NIHON KOHDEN CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 22, 2021

2021001879 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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.
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