KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2021

2021000165 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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.
14/647,493 05/27/2015 Benjamin LORMAN 2012P00438WOUS 8648
24737 7590 06/02/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
BARR, MARY EVANGELINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENJAMIN LORMAN, YU-LUNG HSIEH,
VARUN VERMA, CHI-HUA TUNG, and
CHANGHONG DAI

Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–17, which are
all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

2

CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention generally relates to nuclear medical
imaging and patient workflow. Spec. 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, with modified formatting and bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A nuclear medicine scanner system, comprising:
[a] a repository storing prior patient data mined from data
sources, the stored prior patient data including at least patient
weights, radiopharmaceutical doses, scan protocols, scan
durations, and wait times between administering the
radiopharmaceutical dose and time of scanning, the prior patient
data being grouped in the repository by patient characteristics
with statistical information summarizing the patient data's being
grouped;
[b] a memory that stores executable instructions;
[c] an intelligent scheduler comprising at least one
processor configured to execute the instructions retrieved from
the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the
at least one processor to:
[d] schedule a plurality of patients, each for an ordered
nuclear medicine scanning procedure with a nuclear medicine
scanning device, the scheduling being based on data mined from
prior patients with like scanning procedures stored in the
repository and in a scan time window which minimizes a patient
dose; and
[e] optimize a schedule of the plurality of patients for a day
which includes adjusting a schedule of at least one patient of the
plurality of patients to fit into an available time window of the
schedule of the plurality of patients for a day by extending the
scan time window and reducing the patient dose in
correspondence with the extended scan time window to
minimize the patient dose while producing a satisfactory image
in the extended scan time window;
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

3

[f] wherein the optimized schedule is displayed on a
display device and/or transmitted to a workstation; and
[g] a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Single
Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) scanner for
performing the ordered nuclear medicine scanning procedures
for the plurality of patients in accord with the optimized
schedule.
Appeal Br. 30 (Claim App.).

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
2. Claims 1–3, 6–13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maekawa (US 2004/0093252 A1, pub.
May 13, 2004), Amberg (US 2012/0173259 A1, pub. July 5, 2012), and
Agamaite (US 2013/0123567 A1, pub. May 16, 2013).
3. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maekawa, Amberg, Agamaite, and Thompson (US
2004/0039628 A1, pub. Feb. 26, 2004).

ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–17 as a group. Appeal
Br. 5–21; Reply Br. 3–7. We select independent claim 1 as representative.
The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

4

35 U.S.C. § 101 Framework
Section 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.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice,
573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the
concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
(“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

5

rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and
Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

6

USPTO Section 101 Guidance
We are also guided by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
Guidance, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”), incorporated into
the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §§ 2104–06, Rev. 10.2019
(“MPEP”) in June 2020. “The guidance sets out agency policy with respect
to the USPTO’s interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements
of 35 U.S.C. [§] 101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.2 Although “[a]ll USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance,” the Guidance “does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO.” Id.
The Guidance, by its terms, applies to all applications, and to all patents
resulting from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Id.
at 50.
Under USPTO Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and products of nature (see MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(b))
(“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the
“October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_update.pdf).
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

7

judicial exception into a practical application (see id. §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(2),
2106.04(d)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the additional elements, individually or in combination,
provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §§ 2106(III), 2106.05. “An
inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or
natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Id. § 2106.05 (quoting
Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Among the considerations in determining whether the additional elements,
individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the
exception itself, we look to whether they add a specific limitation beyond the
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(II); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and Step 2A, Prong
One of USPTO Guidance, the Examiner determines that exemplary
independent claim 1 recites broadly “determining an optimal schedule for

3 This evaluation is performed 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. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54–55; MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

8

patients ordered to use a medical scanning device.” Final Act. 3. According
to the Examiner,
optimizing a schedule of patients for a day including adjusting
the schedule for a patient to fit into an available time window, as
drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a
method of organizing human activity which includes the user
using the obtained information to generate a schedule for a
plurality of patients by following rules and instructions such as
extending the scan time window and reducing the patient dose.
Id. at 3–4. Under Prong Two of USPTO Guidance, the Examiner determines
that the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the additional elements “are recited at a high-level of
generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply
the exception using a generic computer component.” Id. at 4.
In response, Appellant asserts that “the claimed process that results in
an efficient scheduling with a proper dose by the nuclear medicine scanning
device represents an improvement to the technical field of healthcare
management, and more particularly, improvements to the field of nuclear
medicine.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellant also asserts that
independent claim 1 “is directed to a particular ordered process at least in
part that may be performed by a processor (effectively rendering it a special
purpose computer) that includes specific sequence of the various process
steps.” Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted).
Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and Step 2A of the
USPTO Guidance, we first determine to what claim 1 is directed, i.e.,
whether claim 1 recites an abstract idea and if so, whether claim 1 is directed
to that abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed
to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

9

specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the
claim is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process
that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool. See Enfish, LLC, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. Here, it is clear
from the Specification, including the claim language, that claim 1 focuses on
an abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a
technical field.
Reciting a Judicial Exception
In making this determination, we note that the Specification is titled
“INTELLIGENT NUCLEAR MEDICINE PATIENT WORKFLOW
SCHEDULER,” and is related generally “to nuclear medical imaging and
patient workflow,” and more specifically, “the scheduling of patients
undergoing diagnostic imaging procedures using a radiopharmaceutical.”
Spec. 1. According to the Specification, “[s]ome sites set scheduling and
imaging workflows based on expected system throughput.” Id. at 2. The
Specification recognizes that “[t]he schedule usually includes block
scheduling based on industry averages fixed at the time of workflow
creation.” Id. However, the Specification points out that workflows
typically “do not accommodate patient specific factors” and “do not factor
the declining strength of a radiopharmaceutical due to the half-life and the
impact on the scan time.” Id. To address these drawbacks, the present
invention provides an “improved intelligent nuclear medicine workflow
scheduler” which offers advantages such as “dose optimization for
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

10

individual patients” and “optimized system throughput based on intelligent
scheduling.” Id. at 3.
Consistent with this disclosure, independent claim 1 recites “[a]
nuclear medicine scanner system” comprising “a repository,” “a memory,”
“an intelligent scheduler comprising at least one processor,” and “a Positron
Emission Tomography (PET) or Single Photon Emission Computed
Tomography (SPECT) scanner” (limitations [a]–[c], [g]). The system
includes processes to “schedule a plurality of patients” based on stored data
and “optimize a schedule of the plurality of patients,” (limitations [d] and
[e]) and display the results i.e., “the optimized schedule is displayed on a
display device and/or transmitted” (limitation [f]). Appeal Br. 30 (Claim
App.).
When considered collectively and under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, independent claim 1, as summarized above, recites a process
of analyzing stored information by scheduling a plurality of patients and
optimizing scheduling of patients and displaying the optimized schedule.4
This is an abstract idea which may be characterized as a “[c]ertain method[]
of organizing human activity— . . . managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social activities,
teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52; MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is consistent with the Examiner’s
characterization. Final Act. 3–4.

4 We note that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240
(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Board’s “slight revision of its abstract idea analysis
does not impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

11

The courts have held similar concepts to be abstract. For example, the
Federal Circuit has held abstract the concepts of collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results in Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Claim for detecting
events by receiving, detecting, analyzing, displaying, accumulating, and
updating data, and deriving a composite indicator from that data was
directed to the abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”), organizing patient
health information in In re Salwan, 681 F. App’x 938, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(nonprecedential) (claims to storing, communicating, transferring, and
reporting patient health information in a network held as an abstract idea of
billing insurance companies and organizing patient health information),
collecting and comparing known information in Classen Immunotherapies,
Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reviewing and
comparing published information on the effects of immunization schedules
in treated and control groups of mammals), personal management, resource
planning, or forecasting in In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir.
2018), and customizing information based on known user information in
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea, in determining whether the claim is directed to this abstract
idea, we next consider whether the claim recites additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

12

Integration into a Practical Application
We look to whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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,” i.e., “integrates a judicial exception
into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP
§ 2106.04(d). Here, the Examiner identifies the additional elements as “a
repository, memory, and an intelligent scheduler comprising a processor”
and “a Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Single Photon Emission
Computed Tomography (SPECT) scanner.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner
notes that “[t]he repository, memory and scheduler are recited at a high-level
of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply
the exception using a generic computer component.” Final Act. 4. See also
Spec. 8, 9 (“The workstation . . . can be a desktop computer, a laptop, a
tablet, a mobile computing device, a smartphone, and the like” and “[t]he
intelligent scheduler 2 and various units . . . are suitably embodied by an
electronic data processing device, such as the electronic processor or
electronic processing device 18 of the workstation 14, or by a network-based
server computer operatively connected with the workstation 14 by the
network 22, or so forth.”) The Examiner also notes that the “PET or SPECT
scanner is also recited as a routine scanner device and amounts to no more
than mere instructions to apply an exception because the scanner is
machinery which is used as a tool used in its ordinary capacity.” Final
Act. 4; see also Spec. 1. We agree with the Examiner. We also agree with
the Examiner that
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

13

the additional elements of storing prior patient data in the
repository and displaying the data on a display device [] amounts
to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception because
the claim invokes computers or other machinery as a tool to
perform the process including storing and transmitting
information.
Final Act. 5 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).)
As is clear from the Specification, there is no indication that the
processes recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or
other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any
asserted inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is
implemented using other than generic computer components to perform
generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no
doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.”); see also Spec. 8, 9–10. Independent
claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic
computer technology to receive and analyze information for the purpose of
“schedul[ing] a plurality of patients, each for an ordered nuclear medicine
scanning procedure . . . based on data mined from prior patients with like
scanning procedures and in a time window which minimizes the patient
dose” (Spec. 3), and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. Cf. 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.”).
Appellant argues that “the claimed process that results in an efficient
scheduling with a proper dose by the nuclear medicine scanning device
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

14

represents an improvement to the technical field of healthcare management,
and more particularly, improvements to the field of nuclear medicine such as
PET scans.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant
points out improvements, as listed in the Specification, as “dose
optimization for individual patients,” “optimized system throughput based
on intelligent scheduling,” “use of best practices in localized incremental
workflow improvements to scheduling nuclear medicine scanning
procedures,” and “accommodating site differences and/or customizations.”
Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. 3–4). We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument.
Initially, we note that the claims are unlike the claims found patent-
eligible in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, 887
F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appellant alleges that the claimed system
provides “dose optimization,” “optimized system throughput,” “use of best
practices,” and “accommodating site differences” (Appeal Br. 9, 18; Reply
Br. 4). However, rather that accomplishing some beneficial treatment (as in
Vanda), the claims here appear to be oriented toward maximizing service
providers’ convenience and revenue. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that
the problems addressed in the [S]pecification are constraints to
determining a schedule and not a technical problem in the field
of nuclear medicine/PET scans but instead is a scheduling
problem. The improvements described in the [S]pecification are
directed to improving the scheduling of the procedures and not
to actual improvements in the PET scanning machine or PET
scanning procedures or even to the technical field of nuclear
medicine.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

15

Ans. 4; cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (holding that claims are directed to “the abstract idea of offer-
based price optimization”); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336 (focusing on whether
the claim is “an improvement to [the] computer functionality itself, not on
economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary
capacity”). See also Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
778 F. App’x 882, 893 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The ability to run a more efficient
advertising campaign, even if novel, and even if aided by conventional
computers, is an advance ‘entirely in the realm of abstract ideas,’ which we
have repeatedly held to be ineligible.”). The “focus” of claim 1 is not “on
the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities” (Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1336), but rather on using the components as tools to implement the
abstract idea in the particular field of nuclear medicine. See Affinity Labs of
Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“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.”).
Appellant further argues that adjustments to workflow and timing and
dosage requirements “are clearly improvements to the PET scanning
procedures, which are not simply alterations of the time-aspects of the
schedule, but also provide dynamic workflow alterations including dosages
provided to ensure the overall dose administered is accurate in the allocated
time.” Reply Br. 4. However, as discussed above, the proffered
improvements of claim 1 are on the specific asserted improvement in PET
scanning, but rather on using the components as tools to implement the
abstract idea in the particular field of PET scanning.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

16

Furthermore, the Specification discloses “[f]orecasting can include
‘what-if’ scenario where potential changes are evaluated for the impact to
later or downstream scheduled patients,” (Spec. 12) and “forecasting unit 12
calculates the decay in the radiopharmaceutical and then forecasts a scan
time adjustment based on the delayed start time.” Spec. 14. As stated by the
Examiner, “determining of the proper dose for administration to a patient is
not a technical field or technology but rather is the abstract idea and the
improvement to the abstract idea itself.” Ans. 6. As discussed above,
limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing
technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See
also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“Here, in contrast, the focus of the claims is not a physical-realm
improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas—the selection
and mathematical analysis of information, followed by reporting or display
of the results.”).
Appellant asserts that “information is not simply collected, analyzed
and displayed” (Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)); but instead, the claimed
“system beneficially determines the dose commensurate with the scan time
window in order to produce a useful image in the allotted scan time.” Id. at
10. However, the information as listed by the Appellant (id. at 10–11) is
simply stored in the repository, i.e., collected. See Spec. 8. More
particularly,
forecasting unit 12 and the intelligent scheduler 2 use mined data
loaded into the local repository 3 to optimize the schedule and
forecast. The local repository includes data mined from data
sources such as log files 30 of the scanning device 4, the Hospital
Information System 8, a Picture Archiving and Communication
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

17

System (PACS) and/or Radiology Information System (RIS) 32.
A schedule miner unit 34 extracts, transforms, and loads the data
to the local repository 3.
Id. As described in the Specification, the information can then be reviewed,
i.e., analyzed. See id. at 9 (“When scheduling a new patient procedure, the
healthcare practitioner can review information provided by the intelligent
scheduler and/or forecasting unit from the local repository to determine a
best time and duration for the new patient.”). See also id. at 6:
The intelligent scheduler marks as unavailable non-operating
hours and staffing breaks. The intelligent scheduler can optimize
the schedule by extending the scan time of a patient to fill
otherwise unused time and reducing the amount of the
administered radiopharmaceutical accordingly. For example, if
a patient scan time would leave a 5 minute gap before a break,
then the scan time can be extended by 5 minutes and the dose of
the radiopharmaceutical reduced correspondingly.
The Specification also discloses displaying the schedule “[t]he forecasting
unit determines the impact of any changes or proposed changes to the
schedule and displays the result on a display device 16.” Id. at 8.
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination
that the additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application, as the term is used in USPTO Guidance, and we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Under the second step in the Alice framework and USTPO Guidance
Step 2B, we “[e]valuat[e] additional elements to determine whether they
amount to an inventive concept [which] requires considering them both
individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

18

more than the judicial exception itself.” MPEP § 2106.05(I). Here, the
Examiner determines that “the additional elements when considered both
individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea.” Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner states that the
additional elements (i.e., repository, memory, intelligent scheduler, and
scanner) “are recited as generic computer components that perform routine
functions that are well-known in the industry (i.e., receiving data,
scheduling, forecasting, tracking, etc.)” Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that
“[t]hese elements recite a generic computing system by reciting an electronic
processing device of the workstation or a network-based server” and that
“the scanner is disclosed to be any PET or SPECT scanning device or the
like.” Id. (citing Spec. 5, 8–9). The Examiner also states that “the additional
element of storing prior patient data in the repository and displaying the
schedule on a display device [] are elements that are well-understood,
routine and conventional computer functions.” Final Act. 6–7 (citing MPEP
§2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). See also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (gathering,
sending, monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and presenting information does
not transform the abstract process into a patent-eligible invention); OIP
Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (Claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over
a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically
determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential
customers found to merely recite “‘well-understood, routine conventional
activit[ies],’ either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine
data-gathering steps.”) (alteration in original); SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167–
68 (“[S]electing certain information, analyzing it using mathematical
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

19

techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis” were
“basic functions” of a computer.).
Appellant asserts that “the burden of showing that various claim
elements or combination of elements are well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field, in accordance with the
second part of the Alice analysis” has not been carried out. Appeal Br. 14.
However, we agree with the Examiner that “[t]he rejection includes a
citation to the specification which demonstrates the computer components
are well-understood, routine and conventional elements” and that citations to
court decisions were provided for support. Ans. 7. We find supported the
Examiner’s determination that the limitations of claim 1, taken individually,
or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception. Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 7–8. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s determination.
Appellant argues that the previously discussed “improvements amount
to ‘significantly more’ than the assertedly abstract idea itself, transforming
the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Appeal Br. 12.
However, as discussed above with respect to a lack of practical application,
the improvements lie in scheduling and in managing workflow, i.e.
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,
not in an improvement to the scanning technology. See Elec. Power, 830
F.3d at 1355 (gathering, sending, monitoring, analyzing, selecting, and
presenting information does not transform the abstract process into a patent-
eligible invention); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities); OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

20

1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network, gathering
statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine an
estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to
merely recite “‘well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by
requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps”
(alteration in original)).
Appellant argues that claim 1 “is directed to a particular ordered
process at least in part that may be performed by a processor (effectively
rendering it a special purpose computer) that includes specific sequence of
the various process steps.” Reply Br. 5–6 (emphasis omitted). However,
simply programming a general-purpose computer to perform an abstract idea
does not provide an “inventive concept” such that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–27
(applying an abstract idea, such as an algorithm, on a general purpose
computer is not enough to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention); EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“A general purpose computer is
flexible—it can do anything it is programmed to do.”).
Viewed as a whole, independent claim 1 recites a system that includes
a series of steps for analyzing stored data to schedule a plurality of patients
and optimize a schedule of the plurality of patients, and then displaying the
optimized schedule. The steps are performed by a conventional computer,
which merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a
computer (or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
Instead of improving the computer or technology or technical field,
independent claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

21

instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing elements,
which, under our precedents, is not enough to transform an abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, and claims 1–3, 5–
13, and 15–17, which fall with independent claim 1.

Obviousness
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 6–10
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Maekawa, Amberg, and Agamaite fails to disclose or
suggest limitation [e] of claim 1, which recites
optimize a schedule of the plurality of patients for a day which
includes adjusting a schedule of at least one patient of the
plurality of patients to fit into an available time window of the
schedule of the plurality of patients for a day by extending the
scan time window and reducing the patient dose in
correspondence with the extended scan time window to
minimize the patient dose while producing a satisfactory image
in the extended scan time window.
Appeal Br. 21–22 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner maintains the rejection is proper, and cites Agamaite, at
paragraphs 179–180, 183, 11, and 169, as disclosing the argued limitation.
See Final Act. 12; Ans. 8–9. However, we agree with Appellant that there is
nothing in the cited portions that discloses or suggests the argued limitation.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

22

In making this determination, we note that Maekawa is directed to an
examination scheduling program for a nuclear medical examination
apparatus that includes “a step of creating an examination schedule to avoid
overlapping in time of timing of the medication and the examinations . . .
while maintaining fixed a [sic] waiting time from the medication to the
examination set for each patient according to a type of examination.”
Maekawa, Abstract. Maekawa discloses that “the schedule for each patient
is expressed by a pattern having a time span according to the type of
examination, the pattern presenting the timing of the medication, the waiting
time and the contents of the examination.” Id. ¶ 15. In Maekawa, “[t]he
processing unit 13 arranges the examinations in the respective patterns FG,
i.e. the timing of collecting transmission data TD and the timing of
collecting emission data ED, in a way to avoid overlapping in time
therebetween.” Id. ¶ 59. Maekawa describes that “[a] re-scheduling may be
made easily to cope with an alteration since the current schedule may be
grasped immediately only by looking at the arrangement of patterns FG.”
Id. ¶ 62.
Amberg is directed to a system for scheduling medical procedures,
which includes calculating “an estimated procedure time for the patient to
undergo the procedure by using the difficulty score to adjust the base
procedure time.” Amberg ¶ 3. Amberg’s system “includes scheduling an
amount of time corresponding to the estimated procedure time on a
procedure schedule.” Id. Amberg describes “increasing or decreasing the
base time allotment by a fixed amount or a percentage of the base time
allotment based on the difficulty score of the patient.” Id. ¶ 19.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

23

Agamaite is directed to a system for planning and monitoring multi-
dose radiopharmaceutical usage on radiopharmaceutical injectors in which
the main objective
is to optimize a schedule of injection procedures to minimize the
amount of radiopharmaceutical that is wasted and maximize the
number of injection procedures that are performed with a given
radiopharmaceutical configuration. Accordingly, the system
utilizes a two step procedure to achieve this objective. First, an
operator loads a schedule of injection procedures into the system
that includes a time and a required activity level for each of the
procedures and provides a user with a plurality of multi-dose
radiopharmaceutical container configurations that can be used to
meet his needs . . . .
Id. ¶ 192. In describing the second step, Agamaite discloses that “if the
schedule changes during the injection procedures, the system then
recommends a new schedule that optimizes the number of patient scans
and/or injections that can be performed by suggesting changes in the
radioactive dose and/or the infusions times for each future patient or for the
entire schedule.” Id. ¶ 193.
Agamaite describes “the schedule 1302 may include the time of an
injection procedure . . . for each patient, and an activity . . . removed from
the multi-dose container 902 of radiopharmaceutical for each patient.”
Agamaite ¶ 156. Agamaite further describes “the schedule 1302 is editable
after being initially provided to accommodate add-on patients, cancellations,
time modifications to patients already provided on the planned patient
schedule,” for example, and “the algorithm . . . is run on a new schedule
1302’ to produce all container volume and activity pairs at a specified assay
time that can meet the new schedule 1302’ taking into account injection
system constraints.” Id. ¶ 169. Agamaite provides a scheduling example in
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

24

which “[i]f the current multi-dose container configuration is unable to
accommodate such an injection procedure . . . a range of activity levels
1146, such as 18–430 MBq, is presented to the operator that would allow the
operator to schedule a patient at 16:00.” Id. ¶ 179. In this example, “[i]f this
activity level is acceptable to operator, the operator can adjust the injection
procedure at 16:00 to have an activity level anywhere between 18-430 MBq.
If this level is unacceptable, the operator must cancel the procedure or adjust
the infusion time.” Id.
We have reviewed the cited portions of Agamaite and agree with
Appellant that the cited portions of Agamaite fail to disclose or suggest
limitation [e] of independent claim 1. The Examiner states that
Agamaite teaches that the schedule is modified by adjusting the
injection time for the scheduled injection procedure in the
schedule window ([179]), which equates to an adjustment of the
scan time window needed to perform the scan procedure as an
adjustment to the total injection time can only be extending or
shortening the window based on all of the variables.
Ans. 8. However, we disagree that adjusting the injection time equates to an
adjustment of the scan time window needed to perform the scan procedure.
As stated in Agamaite, “[a]fter injection and often after an additional delay
to allow the radiopharmaceutical to reach and be absorbed by the desired
regions of interest in the body, the patient is typically placed on a moveable
bed that slides by remote control into a circular opening of an imaging
scanner.” Agamaite ¶ 15. Likewise, Maekawa discloses “a certain waiting
time is required until an emission data collecting examination after the
medication.” Maekawa ¶ 4. A schedule change, or adjustment, in the time
the injection is administered to the patient may change accordingly the time
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

25

of the beginning of the scanning procedure, but it does not follow that an
extension of the scan time, i.e. duration of the scanning time, would also
occur. Thus, the combination of Maekawa, Amberg, and Agamaite does not
disclose or suggest limitation [e] of claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maekawa, Amberg, and Agamaite. For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6–10.

Independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12, 13, 16, and 17
Independent claim 11 includes a limitation substantially similar to
independent claim 1’s limitation [e] discussed above, and the Examiner
relies on the same rationale in rejecting independent claim 11. See Final
Act. 9–13. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 11, and dependent claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 for the same
reasons set forth with respect to independent claim 1.

Dependent claims 5 and 15
Claims 5 and 15 depend directly from independent claims 1 and 11
respectively, and thus, incorporate limitation [e], as recited in independent
claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection with respect to Thompson, in
combination with Maekawa, Amberg, and Agamaite, as applied to claims 1
and 11, does not cure the above-discussed shortcomings of Maekawa,
Amberg, and Agamaite identified by Appellant. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 1.
Appeal 2021-000165
Application 14/647,493

26

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–13,
15–17
101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–13,
15–17

1–3, 6–13,
16, 17
103 Maekawa,
Amberg, Agamaite
1–3, 6–13,
16, 17
5, 15 103 Maekawa,
Amberg,
Agamaite,
Thompson
5, 15
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–13,
15–17

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).

AFFIRMED