Joseph Bernstein

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 9, 2020

2018008543 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
13/554,323 07/20/2012 Joseph Bernstein B1245/20009 1847
3000 7590 06/09/2020
CAESAR RIVISE, PC
7 Penn Center, 12th Floor
1635 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, TERESA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/09/2020 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):
patents@crbcp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH BERNSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Joseph Bernstein (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
a final rejection of claims 15–21, the only claims pending in the application

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed January 25, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 28,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 10, 2018), and Final
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 25, 2017).
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

2

on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented “an improved authorization process for high
intensity medical interventions.” Spec. 4:26–27.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 15, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
15. A process for gaining third party payment authorization for
a prescribed mode of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical
care for a patient, the process including a dialogue between a
user and a computer, the process comprising the steps of:
[1] the user’s entry into the computer of
medical information about the patient
and
an authorization request for a specific mode of diagnostic
testing or therapeutic medical care for the patient;
[2] the computer’s retrieval of one or more questions from a
database in non-transient memory responsive to the information
and authorization request,
directed to refining an assessment of whether the specific
mode of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical care is
indicated;
[3] the user’s entry into the computer of one or more answers
responsive to the one or more questions;
[4] the computer’s retrieval from the database of at least one
further question based on one of the one or more answers
entered into the computer;

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Joseph
Bernstein (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

3

[5] the user’s entry into the computer of at least one further
answer to said at least one further question;
and
[6] the computer’s generation of feedback responsive to the one
or more answers and the at least one further answer,
the feedback instructing the user as to whether or not the
specific mode of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical
care is indicated,
wherein the computer permits the user to withdraw the
authorization request throughout the process but
ultimately grants the authorization request if the user
does not withdraw the authorization request, irrespective
of whether or not the computer instructs the user that the
specific mode of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical
care is indicated,
the computer maintaining a record of the user’s decision
to withdraw or persist with the authorization request,
the record factoring into a performance metric that
reflects the user’s medical decision-making prowess,
wherein a granting of the authorization request obligates
a third party payer to pay at least a portion of costs
associated with the prescribed mode of diagnostic testing
or therapeutic medical care.
Claims 15–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

4

ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 15, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

5

whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 15 recites entering, retrieving, and generating data for display.
Retrieving data is a combination of rudimentary analysis followed by
receiving data. Entering data is generating data. Thus, claim 15 recites
generating, receiving, analyzing, and displaying data. None of the
limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 15 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

6

human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Like
those concepts, claim 15 recites the concept of medical management.
Specifically, claim 15 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in
advising to inform one about medical procedures after repeated queries. The
advice to inform one about medical procedures after repeated queries in this
context involves instructing the user as to whether or not the specific mode
of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical care is indicated, which is a
medical management act, and gaining third party payment authorization for
a prescribed mode of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical care for a
patient, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of medical
management. For example, claim 15 recites “instructing the user as to
whether or not the specific mode of diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical
care is indicated,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
managing medical processes. Similarly, claim 15 recites “gaining third
party payment authorization for a prescribed mode of diagnostic testing or
therapeutic medical care for a patient,” which is also characteristic of
medical management.

Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

7

The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to maintaining a
record of a user’s decision making skills before a third party payer obligates
to paying for a patient’s diagnostic testing or therapeutic medical care. Final
Act. 2. The preamble to claim 15 recites that it is a process for gaining third
party payment authorization for a prescribed mode of diagnostic testing or
therapeutic medical care for a patient. The steps in claim 15 result in
informing one about medical practices based on iterative queries absent any
technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1, 3, and 5 recite entering
data. Limitations 2, 4, and 6 recite generic and conventional analyzing and
displaying of medical data, which advise one to apply generic functions to
get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for informing one
about medical practices based on iterative queries. To advocate informing
one about medical practices based on iterative queries is conceptual advice
for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at 4:26–27 describes the invention as relating to an
improved authorization process for high intensity medical interventions.
Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 15 recites medical
management. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of
organizing human activity because medical management is the managing of
interactions between people for the benefit of a patient. The concept of
medical management by informing one about medical practices based on
iterative queries is one idea for gathering information for such interactions.
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

8

The steps recited in claim 15 are part of how this might conceptually be
premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (display to help users process
information more quickly); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (2016) (customizing user interface and tailoring
content).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of generating, receiving,
analyzing, and displaying data mimic human thought processes of
observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 15, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis,
and display and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).
As such, claim 15 recites generating, receiving, analyzing, and displaying
data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 15 recites a
medical management process by informing one about medical practices
based on iterative queries, which is managing personal behavior or
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

9

relationships or interactions between people, which is one of certain methods
of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus,
an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 15 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e., integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g]
block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1, 3, and 5 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this.
Steps 2, 4, and 6 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of
results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

10

conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data
are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically
enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically
achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 15 simply recites the concept of
medical management by informing one about medical practices based on
iterative queries as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not
recite any particular implementation.
Claim 15 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 11+ pages of Specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of medical
management by informing one about medical practices based on iterative
queries under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 15 at issue
amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply medical
management by informing one about medical practices based on iterative
queries using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents,
that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.

8 The Specification describes a computer containing an algorithm. Spec.
7:29–31.
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

11

None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses 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.
We conclude that claim 15 is directed to achieving the result of
medical management by advising one to inform one about medical
procedures after repeated queries, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,
which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that
constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 15 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two,
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

12

Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for generating, receiving, analyzing, and displaying data amounts
to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower
construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those
functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special
programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

13

manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not
contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more
than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As
to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing
information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that
limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.”
SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 15 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data generation-reception-
analysis-display is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial,
772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange,
display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction),
Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of
processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps
is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 15 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 15 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

14

application of that concept. There are no structural claims. As a corollary,
the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of medical
management by advising one to inform one about medical procedures after
repeated queries, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–5 and Answer 3–5 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “on pages 4 and 5
of the Appeal Brief, an explanation is provided regarding how the present
invention improves computer functionality.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant refers
to
while the invention includes the step of supplying questions that
are answered in order to determine whether certain medical
interventions are necessary, the identification is not a simple
linear process. In other words, for a particular medical
intervention, not all appropriate questions are identified prior to
evaluating the medical procedure. Rather, certain initial
questions are identified, and other questions are not identified
until answers to the initial questions have been obtained. As a
result, certain technical advantages over the prior art are
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

15

obtained. First, it should be understood that not all questions
that will be posed are initially identified. As a result, the
identification of questions that will not be posed may be
eliminated, resulting in faster identification of questions to
pose, decreases searching of memory to obtain questions to be
posed, and fewer memory access because fewer questions are
initially retrieved. Then, as initial questions are answered,
additional questions may be retrieved from memory based on
the answers to the initial questions. Again, this results in more
efficient access to memory as retrieval of questions that will not
be posed may be avoided.
Appeal Br. 4–5. Appellant argues that interview and search techniques are
patent eligible. Such techniques are literally performable without even paper
and pencil, requiring no more than oral communication in a non-computer
context. This is the epitome of mental concept. Computer context cannot
confer eligibility. “The Supreme Court and [the Federal Circuit] have
repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract
idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the
claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838
F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant goes on to contend that such
techniques improve computer memory performance in efficiency. But this is
not a technological improvement. It does not improve the manner in which
a computer operates. It only states the obvious that a computer uses as much
capacity as its inputs and programs require and efficiencies in gathering data
for entry reduce follow on computer usage.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[i]n paragraph 8
of the Final Rejection, first sentence, the PTO acknowledges that a computer
is improved as a result of the claimed invention. While the sentence refers
to ‘abstract idea,’ the acknowledgement of a technical improvement is
noteworthy.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant refers to “[t]here is no evidence
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

16

showing improvement to the structural or functional properties of the
computer itself, outside of improving the computer specifically for
implementing the abstract idea.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner is simply
referring to the same input tracking improvement we describe in the
previous argument response.
Appellant cites Berkheimer for the proposition that evidence of
something being conventional is necessary. Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br. 2–4. Support for this finding is
provided under Step 2B supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
while the invention includes the step of supplying questions that
are answered in order to determine whether certain medical
interventions are necessary, the identification is not a simple
linear process. In other words, for a particular medical
intervention, not all appropriate questions are identified prior to
evaluating the medical procedure. Rather, certain initial
questions are identified, and other questions are not identified
until answers to the initial questions have been obtained. As a
result, certain technical advantages over the prior art are
obtained.
Appeal Br. 4. This argument refers to the concept of improving data
acquisition sequencing, without reciting any technological implementations
for doing so. As we determined supra, even if a process of collecting and
analyzing information is limited to particular content or a particular source,
that limitation does not make the collection and analysis eligible. See SAP
Am. supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 15 “recites
an order of accessing memory to obtain questions, with the result of
increased processor and memory retrieval efficiency.” Appeal Br. 5. This is
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

17

another form of the first argument supra, and any improvement is an
information improvement, not a processor improvement. “The claims are
focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process
information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology.”
Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384 (internal citations omitted). The same
argument would erroneously support the conclusions that this sequence
results in brain efficiency when performed manually with paper and pencil.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
claimed invention addresses the challenge of requiring a
medical provider to assess the need to perform a test (or
procedure) by answering specific questions from non-transient
memory, permitting a medical provider to withdraw a request
for a test (or procedure), and the compilation and retrieval of
the results of the interaction with the non-transient memory.
These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally
linking the use of abstract ideas because they solve a problem
with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer
technology.
Appeal Br. 6–7 (emphasis omitted). Again, this is an information
improvement, not a technological improvement. Contrary to the argument,
the claimed solution is only situated in a technological context, not rooted in
computer technology. No technological implementation details are recited.
“The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to
an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.” Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1269.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 15–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
Appeal 2018-008543
Application 13/554,323

18

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 15–21 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
15–21 101 Eligibility 15–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED