Ex Parte Heinze et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

14271719 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/271,719 05/07/2014 Daniel T. Heinze
25763 7590 06/27/2018
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - MINNEAPOLIS
ATTENTION: PATENT PROSECUTION DOCKETING DEPARTMENT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PRACTICE GROUP - PT/16TH FL
50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET, SUITE 1500
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1498
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P219352.US.03 2018
EXAMINER
SOREY, ROBERT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ip.docket@dorsey.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL T. HEINZE, PETER FELLER, and MARK L. MORSCH
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719 1
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Daniel T. Heinze et al. ("Appellants") seek our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims 37--41, 43, 44, and 52-58. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify A-Life Medical, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
THE INVENTION
The invention "relates to techniques for scoring or otherwise
evaluating coded medical documents (where 'coding' refers to the process of
identifying document contents, including medical findings, diagnoses and
procedures, using a set of alpha-numeric medical codes) to assess a quality
of a process used to code the documents." Spec. 1.
Claim 3 7 is representative, and is reproduced below with bracketed
matter added:
37. A method of evaluating coded medical documents
performed by a computer, the method comprising:
[1] providing, by a computer, a graphical user interface
(GUI) wizard;
[2] receiving, by the computer via the GUI wizard, audit
parameters for selecting a document universe and for
calculating a sample size;
[3] calculating, by the computer, a sample size using the
received audit parameters;
[ 4] selecting, by the computer, a document universe based on
the received audit parameters;
[5] providing, by the computer via the GUI wizard, a
plurality of medical documents coded by a coder and selected
using the selected document universe and the calculated sample
size;
[ 6] receiving, by the computer via the GUI wizard, a
plurality of corrections by an auditor to the plurality of medical
documents;
[7] recording, by the computer, the plurality of corrections to
the coded medical documents to form a plurality of audited
medical documents;
[8] determining, by the computer, a document score for each
of the plurality of audited medical documents, each document
score based on one or more document corrections provided by
the auditor and weighted factors, wherein the weighted factors
comprise predefined weights assigned to diagnosis codes and
2
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
finding codes of each of the plurality of audited medical
documents;
[9] determining, by the computer, a sample score for the
plurality of audited medical documents based on the determined
document scores;
[ 1 OJ determining, by the computer, the acceptability of the
sample score by periodically performing an empirical test to
compare the sample score to system control limits; and
[11] displaying, by the computer via the GUI, an X-bar chart
analysis comprising the sample score, an upper control limit, a
lower control limit, and a previously determined sample score
of audited medical documents coded by the coder.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 37--41, 43, 44, and 52-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 37-41, 43, 44, and 52-58 under 35 USC§ 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
All the claims on appeal are rejected. Final Act. 2-11; Ans. 2-14.
The Appellants argue that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject
matter. Appeal Br. 6-16; Reply Br. 2-7.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014) identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed
subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
According to Alice step one, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the
3
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (emphasis added).
This patent-eligibility question implicates the "directed to" inquiry of
the Alice step one determination.
The "directed to" inquiry[] ... cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical
products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural
phenomenon-after all, they take place in the physical world.
See Mayo, [566 U.S. at 71] ("For all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract ideas.") Rather, the "directed to"
inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light
of the specification, based on whether "their character as a
whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet Patents
Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2015); see Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369,
1375, 2016 WL 1393573, at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inquiring into
"the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art").
Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In addressing computer-implemented patents, the TL! court
contrasted claims that are directed to an improvement in the
functioning of a computer with claims that "simply add[ ]
conventional computer components to well-known business
practices" or consist only of "generalized steps to be performed
on a computer using conventional computer activity." Id.
at 612.
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1260-61
(Fed. Cir. 2016). The question is "whether the focus of the claims is on [a]
specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a
process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Claims are not directed to
4
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
an abstract idea if the "plain focus of the claims" is on "an improvement to
computer functionality itself, [rather than] on economic or other tasks for
which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." Id. at 1336.
The Examiner determined that the claims are directed to the abstract
idea of "determining the acceptability of a determined sample score that is
based on determined document scores of audited medical documents." Final
Act. 2. According to the Examiner:
The abstract idea ( 1) at least correlates to the court identified
abstract idea of (A) using categories to organize (e.g., selecting
document universe based on audit parameters, recording
corrections, and determining acceptability of a sample score),
store (e.g., receiving and recording corrections), and transmit
information (e.g., receiving data and displaying an X-bar chart),
and/or the court identified abstract idea of (B) comparing new
and stored information (e.g., calculating a sample size using
received audit parameters, determining scores based on
received corrections and weighted factors, and determining
acceptability by comparing the sample score to control limits)
and using rules to identify options (e.g., determining the
acceptability of the sample score and the X-bar chart comparing
the sample score to control limits).
Id. at 2-3.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred and that claim 3 7 is
not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 6-16. According to the
Appellants, "the independent claims recite, among other things, exact
features of the user interface (e.g., the GUI wizard and/or the X-bar chart
analysis)" and, thus, "define a specific user experience on a particular
computer" (id. at 15). See also Reply Br. 3.
"In determining the eligibility of respondents' claimed process for
patent protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole."
5
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981). The question is whether the
claims as a whole "focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
In this case, we find that claim 37, as a whole, is focused, at least in
part, on an improved "graphical user interface (GUI) wizard." Independent
claim 3 7 requires at least four steps performed by the GUI wizard.
Specifically, claim 37 calls for, inter alia, "[2] receiving, by the computer
via the GUI wizard, audit parameters for selecting a document universe and
for calculating a sample size," "[5] providing, by the computer via the GUI
wizard, a plurality of medical documents coded by a coder and selected
using the selected document universe and the calculated sample size," "[6]
receiving, by the computer via the GUI wizard, a plurality of corrections by
an auditor to the plurality of medical documents," and "[ 11] displaying, by
the computer via the GUI, an X-bar chart analysis comprising the sample
score, an upper control limit, a lower control limit, and a previously
determined sample score of audited medical documents coded by the coder."
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix).
The claimed steps performed by the GUI wizard are described in
detail in the Specification as implementing assertedly inventive features of
the invention. See, e.g., Spec. 8 ("The client GUI allows the auditor to make
corrections to each coded document and automatically record the corrections
and their types for calculating document and sample scores at 210. In
addition, multiple documents within the sample audit batch can be viewed
6
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
and compared together using mechanisms such as the GUI."); Spec. 17-21;
Figs. 5A-5K.
We cannot agree with the Examiner that the combination of steps
performed by the GUI wizard of claim 3 7 amounts to no more than generic
steps of "providing an interface" and "displaying data." Final Act. 3.
Cf Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that the "claims in this case are directed to an
improved user interface for computing devices" because "[a ]lthough the
generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the
invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing
and presenting information in electronic devices."). Therefore, we cannot
agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claim 3 7, as a whole, is "directed
to" an abstract idea.
Having made this threshold determination under step one of the Alice
framework, we need not move to the second step.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 37, and its dependent claims 38-
41, 43, and 44, is not sustained.
Independent claim 52 contains similar limitations as claim 37, and the
rejection of claim 52 and its dependent claims 53-58 is not sustained for the
same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 37--41, 43, 44, and 52-58 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
7
Appeal2017-003187
Application 14/271,719
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 37--41, 43, 44, and 52-
5 8 is reversed.
REVERSED
8