Ex Parte Grasso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

11154154 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/154, 154 06/16/2005
46169 7590 12/25/2018
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(Cerner Corporation)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kay L. Grasso
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CRNI.117360 2869
EXAMINER
PAULS, JOHN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
BPARKERSON@SHB.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAY L. GRASSO, ARPI CHALIAN, THOMAS C. GIFFORD,
and RONDA L. SHARP 1
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/154, 154
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1---6, 8-12, 14, and 17-26 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cemer Innovation,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/ 154, 154
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to accessing a patient's
electronic record for patient growth data and displaying the patient growth
data on the computerized growth chart (Spec., para. 7). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. Non-transitory computer-storage media having
computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when
executed, perform a method of displaying patient growth data
on a computerized growth chart comprising:
( 1) accessing a database including growth chart
data for a computerized growth chart, appropriate for a
patient based on the patient's age and gender, wherein the
computerized growth chart includes a reference curve,
and wherein the growth chart data is measurements for
one or more of height, weight, length, head
circumference, and bone age;
(2) utilizing the growth chart data to display the
computerized growth chart;
(3) accessing at least one electronic medical record
associated with the patient for a set of patient growth data
that was documented in the patient's electronic medical
record, wherein the set of patient growth data includes a
first subset of patient growth data from a first type of
visit and a second subset of patient growth data from a
second type of visit;
( 4) filtering, utilizing a computing device, the first
subset of patient growth data documented during the first
type of visit from the set of patient growth data such that
the second subset of patient growth data documented
during the second type of visit is displayed in the
computerized growth chart and the first subset of patient
growth data is not displayed;
( 5) generating a display of the second subset of
patient growth data on the computerized growth chart,
wherein a computing device determines the display of the
second subset of patient growth data, and wherein the
second subset of patient growth data was documented in
2
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/ 154, 154
the patient's electronic medical record during the second
type of visit;
( 6) generating tabs associated with the
computerized growth chart, wherein the tabs are
selectable to change the display of patient growth data,
and wherein the tabs include at least a first tab associated
with the first subset of patient growth data documented
during the first type of visit and a second tab associated
with the second subset of patient growth data
documented during the second type of visit such that a
selection of either the first tab or the second tab causes
the corresponding subset of patient growth data to be
displayed; and
(7) receiving a selection of the first tab, wherein
the first subset of patient growth data documented during
the first type of visit is displayed on the display, along
with the second subset of patient growth data
documented during the second type of visit, based on the
selection.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1---6, 8-12, 14, and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/ 154, 154
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper (App.
Br. 6-18, Reply Br. 3-8). The Appellants argue that the claim is not
directed to an abstract idea (App. Br. 6-14, Reply Br. 3). The Appellants
also argue the claim is "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea
(App. Br. 14--18, Reply Br. 4--8).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 2-7, Ans. 2-18).
We agree with the Examiner. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is
patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however,
has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: "Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 1 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court's two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 ( citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then
consider the elements of the 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 of the abstract idea. Id.
This is a search for an "inventive concept" an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more"
4
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/ 154, 154
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that "the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at 2358.
Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the concept of
displaying a growth chart. This is a method of organizing human activities
or an idea in itself, and is an abstract idea beyond the scope of § 101. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(where collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results from
certain results of the collection and analysis was held to be an abstract idea).
In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial, 850 F.3d 1332,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) it was held that collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data was directed to an abstract idea. "[A] process that
employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is not patent eligible." See Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not. The Specification at paragraphs 27-37, for instance, describes using
conventional computer RAM, disk storage, servers, computers, networks,
PCs, and routers in a manner known for their conventional functions.
Considering each of the claim elements in tum, the function
performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely
5
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/ 154, 154
conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a
generic computer to perform a generic computer function.
The Appellants have also cited to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to show that the claim is not abstract but the
claims in that case were not similar in scope to those here in contrast and
were in contrast directed to a self-referential data table.
The Appellants have also cited to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), but the claims in that case
are distinguished from this case in being directed to rules for lip sync and
facial expression animation.
For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellants
have provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection
of these claims is sustained as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-12, 14, and 17-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
6
Appeal2017-007826
Application 11/ 154, 154
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-12, 14, and 17-26 is
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7