Ex Parte Kelley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

11741298 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/741,298 04/27/2007 Jamie P. Kelley
25763 7590 09/25/2018
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.
Pl87669.US.02 2707
EXAMINER
SEE,CAROLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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 JAMIE P. KELLEY, MICHAEL D. TARINO,
and LAURIE SCHNEPPMUELLER 1
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Technology Center 3600
Before: JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18, 21, and 22. Claims 19 and 20
have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Uniprise, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification filed Apr. 27, 2007 ("Spec.")
(claiming benefit of US 60/796,277, filed Apr. 28, 2006); Appeal Brief filed
Sept. 13, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); and Reply Brief filed Mar. 13, 2017 ("Reply
Br."). We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action mailed Jan. 15,
2016 ("Final Act."), and Answer mailed Jan. 12, 2017 ("Ans.").
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Appellants 'Invention
The invention generally "relates to a system and method for providing
customized healthcare-related guidance to one or more health plan members
or healthcare personnel by providing customized messages" (Spec. 1: 10-
12). More specifically, the process (method) of providing customized
messages receives information from a health information database, compiles
health-related member data associated with a health plan member, and
analyzes the compiled data to identify a plurality of outcomes relating to the
health or healthcare of the member. The process prioritizes and categorizes
the outcomes according to risk-i.e., risk stratifies the outcomes based on a
pre-defined categorization of outcome priority, wherein a ranking is
assigned to each of the outcomes according to a relative priority of each of
the outcomes in relation to all other identified outcomes for the member.
When a portion of the outcomes have the same prioritization/ranking, the
process scores the outcomes (having the same ranking) utilizing a predictive
model, such that the score is higher for outcomes where the member has a
higher tendency for an adverse medical event ( and lower for outcomes
where the member has a lower tendency). The process generates customized
message data for the member using at least a highest ranked outcome of the
risk-stratified and scored outcomes and health plan benefits of the member,
and provides a customized message including the customized message data
to the member, wherein the customized message is provided corresponding
to the highest ranked outcome of the risk-stratified and scored outcomes.
See Spec. 1:31-3 :4, 5: 5-9: 10, 13: 18-31, and Abstract.
2
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing
customized messages relating to a health plan member,
compnsmg:
receiving, by a computer processor, information from at
least one health information database;
compiling, by the computer processor, health-related
member data associated with a health plan of the member from
the at least one database;
analyzing, by the computer processor, the compiled data
to identify a plurality of outcomes relating to the health or
healthcare of the member;
risk stratifying, by the computer processor, the outcomes
based on a pre-defined categorization of outcome priority,
wherein a ranking is assigned to each of the outcomes according
to a relative priority of each of the outcomes in relation to all
other identified outcomes for the member, and wherein at least a
portion of the outcomes have a same ranking;
scoring outcomes having the same ranking, by the
computer processor, using a predictive model, wherein the
predictive model scores outcomes showing the member as
having a higher propensity for an adverse medical event higher
than outcomes showing the member as having a lower propensity
for the medical event;
generating, by the computer processor, customized
message data for the member using at least a highest ranked
outcome of the risk-stratified and scored outcomes and health
plan benefits of the member; and
providing, by the computer processor, a customized
message including the customized message data to the member,
wherein the customized message is provided corresponding to
3
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
the highest ranked outcome of the risk-stratified and scored
outcomes.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding Appellants' claims were directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 11, and 16 ( as well as
dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22) together as a group with
respect to the§ 101 rejection. See Appeal Br. 6-13. We select independent
claim 1 as representative of Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-
18, 21, and 22. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejects the claims ( claim 1) as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter in that "claim 1 is directed to a process of using
categories to organize, store and transmit information and organizing
information through mathematical correlations []which are examples of
abstract ideas" similar to the claims found ineligible in "Smartgene [and]
Cyberfone." Final Act. 5---6 (emphases added). Additionally, the Examiner
found "the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself because the claim does not effect an improvement to another
technology or technical field." Final Act. 7.
4
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Appellants contend "the claims are not directed to an abstract idea"
(Appeal Br. 6; see Appeal Br. 9), "[t]he Examiner did not use [the proper]
analysis in the Office Action and therefore has not properly made a prima
facie showing of unpatentability" (Appeal Br. 7-8), and "the claims are
[instead] relevant to improvements to a computer" (Appeal Br. 8; see Appeal
Br. 8-9). Appellants further contend "the instant claims amount to
something significantly more [than the purportedly abstract ideas] at least by
describing a particular process beyond instructions to apply an abstract idea
using a generic computer." Appeal Br. 10; see Appeal Br. 10-13.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLSBankint'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77-80 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
2355. Assuming that a claim nominally falls within one of the statutory
categories of machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the
first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," e.g., to an abstract idea.
Id. For example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental
5
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. If the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the
inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are
considered "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 78-79). This second step is described as "a search for an 'inventive
concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ' ...
significantly more than ... the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 2355
(alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look to whether the
claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Alice Step 1 Analysis
Turning to the first step of the eligibility analysis, "the first step in the
Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the 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." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. "The abstract idea exception
prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or
machinery the result is accomplished."' McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
6
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting O'Reilly v.
Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1853)). "We therefore look to whether
the claims ... focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
The Examiner provides a detailed interpretation of claim 1 and how
each of the various method steps (limitations) concerns receiving data, data
collection, analyzing data, organizing data using categories and
mathematical correlations, and post-solution activity (transmitting
information). See Final Act. 6. Based on these findings, the Examiner
determines independent claim 1 (as well as claims 2-18, 21, and 22) is
directed to the abstract ideas of "using categories to organize, store and
transmit information" and "organizing information through mathematical
correlations" similar to Smartgene and Cyberfone. Final Act. 6. 3
Conversely, Appellants contend the Examiner did not set forth a prima facie
showing because the "Examiner did not consider the character of the claims
as a whole and did not consider the claims in light of the specification."
Appeal Br. 7; see Appeal Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend
that the "claims are relevant to ... improvements to a computer's ability to
interact with a user via customized messaging." Appeal Br. 8; see Appeal
Br. 8-9. We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' claim 1 (and the
3 The Examiner cites to SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological
Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Cyberfone
Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
7
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
other pending claims) are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas or
concepts.
With respect to Appellants' prima facie case contentions, Appellants
misconstrues the relevant law and precedent. The Federal Circuit has
repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is merely a procedural device that
enables an appropriate shift of the burden of production." Hyatt v. Dudas,
492 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Therefore, the USPTO carries its procedural burden
of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for
rejection, "together with such information and references as may be useful in
judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application."
In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Thus,
a prima facie rejection need only set forth the statutory basis of the rejection
in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132. Id.
Here, in rejecting the claims (in particular claim 1) under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, the Examiner analyzed the claims using the Mayo/Alice two-step
framework, consistent with the guidance set forth in the US PTO' s "2014
Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618
(Dec. 16, 2014 ), in effect at the time the rejection was made, i.e., on Sept.
13, 2016. The Examiner notified Appellants of the reasons for the rejection
"together with such information and references as may be useful in judging
of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application."
35 U.S.C. § 132. See Final Act. 5-7. Contrary to Appellants' assertions, in
doing so, the Examiner set forth a primafacie case ofunpatentability such
8
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
that the burden of production shifted to Appellants to demonstrate that the
claims are patent-eligible.
With respect to Appellants' contentions that the Examiner
mischaracterized the claims, claim 1 recites a method that: receives and
compiles information (health-related member data associated with a health
plan of the member, which is received from at least one health information
database}-i.e., receiving and collecting data; analyzes the compiled data to
identify outcomes ( a plurality of outcomes relating to the health or
healthcare of the member}-i.e., analyzing collected data; and risk stratifies
the outcomes based on a pre-defined categorization of outcome priority-
i.e., data analysis, prioritization, and categorization (that is, analyzing,
organizing, and manipulating data). The risk stratification involves
assigning a rank to each outcome ( ranking the outcomes) according to a
relative priority of each of the outcomes in relation to all other identified
outcomes for the member. When outcomes ( a portion of the outcomes) have
the same prioritization/ranking, the outcomes (having the same ranking) are
scored using a predictive model, such that the score is higher for outcomes
where the member has a higher propensity for an adverse medical event ( and
lower for outcomes where the member has a lower propensity). Then, the
method generates customized message data for the member using at least a
highest ranked outcome ( of the risk-stratified and scored outcomes) and the
member's health plan benefits, and provides a customized message
including the customized message data to the member. In sum, as the
Examiner finds, claim 1 is directed to "using categories to organize, store
and transmit information" and "organizing information through
mathematical correlations," i.e., an abstract idea. Final Act. 6.
9
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Although we could characterize claim 1 differently and/or with more
detail-as a "method for providing customized healthcare-related guidance
to one or more health plan members or healthcare personnel by providing
customized messages relating to management of the member's health
condition(s), healthcare costs, and/or health insurance policy and associated
benefits" (Appeal Br. 8 (quotations omitted)}-or, for example-as being
directed to receiving, collecting, organizing, analyzing, and manipulating
member health and health plan information to facilitate providing
customized healthcare-related messages-such details do not substantively
change the patent-eligibility analysis. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842
F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction .... The Board's slight revision
of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability analysis.").
Utilizing the above-identified characterization, we analyze whether
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Instead of using a fixed definition of
an abstract idea and analyzing how claims fit ( or do not fit) within the
definition, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier
cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what
prior cases were about, and which way they were decided." Amdocs (Isr.)
Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). As part of this inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed
advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole'
is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
10
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Here, Appellants' claims generally, and independent claim 1 in
particular, relate to collecting, analyzing, organizing, and manipulating
information (to prioritize the information), and communicating the
analyzed/organized information in a customized message (see discussion
supra). That is, Appellants' claims relate to organizing, collecting,
analyzing, communicating, and manipulating data utilizing un-recited
processes or algorithms and devices to provide customized messages. See
Abstract; Spec. 1:31-3 :4. This is consistent with how Appellants describe
the claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 3--4 (citing Spec. 1:31-3:4, 5:5-9:10,
and 13:18-31).
Also, the present claims are analogous to a number of cases in which
courts have identified similar claims as encompassing abstract ideas. Our
reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering, organizing,
analyzing, and manipulating information. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1353-54 (finding claims directed to a "combination of ... abstract-idea
processes .... of gathering and analyzing information" to be abstract).
Similarly, our reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering,
organizing, analyzing, and storing information. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC., 874 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
( finding claims directed to the functional results of accumulating,
converting, and monitoring records manipulate data "but fail[] to do so in a
non-abstract way"); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding the
"claims generally recite ... extracting data [and] recognizing specific
information from the extracted data" and that the "claims are drawn to the
basic concept of data recognition").
11
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Here, the collection, organization, analysis, manipulation, and
communication of information ( data}--in the form of prioritizing health-
related information-are analogous to the abstract ideas of collecting,
analyzing, and manipulating information discussed in Electric Power Group,
Two-Way Media, and Content Extraction.
Appellants' claims can also be distinguished from patent-eligible
claims such as those in Enfzsh that are directed to "a specific improvement to
the way computers operate." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. Appellants' claims
are directed to the results of data analysis and manipulation rather than "a
particular way of performing" or "inventive technology for performing those
functions" or, in other words, "achiev[ing] these results in a non-abstract
way." Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1337-38 (quotations omitted). In
summary, "the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in
computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
computers as tools." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of
collecting, analyzing, organizing, and communicating information.
Alice Step 2 Analysis
Having found Appellants' claims are directed to an abstract idea under
Alice's step 1 analysis, we next address whether the claims add significantly
more to the alleged abstract idea. As directed by our reviewing court, we
search for an "'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application."' McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355). The implementation of the abstract idea involved
must be "more than performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and]
conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content
12
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347--48 (alteration in original) ( quoting Alice, 134
S.Ct. at 2359). The "inventive concept" "must be significantly more than
the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or
apply the abstract idea on a computer." Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc.
v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation
omitted).
Here, the Examiner determined that Appellants' claims do not add
significantly more. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 7-8. Appellants, on the other
hand, contend the Examiner disregarded or oversimplified the relevant
guidance from the US PTO and Federal Circuit, in that the Examiner found
the claims merely recited generic computer functionality, and "claims can
amount to significantly more even if the claims only recite generic computer
components and functions." Appeal Br. 10; see Appeal Br. 9-11.
Appellants also contend "[t]he claims amount to significantly more than an
abstract idea at least because the claims include additional elements that
describe a particular process, rather than bare instructions to apply an
abstract idea using a computer" (Appeal Br. 11) in that "the claims recite,
among other things, particular features of how outcomes are risk stratified,
how outcomes having a same ranking are scored, how a predictive model
operates, and how these particular features come together as a whole to
generate and provide customized messaging to a member" (Appeal Br. 12).
See also Appeal Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection
with respect to the second Alice step. We agree with the Examiner that
Appellants' claim 1 ( and the other pending claims) does not evince an
"inventive concept" that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
13
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
We agree with the Examiner that receiving, collecting, analyzing,
organizing, and communicating information, utilizing undisclosed means
( algorithms, processes, and/ or devices) and utilizing a generic computer
system and processor does not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 7-8. As pointed out by the Examiner,
Appellants' Specification describes general purpose computers performing
routine and conventional processes/functionality. See Ans. 7-8. For
example, the Specification describes "an exemplary system for providing
customized messages" including a "processor" "configured to receive
member data from various data sources, analyze the member data, and
retrieve or generate one or more customized messages associated with the
member based on the information received" and a "data storage"
"configured for storing member data ... communicatively coupled to the
processor ... to enable the processor to retrieve the member data and/or one
or more customized messages." Spec. 13:21-26; see Spec. 13:18-14:13;
Fig. 5A.
Appellants simply reiterate the limitations of claim 1 and conclude
that the limitations are not routine or conventional-in each claim, the
"combination of specific features takes the claims beyond a generic
implementation of the asserted abstract ideas and instead recites express
language relating to particular elements for generating customized messages
that improve a computers ability to interact with a user via customized
messaging" and, therefore, "the claims amount to significantly more than
implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer" (Appeal Br. 13). See
Appeal Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants do not explain in sufficient
detail how the limitations (individually and in combination) are not routine
14
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
or are unconventional. As we explain supra, we agree with the Examiner
that Appellants' claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than
the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, organizing, and manipulating
information (to prioritize the information), and communicating the
analyzed/organized information in customized messages by performance of
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
To the extent Appellants' arguments invoke DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014}-in that the instant claims
allegedly improve the operation of a computer system-we disagree. See
Appeal Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3. In DDR Holdings, the court held that a
claim may amount to more than an abstract idea recited in the claims when it
addresses and solves problems only encountered with computer technology
and online transactions, e.g., by providing (serving) a composite web page
rather than adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet
hyperlink protocol. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257-59. In contrast
and as discussed supra, claim 1 simply collects, analyzes, organizes, and
manipulates data and communicates the resulting information in messages
using known conventional computers and/or equipment. The prioritization
of data ( analyzing, organizing, and manipulating the data to prioritize, rank,
and score the data) according to an undisclosed process and/ or algorithm
similarly utilizes a conventional, generic processor (computer) performing
conventional functions. See supra. Despite Appellants' arguments to the
contrary, nothing in claim 1 recites a specific improvement to the way
computers operate. The collection, analysis, organization, and manipulation
of information (to prioritize the information), and the resulting
communication of the analyzed/ organized information in a customized
15
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
message, is not a solution to a technical problem as discussed in DDR
Holdings.
Rather, communicating messages including analyzed/organized
information, is a commercial solution to a routine and conventional health
care activity----determining and prioritizing health care issues (outcomes)
and communicating these issues to health plan members, not a technical
solution to a computer or networking problem. This commercial solution
may be assisted using a general purpose computer (see Spec. 13: 18-14: 13)
to perform the data collection, analysis, and manipulation processes, and
communicate the information in a message. The commercial solution does
not, however, improve how the computers themselves function. As we
previously explained, the instant claims are more akin to the claims for
analyzing information found to be abstract. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d
at 1353.
We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations, separately,
or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful limitations (i.e., do
not add significantly more) to transform the abstract idea into a patent
eligible application. See, e.g., Ans. 7-8. The claim merely recites functions
(processes) for analyzing, organizing, and manipulating data using known
conventional computers and/or equipment to communicate conventional
messages. Such conventional computer and communication processes "do
not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter." FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256).
For at least the reasons above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we sustain the
16
Appeal2017-006442
Application 11/741,298
Examiner's rejection under§ 101 of independent claim 1, as well as
independent claims 11 and 16, and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, 17, 18,
21, and 22, which were not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18, 21, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17