and 73, we conclude that all claims 1, 2, 4,
6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39,
41, 42, 73, and 74 recite an abstract idea, as identified above, under Step 2A,
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

10
Prong One. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, in which we
apply the guidance set forth under MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Step 2A, Prong Two under MPEP § 2106.04(d),
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
For example, limitations that are indicative of integration into a
practical application under MPEP § 2106.04(d) include:
1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any
other technology or technical field — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a);
2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a
particular machine — see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article
to a different state or thing — see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment,
such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e).

In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a
practical application include:
1. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or merely including instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(f);
2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use — see
MPEP § 2106.05(h).
See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I)(Describing Step 2A, Prong Two).

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

11
Additional Limitations
Applying the USPTO guidance under MPEP § 2106.04(d), we
consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As noted above, independent claim 1 requires the recited steps to be
implemented by a computer. We further note the supporting exemplary,
non-limiting descriptions of generic computer components found in the
Specification, for example, at paragraph 97:
The system 550 can be a conventional personal computer,
computer server, personal digital assistant, smart phone, tablet
computer, or any other processor enabled device that is capable
of wired or wireless data communication. Other computer
systems and/or architectures may be also used, as will be clear
to those skilled in the art.
Spec. ¶ 97 (emphasis added).
We emphasize that McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), guides: “The abstract idea exception
prevents patenting a result where ‘it matters not by what process or
machinery the result is accomplished.’” 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O’Reilly
v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added).
Thus, we conclude Appellant’s claimed invention merely implements
the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer
components. Therefore, we conclude Appellant’s claims merely use a
generic programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See
MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

12
Extra- or Post-Solution Activities under MPEP § 2106.05(g)
“[T]he prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant post-solution
activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–12 (2010) (quoting
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981)).
Here, we conclude that independent claim 1 recites one or more
additional limitations that are extra-solution activities the courts have
determined to be insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter
into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
For example, we conclude that the claim 1 system functions of
“receiv[ing] a plurality of messages, from a plurality of remote devices” and
“pars[ing] each of the plurality of messages to extract patient information for
each of a plurality of patients” recite insignificant extra-solution activity:
i.e., data gathering. See buySAFE v. Google, Inc, 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Circ. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a
network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).

MPEP § 2106.05(a) — Improvement to the functionality of a
computer or other technology or technical field.

We consider next the question of whether there are any claimed
improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or
technical field, applying the January 2019 Memorandum and the guidance
set forth under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant refers to paragraph 94 of the Specification, and contends
“embodiments of this graphical user interface improve efficiency, for
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

13
example, by collecting and presenting a limited set of disparate information
in a single user interface to facilitate remote treatment or processing of a
patient. See, e.g., Application, as filed, ¶ [94].” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec.
¶ 94) (emphasis added).
But our reviewing court guides: “[i]t is the claims that measure the
invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107,
1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted); In re Hiniker Co., 150
F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he name of the game is the claim.”).
“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the
preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only
embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re
Am. Acad. of Science Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(emphasis added).
To the extent that Appellant’s system for determining an initial
admission estimate, estimated admission time, and estimated bed type for
the patient, and “prioritizing each of the plurality of patients” (claim 1)
might arguendo be an improvement over prior art methods, we note that an
improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Mayo Collaborative
Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012) (holding
that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is,
nonetheless patent-ineligible). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant additionally cites to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

14
We note that in Core Wireless, the claimed invention specified
particular technological functionality in the form of “an application
summary that can be reached directly from [a] menu” such that the summary
window “is displayed while the one or more applications are in an
unlaunched state.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362-63.
Here, Appellant contends that “embodiments of the user interface in
the present claims bring together a limited list of functions and data, and
increase the speed of a user’s navigation by reducing the number of steps
needed to reach appropriate data and functionality, and/or reducing or
eliminating paging.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant urges: “Thus, as in Core
Wireless, the present claims are directed to an improvement in the
functioning of computers, and not to an abstract idea.” (emphasis added).
Regarding the “embodiments of the user interface in the present
claims” (id.), we note that there is no mention of the argued “reducing or
eliminating paging” in any of Appellant’s claims, which are silent regarding
paging. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claims on appeal. Moreover, we note that Appellant has not
claimed a graphical user interface, per se. Instead, Appellant claims “A
system” in which a processor executes programmed modules that generate
a user interface. Claim 1.
To the extent that Appellant’s generated user interface enables the
selection of a representation of a patient, and then responsively retrieves the
EMR (Electronic Medical Record) “information associated with the selected
patient” followed by populating “the EMR region within the user interface
with at least a portion of the EMR information” (claim 1), we note that the
“‘mere automation of manual processes using generic computers’ . . . ‘does
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

15
not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology,’” Trading
Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
Appellant additionally contends:
As in Trading Technologies, it is undisputed that the claims
recite novel, useful, and unobvious subject matter, as opposed to
the generalized knowledge that characterizes ineligible subject
matter. Accordingly, as in Trading Technologies, the present
claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of
computers, and not to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added).7
But analysis based upon obviousness is not relevant to our analysis for
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal
Service, 868 F.3d 1350, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Groundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101
inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 591 (2013); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981)
(“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process
itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim
falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”);
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that an eligibility finding does not turn on the
novelty of using a user-downloadable application for the particular purpose
recited in the claims).

7 Appellant cites to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, INC.,
675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appeal Br. 10–11.
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

16
Although Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 10–11) a different Trading
Technologies case authority than the Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC case
we have cited above, we note that Trading Technologies International, Inc.
v. CQG, INC. (675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017)) is non-precedential and
therefore is not a binding authority on the Board. As noted above, Appellant
has not claimed a graphical user interface, per se. Instead, Appellant claims
“A system” in which a processor executes programmed modules that
generate a user interface.
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a) (emphasis added):
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in
improving the technology, the claims must recite the details
regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which
the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer
to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic
computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.
Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to
perform the method on a generic component or machinery to
qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.

Here, in reviewing the record, we find Appellant does not advance
any persuasive arguments explaining how the claimed generic computer
components aid the method, the extent to which the computer aids the
method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method
to improve the recited computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that independent claims 1,
22, and 73 (which recite similar language of commensurate scope), do not
recite an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology
or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

17
MPEP § 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c)
Appellant advances no arguments that any of the method claims on
appeal are tied to a particular machine (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), or transform
an article to a different state or thing (MPEP §2106.05(c)). Therefore, the
doctrine of forfeiture applies. See also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

MPEP § 2106.05(e) Meaningful Claim Limitations
Appellant contends “the claims require that the system display the
information in a particular way that enables the data to be used in a
meaningful way.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant notes that “the data is displayed
with a set of queues as its focus.” Id. Appellant urges that “[w]ithout the
visual representations of queues, the data would be disorganized and
unwieldy, thereby negating any advantages of centralizing the data.” Id.
But merely displaying data and selectable visual representations (i.e.,
menu) items according to a preferred arrangement is a routine function of a
user interface. We find Appellant does not advance any substantive,
persuasive arguments explaining how the judicial exceptions are applied or
used in some meaningful way, as clarified under MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Simply adding generic hardware and computer components to
perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical
application, because the “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
Appellant additionally argues that the “specifically claimed user
interface and functionality ensure that the claims do not preempt all uses of
the purported mental processes.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant avers that “[t]his
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

18
alone ensures that the claims do not preempt all uses of determining an
initial admission estimate and prioritizing patients.” Id.
However, our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: “[w]hile
preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“that 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”).
Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c) and
(e)–(h)), we conclude claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22,
25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 73, and 74 do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.

The Inventive Concept – Step 2B
As set forth under MPEP § 2106.05(d)), only if a claim (1) recites a
judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application,8 do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim: (3) adds
a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-
understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field; or (4) simply

8 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim
is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is
“not directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice framework, we
do not need to proceed to step two.” (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).).
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

19
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception.9
Under Step 2B, The Examiner finds the additional elements of “a
visual representation of the department-specific queue . . . and an electronic
medical record (EMR)” are additional elements that are well-understood,
routine and conventional. Ans. 3. In support, the Examiner provides a
citation to Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Examiner notes that in Ameranth:
The Federal Circuit determined that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea, which could be described as “generating menus
. . . or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending
the second menu to another location[,or] taking orders from
restaurant customers.” 842 F.3d. at 1240-41, 120 USPQ2d at
1853. The court also described the claimed invention as adding
conventional computer components to well-known business
practices, e.g., “a restaurant preparing a device that can be used
by a server taking orders from a customer.” 842 F.3d at 1242;
120 USPQ2d at 1855.”
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant responds in the Reply Brief:
Unlike the claims at issue in Ameranth, embodiments of the
present claims enable the centralization and de-isolation of these
previously isolated systems using a particular way of
programming and a particular software design. In other words,
the present claims satisfy both of the criteria that the court in
Ameranth indicated could individually have saved the claims. Id
More importantly, the centralization, enabled by the

9 This corresponds to Alice part two where it is determined whether the
claim “contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

20
programming and software design of the claimed embodiments,
saves human lives.
Reply Br. 3.
We disagree with Appellant, because similar to the court’s conclusion
in Ameranth (842 F.3d at 1241), we find Appellant’s claims are essentially
directed to certain functionality — i.e., the ability to generate a visual
representation (menus) having certain features, e.g., “a selectable
representation of one or more patients within the global queue” or “within
the department-specific queue” and responsively “retrieve the EMR
information associated with the selected patient.” Claim 1.
On this record, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s claims do more
than simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. We again emphasize that an improved abstract idea is
still an abstract idea. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Synopsys, 839 F.3d
at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”)
(emphasis omitted).
Moreover, because Appellant does not advance substantive,
persuasive arguments regarding any claimed nonconventional and non-
generic arrangement of known computer components, we find no inventive
concept in any purported ordered combination of these limitations.
Thus, we find Appellant’s claims are unlike the claims considered by
the court in BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), in which the court found “an inventive concept
. . . in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces.” 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphases added).
Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

21
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that each of Appellant’s claims
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36,
38, 39, 41, 42, 73, and 74, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-
ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, and
does not include an inventive concept. Therefore, on this record, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 73,
and 74
CONCLUSION
By applying the Director’s 2019 PEG and October 2019 Update, as
now set forth under MPEP Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c), we conclude
that all claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20–22, 25, 27, 29, 30,
32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 73, and 74, as rejected by the Examiner under
35 U.S.C. § 101, are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6, 8,
9, 11, 12,
14, 15, 17,
18, 20–22,
25, 27, 29,
30, 32, 33,
35, 36, 38,
39, 41, 42,
73, 74
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4, 6,
8, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15,
17, 18,
20–22, 25,
27, 29, 30,
32, 33, 35,
36, 38, 39,
41, 42, 73,
74

Appeal 2020-004798
Application 15/796,394

22
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)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED