NIHON KOHDEN CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 22, 20212021001879 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/062,751 03/07/2016 Teiji UKAWA 55879 2709 116 7590 12/22/2021 PEARNE & GORDON LLP 1801 EAST 9TH STREET SUITE 1200 CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108 EXAMINER AGAHI, PUYA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3791 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2021 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): patdocket@pearne.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TEIJI UKAWA Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 Technology Center 3700 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–13, and 15–18 as being directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (an abstract idea without significantly more).2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nihon Kohden Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1, 4–13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus for measuring the blood pressure of a subject. Spec. 1:12–14. Of the pending claims, claims 1 and 13 are independent, and claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A measuring apparatus comprising: at least one processor and memory configured to: measure first and second blood pressure values of a subject; estimate a third blood pressure value based on a ratio relating the first, second, and third blood pressure values; measure a pulse wave of the subject; and cause a predetermined pressure to be applied to a predetermined portion of the subject during measurement of the pulse wave, wherein the ratio is calculated based on a shape of the measured pulse wave, wherein the ratio is between a first difference and a second difference, the first difference being a difference between a diastolic blood pressure and a mean arterial blood pressure, and the second difference being a difference between a systolic blood pressure and the mean arterial blood pressure, and wherein the applied predetermined pressure is equal to or greater than a venous pressure. OPINION Principles of Law Pertaining to Patent Eligibility An invention is patent-eligible if it is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 3 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 Supreme Court’s two-step 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, one first determines what concept the claim is “directed to.” See id. 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 of rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India 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 Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 4 mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“view[ing] 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 Supreme 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, one turns to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “[one] 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. On January 7, 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “2019 Eligibility Guidance”). The 2019 Eligibility Guidance includes steps 2A and 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the guidance, the PTO first looks to whether Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 5 the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). See id. at 54. The mere inclusion of a judicial exception in a claim means that the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). However, mere recitation of a judicial exception does not mean that the claim is “directed to” that judicial exception as set forth in the first step of the Alice and Mayo framework. Id. Pursuant to the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, if a claim recites a judicial exception, the PTO proceeds to Step 2A, Prong Two, and determines whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). If the claim as a whole integrates the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception and thus is eligible. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2). If, however, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception. Id.; 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Step 2A, Prong Two thus distinguishes claims that are “directed to” the recited judicial exception from claims that are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2). Only if a claim is directed to a judicial exception—i.e., it both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application—does the PTO proceed to Step 2B of the guidance. At Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 6 this step, the PTO determines whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. In doing so, the PTO considers the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (stating that “[one] consider[s] 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 . . . 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’”); see also BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that, even in claims reciting only “generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself,” “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” under step two of the Alice framework). Analysis Claim Grouping In contesting the rejection, Appellant presents arguments for claims 1 and 13 and relies on these arguments for dependent claims 5–12 and 15. Appeal Br. 3–6, 8. Appellant presents separate arguments for claim 4, claim 16, and claims 17 and 18. Appeal Br. 6–7. We decide the appeal of claims 1, 5–13, and 15 on the basis of claim 1, with claims 5–13 and 15 Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 7 standing or falling with claim 1; and we decide the appeal of claims 17 and 18 on the basis of claim 17, with claim 18 standing or falling with claim 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (providing that when multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group by the appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group to decide the appeal with respect to the group as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone). We address separately claim 4 and claim 16. Claims 1, 5–13, and 15 Pursuant to Step 2A, Prong One, the Examiner finds that claim 1’s recitation of “estimate a third blood pressure value based on a ratio relating to the first, second, and third blood pressure values, . . . wherein the ratio is calculated based on a shape of the measured pulse wave” and “wherein the ratio is between a first difference and a second difference, the first difference being a difference between a diastolic blood pressure and a mean arterial blood pressure, and the second difference being a difference between a systolic blood pressure and the mean arterial blood pressure” is “a mathematical calculation and/or mental process,” which fall within groupings of concepts recognized as abstract ideas—mathematical concepts and mental processes. Final Act. 3; Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.); see 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; MPEP § 2106.04(a). Appellant does not contest this finding. See Appeal Br. 3 (acknowledging the Examiner’s finding that the claims recite mathematical calculations and not disputing the finding). Turning to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner finds that the additional limitations—“at least one processor configured to: measure first and second blood pressure values of a subject,” “measure a pulse wave of Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 8 the subject,” and “cause a predetermined pressure [equal to or greater than a venous pressure] to be applied to a predetermined portion of the subject during measurement of the pulse wave”—do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5; Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). According to the Examiner, these additional limitations amount to mere data gathering steps in blood pressure measurement techniques and include “no structural limitations or any specificity.” Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that these limitations are recited at such a high level of generality that they “amount[] to insignificant [pre-solution] activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the mental process,” “which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 5–6 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Indeed, claim 1 does not positively recite any structure for measuring blood pressure values or a pulse wave of a subject or any structure for applying pressure to a portion of the subject. Rather, claim 1 only expressly recites “at least one processor and memory.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Construing claim 1 in a manner most favorable to Appellant’s position, one might interpret the language “configured to” in claim 1 as requiring that the at least one processor and memory be in communication with unspecified structure for measuring blood pressure values and a pulse wave of a subject and for applying pressure to a portion of the subject. Thus, at best, claim 1 may be interpreted as including some unspecified, generic structure for measuring blood pressure and a pulse wave and for applying pressure equal to or greater than a venous pressure during measurement of the pulse wave. The Examiner also finds, and Appellant does not specifically dispute, that “utilizing pressure equal to or greater than a venous pressure is widely Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 9 known in blood pressure monitoring techniques as it is needed to first sufficiently occlude an artery (temporar[ily] halt blood flow through the artery) prior to calculating blood pressure thereafter.” Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner’s determination that the limitations of claim 1 directed to measuring and causing pressure equal to or greater than a venous pressure amount to mere insignificant data gathering is well founded and consistent with PTO guidance on this issue. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (instructing examiners that a factor to be considered in determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity is “[w]hether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting”—i.e., whether “all uses of the judicial exception require such data gathering or data output”). Appellant argues that “using the claimed pressure during pulse wave measurement allows the ‘influence of the venous pressure [to] be canceled from the cuff pressure pulse wave, [so that] only the pulse wave component related to the arterial pressure can be extracted’” and “the pulse wave can be accurately measured.” Appeal Br. 3–4 (alterations in original) (citing Spec. 6:20–7:20). According to Appellant, this “meaningfully limits the measurement of the pulse wave because the measurement is particularly of a type that does not include a venous component.” Id. at 4. Further, Appellant submits that “[b]ecause the ratio on which the third blood pressure estimate is based, is itself based on the measured pulse wave, this limitation on the pulse wave measurement further affects and thus also meaningfully limits the alleged abstract idea.” Id. For the reasons that follow, Appellant’s arguments regarding the recited pressure are not persuasive. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 10 First, as discussed above, the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that applying a pressure equal to or greater than venous pressure is necessary to obtain a blood pressure measurement. Appellant does not identify any technique for measuring blood pressure or a pulse wave of the subject that does not include using a pressure equal to or greater than venous pressure. Further, Appellant’s Specification discloses that, preferably, the pulse wave is measured during pressurization under a pressure that is equal to or lower than the diastolic blood pressure so that “the pulse wave can be accurately measured.” Spec. 7:8–18. The Specification explains that the ratio, which is used to calculate the systolic blood pressure from measured values of diastolic blood pressure and mean blood pressure,3 is calculated from a pulse wave measured at pressures equal to or lower than the diastolic blood pressure because, in the range where the applied cuff pressure is lower than the diastolic blood pressure, “a change of the arterial blood vessel volume and a blood pressure change have an approximately linear relationship,” and, thus, “it is possible to consider that the amplitude ΔP of the pulse wave has a similarity relationship to a change of the arterial blood vessel volume.” Id. at 10:5–11:11. In other words, at applied cuff pressures lower than diastolic pressure, “the amplitude of the pulse wave is relevant to 3 “[T]he diastolic and mean blood pressures are calculated from the pulse wave that is measured during a period of pressurization at a pressure which is equal to or lower than a pressure that is estimated to be equal to or lower than the systolic blood pressure,” and blood pressure estimating section 14 estimates the systolic blood pressure from the diastolic blood pressure, the mean blood pressure, and the ratio. Spec. 8:19–23; see also id. at 8:3–18; 9:3–13; 13:14–18; 15:7–20. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 11 a change of the blood pressure,” and “it is possible to assume that the waveform of the pulse wave is similar to that of the blood pressure.” Id. at 11:21–12:7. Thus, Appellant’s argument that the recited pressure meaningfully limits claim 1 is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not limit the applied pressure range to equal to or lower than the diastolic blood pressure.4 Appellant argues that “the application of pressure is a transformation” that “is integral with the alleged abstract ideas because the measured pulse wave resulting from the applied pressure is a basis for the calculated ratio, which is a basis of the third pressure estimate.” Appeal Br. 4–5. Thus, Appellant submits that “the claimed application of pressure satisfies the criteria for a transformation that integrates the alleged abstract ideas [into] a practical application and renders the claim significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas.” Id. at 5. This argument is not persuasive. First, we note that, although the transformation of an article is an important clue to patent eligibility, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 658 (Stevens, J., concurring); MPEP § 2106.05(c). Further, applying the factors set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(c), on the whole, the evidence before us weighs against a determination that the claimed application of pressure constitutes a transformation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites causing pressure equal to or greater than a venous pressure 4 Nor does claim 1 limit the applied pressure range to be equal to or lower than the systolic blood pressure, which the Specification discloses for measuring/calculating the diastolic and mean blood pressures, thereby shortening the measurement time period and the burden on the subject. Spec. 15:13–25. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 12 “to be applied to a predetermined portion of the subject during measurement of the pulse wave.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Thus, the article (the “predetermined portion of the subject”) that Appellant asserts is transformed is not recited with any particularity. Further, the pressure is applied during measurement, i.e., as part of data gathering, and not in a manner to change the portion of the subject into a different state or thing to produce a transformed article having a different function or use. Accordingly, we discern no error in the Examiner’s determination that the recitation of causing application of pressure in claim 1 amounts to mere data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6. Appellant argues that “the application of pressure also realizes an improvement in existing medical diagnostic technologies and is thus an integrated practical application.” Appeal Br. 5. More specifically, Appellant submits: [The Specification of the present application] expressly identif[ies] a problem with existing blood pressure monitoring devices—that a pressure equal to or greater than the systolic blood pressure must be applied, which imposes a large burden on the patient and relatively takes a long time; and that devices configured to enhance the measurement speed use historical systolic and mean blood pressure values to estimate a provisional blood pressure. The application further identifies how these problems are overcome to estimate the third pressure with higher accuracy and lower imposed burden by utilizing the claimed applied pressure (only equal to or greater than a venous pressure) and two measured pressures having a medical relevance (all three pressures being related by a ratio based on a shape of the measured pulse wave). In view of this, the application of pressure as claimed represents the component or Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 13 step that provides the improvements to the problems expressly identified in the application. Appeal Br. 5 (italics added for emphasis; underlining in original) (citing Spec. 2:19–3:20). Appellant’s improvement argument is unavailing because it is predicated on the use of pressurization that is below the systolic blood pressure. Thus, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which merely recites that the applied pressure is “equal to or greater than a venous pressure,” without an upper bound. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Claim 1, therefore, encompasses use of pressures greater than the systolic pressure. For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the additional limitations in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, thus, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception—an abstract idea. Turning to Step 2B, the Examiner, as discussed above, finds that the additional limitations amount to insignificant pre-solution activity—mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the mathematical concepts or mental process. Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, these limitations, recited at such a high level of generality, do not constitute a “meaningful limitation, such as a particular unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and measuring activity used in” conventional blood pressure measuring techniques. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that “[c]onsideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately.” Id. at 4. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 14 According to the Examiner, “[e]ven when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception,” and, “[t]hus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.” Id. The Examiner thus concludes that claim 1 is “drawn to non-statutory subject matter.” Id. For the reasons set forth in Appellant’s arguments discussed above, Appellant contends that “the collection of the application of pressure as claimed with the other claim features, even if conventional, provide a meaningful limit and inventive concept that renders the claims significantly more than the alleged abstract idea alone.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant submits that “the improvement results not only from the blood pressure estimations found to be abstract, but also from the particularly claimed application of pressure during pulse wave measurement.” Id. at 6. Appellant’s arguments regarding the claimed pressure application are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as discussed above, and thus, are not persuasive. As for Appellant’s submission that the application of pressure is a transformation that renders the claim significantly more than the abstract idea (Appeal Br. 5), this argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above—the recited article (a “predetermined portion of the subject” is recited without particularity and is not transformed into an article having a different function or use. See MPEP § 2106.05(c). Further, to the extent that there is any physical change, even if only transitory, to the recited article (the “predetermined portion”), Appellant’s Specification does not disclose, nor does claim 1 recite, such physical change or transformation with any particularity. See id. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 15 For the above reasons, Appellant fails to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into an inventive concept (i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and of claims 5–13 and 15, which fall with claim 1, as being directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (an abstract idea without significantly more). Claim 4 Appellant argues that the limitation in claim 4 “that the pressure is applied gradually and is removed after the calculation is ended” adds further specificity, or greater particularity, to the pressure application limitation of claim 1 and, thus, should be given greater weight as a transformation and meaningful limitation. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner finds that this limitation “amounts to pre-solution activity (conventional data gathering step in blood pressure measuring techniques)” and, further, that “it is widely known in the art to gradually inflate/deflate a blood pressure cuff prior to and/or during blood pressure measurement calculation (applying a gradual increase in pressure is necessary in order to provide more comfort to the patient).” Ans. 7. We are not apprised as to why the limitations in claim 4 that the pressure be applied gradually, and be removed from the predetermined portion of the subject after the calculation has ended, materially change our analysis, discussed above, in regard to claim 1, or cause us to reach a different conclusion as to whether the additional limitations, considered Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 16 individually, or as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or transform the nature of the claim into an inventive concept (i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea). Although the term “gradually” nominally narrows the pressure application limitation, this is still a very broad term that seemingly would cover any real-world application of pressure. Likewise, the limitation that the applied pressure is removed after the calculation is ended amounts to nothing more than ending the data gathering step after all the necessary data has been collected. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 4 does not recite additional elements that, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or transform the nature of the claim into an inventive concept (i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 as being directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (an abstract idea without significantly more). Claim 16 Appellant argues that the blood pressure cuff recited in claim 16 is an “additional element [that] more particularly recites . . . how pressure is applied and thus further supports a finding of eligibility.” Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner finds that the cuff “is conventional, generically recited, and amounts to pre-solution activity (data gathering), which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Ans. 7. The Examiner Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 17 also finds that “the additional limitation of applying pressure based on a signal from a processor/memory does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application” because “blood pressure monitoring techniques are widely known to require electronic processing and automation (as opposed to early 20th century methods that required inflating an air bladder by a hand pump), and that this also pertains to pre-solution activity.” Id. at 7–8. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not set forth any analysis to support the conclusion that the recitation of a blood pressure cuff is extra-solution activity and that “reliance on conventionality is improper when determining whether the features integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application.” Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, the blood pressure recitation provides “greater specificity regarding the pulse wave measurement and transformation relating to pressure application.” Id. at 4–5. Appellant’s Specification does not describe, and claim 16 does not recite, the blood pressure cuff with any specificity. Rather, Appellant merely discloses and recites generically “a blood pressure cuff,” which does nothing more than denote a generic device for surrounding a body part and applying pressure.5 See, e.g., Spec. 1:16–18 (describing generically a “cuff” that is attached to a predetermined position of a subject in widely used blood pressure monitors), 6:7–8 (describing “cuff 21 [as] an air bag which is used in a related-art non-invasive blood pressure measurement); Fig. 1 (depicting cuff 21 schematically only). Thus, the recitation of “a blood pressure cuff” 5 As discussed above, the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that applying a pressure equal to or greater than venous pressure is necessary to obtain a blood pressure measurement. Ans. 6. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 18 attached to the predetermined portion of the subject does not meaningfully limit the pressure application recitations in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends. Appellant’s “transformation” argument is unavailing for the reasons discussed above in regard to claim 1. The recitation of a “cuff” for applying pressure does not change our analysis or conclusion that the claimed application of pressure does not constitute a transformation that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Although Appellant does not specifically focus on the limitation in claim 16 that the blood pressure cuff is “operatively connected to the at least one processor and memory, and configured to apply the pressure to the predetermined portion of the subject in response to a signal from the at least one processor and memory” (Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)), we note that this limitation amounts, at most, to merely automating, using the processor and memory (i.e., generic computer components), functions that previously were performed manually (i.e., the early 20th century methods requiring inflating an air bladder by a hand pump that the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, preceded blood pressure monitoring techniques widely known at the time of Appellant’s invention to require electronic processing and automation). Such automation and use of a conventional computer implementation in a customary manner does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); Cf. Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2017 WL 2705338, *3 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017) (stating that the Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 19 “asserted claims recite no more than the sort of ‘perfectly conventional’ generic computer components employed in a customary manner that we have previously held insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). In essence, claim 16 is drafted in a manner that merely recites using generic components as tools to apply the abstract idea. For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that the additional limitations of claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application pursuant to Step 2A, Prong Two. Turning finally to Step 2B, as discussed above, Appellant does not disclose or claim the “cuff” with any specificity. Further, Appellant does not assert, and the Specification does not disclose, that the blood pressure cuff used in Appellant’s invention includes any inventive feature. Thus, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 16 does not recite additional elements that, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into an inventive concept (i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 as being directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (an abstract idea without significantly more). Claims 17 and 18 Appellant argues that the recitation in claim 17 directed to “a display of the estimated or measured blood pressure values” constitutes “a meaningful limitation on the claim[], and thus an integrated practical application, because the display allows a medical professional to act on the Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 20 improved blood pressure determination.” Appeal Br. 7. Further, Appellant submits that, “because the display is specific to the estimated third blood pressure value, the display is integrated with the alleged abstract idea” and that, “because [claim 17 is] directed to medical diagnostic devices . . . , such a display is not merely a tangential generic element (i.e., a display generally untethered from the central purpose of the claims).” Id. The Examiner finds that the limitations in claim 17 “pertain[] to displaying the judicial exception, which amounts to extra-solution activity.” Ans. 8; see also Final Act. 10. Thus, the Examiner determines that claim 17 does “not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” Final Act. 10; Ans. 8. Appellant asserts that application of the factors enumerated in MPEP § 2106.05(g) for assessing whether additional limitations add more than insignificant activity to the judicial exception leads to the conclusion that the display feature of claim 17 is not insignificant extra-solution activity. Appeal Br. 7. With respect to the first factor cited by Appellant (whether or not the features are nominally or tangentially related to the invention), Appellant contends that “the display is particularly tied to the estimated blood pressures” and that claim 17 “relate[s] to medical diagnostic technology for which an output of measured/determined diagnostic information is an important purpose . . . so that patients can be appropriately treated.” With respect to the second factor cited by Appellant (whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting), Appellant asserts that the claimed display is not a necessary output. Id. For the reasons that follow, Appellant’s arguments are not well founded. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 21 Appellant’s assertion that the claimed display is not a necessary output of the abstract idea is incorrect. The necessary output of the abstract idea (the mental process or mathematical calculation of estimating a third blood pressure value based on a ratio relating the first, second, and third blood pressure values) is the estimated third blood pressure value, whether that represents the diastolic blood pressure, the systolic blood pressure, or the mean arterial blood pressure. Thus, reciting a generic display configured to display the estimated blood pressure value amounts to nothing more than displaying the result of the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Elec. Power Grp. LLCV Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims reciting the combination of the abstract-idea processes of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content and then displaying the results, without any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions, are directed to an abstract idea). Further, Appellant’s Specification does not disclose any specific details of the display used in the invention. See, e.g., Spec. 14:22 (referring to “displaying section 15”); Fig. 1 (depicting displaying section 15 schematically only). Thus, Appellant does not assert, and cannot reasonably contend, that the display used in Appellant’s invention employs any inventive structure that was not well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of Appellant’s invention. To the extent that Appellant’s assertion that the blood pressure value display may be used to treat the patient may be an attempt to argue that claim 17 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 22 prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, such an argument is inapposite here. Unlike the claims in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018), claim 17 does not positively recite a device or method for treating the subject. The fact that a claimed method or apparatus might aid in diagnosing a patient’s condition is not enough, by itself, to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that, even where a claimed method “may have been a significant contribution to the medical field, that alone does not make it patentable”). For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that claim 17 does not recite additional elements that, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or transform the nature of the claim into an inventive concept (i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17, and of claim 18, which falls with claim 17, as being directed to a patent-ineligible judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (an abstract idea without significantly more). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–13, and 15–18 is AFFIRMED. Appeal 2021-001879 Application 15/062,751 23 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–13, 15– 18 101 Eligibility 1, 4–13, 15– 18 TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation