Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

14193246 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/193,246 02/28/2014
26201 7590 08/28/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Trey Moore
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.
23956-0082001 7301
EXAMINER
BURGESS, JOSEPH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN TREY MOORE and NEIL R. MCQUEEN
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LARRY J. HUME, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-9, which are all claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Airstrip IP Holdings,
LLC. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention "are
generally directed to an enterprise scalable, data- and vendor-agnostic
mobility architecture to securely deliver patient data and information from
medical devices, electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient monitors to
healthcare providers anywhere across a healthcare continuum." Spec. ,r 19.
Further, "implementations of the present disclosure provide integrated and
unified views of patient data and patient information on mobile devices ( e.g.,
smartphones, tablets) from a plurality of data sources across the healthcare
continuum." Id.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a
user of a mobile device access to patient information and
patient physiological data, the method being executed using one
or more processors and comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, user input, the
user input indicating a user command to display a task screen;
in response to the user input, processing, by the one or
more processors, user-specific data to determine a plurality of
patient icons, each patient icon representing a time-sensitive,
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Mar. 29, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 17, 2016); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Aug. 15, 2015); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Nov. 27, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Feb. 28, 2014) (claiming benefit of US 61/788,233, filed Mar. 15, 2013).
2
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
patient-associated task comprising review and confirmation of
the patient physiological data that is updated in real-time to be
remotely executed by the user within a time period that is
determined based on a time at which the patient physiological
data started to be recorded; and
displaying the task screen on the mobile device, the task
screen displaying the patient information and the patient
physiological data associated with the time-sensitive, patient-
associated task as one or more patient icon groups that are
differentiated based on an urgency of the time-sensitive,
patient-associated task, each patient icon group comprising a
patient icon of the plurality of patient icons.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Bello et al. ("Bello") US 2005/0055242 Al Mar. 10, 2005
Reyes US 2013/0253339 Al Sept. 26, 2013
Humphrys et al. ("Humphrys") US 2015/0254412 Al Sept. 10, 2015
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2.
R2. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bello, Reyes, and Humphrys. Final
Act. 4.
3
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-20), we decide the
appeal of both Rejections RI and R2 of claims 1-9 on the basis of
representative claim 1. 3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. To the extent Appellants have not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to Rejections RI
and R2 of claims 1-9 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by
reference herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
1. § 101 Rejection RI of Claims 1-9
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 1--4) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in concluding the claimed invention is directed
to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, specifically the abstract ideas
identified by the courts of comparing new and stored information and using
rules to identify options, without significantly more?
Analysis
Alice Framework
Section 101 provides that anyone who "invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof' may obtain a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should
not extend to claims that monopolize "the basic tools of scientific and
technological work." Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012);
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patent-eligible subject matter. Id.
The Supreme Court's two-part Mayo/Alice framework guides us in
distinguishing between patent claims that impermissibly claim the "building
blocks of human ingenuity" and those that "integrate the building blocks into
5
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
something more." Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and bracketing
omitted). First, we "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to [a]
patent-ineligible concept[]." Id. at 2355. If so, we "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." Id. at
2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 79). While the two steps of the Alice
framework are related, the "Supreme Court's formulation makes clear that
the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101
inquiry." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). We note the Supreme Court "has not established a definitive rule
to determine what constitutes an 'abstract idea"' for the purposes of step one.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2357).
However, our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as directed to
an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display
information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by
humans. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting cases). At the
same time, "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. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2355-
57. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we
articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure
the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 2354 ("[W]e tread carefully in
construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.").
6
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "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) (internal citation
omitted). If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the
inquiry ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,
1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If the concept is directed to a patent-ineligible
concept, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that second step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
Alice Step 1 -Abstract Idea
Our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as being directed to an
abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display
information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by
humans. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting cases). At the
same time, "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. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we
articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure
the step one inquiry is meaningful. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 ("[W]e tread
carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of
patent law.").
Appellants state claims 1 through 9 are not directed to an abstract idea
and, in particular, "the subject matter of the instant application, as embodied
7
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
in the claims, is directed to 'an enterprise scalable, data- and vendor-agnostic
mobility architecture to securely deliver patient data and information from
medical devices, electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient monitors to
healthcare providers anywhere across a healthcare continuum."' App. Br. 11
( citing Spec. ,r 19).
Appellants further argue:
[T]he subject matter of the instant application, as embodied in
the claims, is fundamentally rooted in computer technology.
That is, and as noted above, the subject matter of the claims is
directed to interacting with a user through a task screen on the
mobile device, which includes a set of machine-readable
instructions that governs the mechanisms of interaction between
the user and the data processing device. Consequently, the
subject matter of the claims is not directed to some fundamental
truth or business practice that could have existed in the pre-
Internet era. Indeed, it is the underlying technological features
recited in the claims, the existence of which is required for the
subject matter of the claims to itself even exist.
App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner concluded "[t]he claims are directed to the
abstract idea of determining and displaying icons that represent time-
sensitive patient-associated tasks because they involve, in part, receiving a
user input, processing user-specific data to determine patient icons
representing time-sensitive patient-associated tasks, displaying patient icons
with time-sensitive patient-associated tasks." Ans. 3. The Examiner further
identified the correspondence of these aspects of the claimed invention to
abstract ideas identified by the courts including comparing new and stored
information and using rules to identify options ( citing SmartGene ), and
8
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
using categories to organize, store, and transmit information ( citing
CyberFone). Id.
In the Final Action, the Examiner concluded:
The claims are directed to the idea of receiving a user input
command, processing user-specific data to determine patient
icons representing time-sensitive patient associated tasks,
displaying patient icons with time-sensitive patient-associated
tasks, which is an example of the abstract idea of using
categories to organize, store, and transmit information (because
the limitations organize user input data into patient icons and
transmit the icons for display). While the claims do not
explicitly recite "using categories to organize, store, and
transmit information", the concept is described by the receiving,
processing, and displaying steps of claims 1, 8, and 9.
Final Act. 2-3.
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "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, 838 F.3d at
1257 ( citation omitted).
Turning to the claimed invention, claim 1 recites: "[a] computer-
implemented method for providing a user of a mobile device access to
patient information and patient physiological data, the method being
executed using one or more processors." Claim 1 (preamble).
Method claim 1 's limitations also require the steps of:
(a) "receiving ... user input ... indicating a user
command to display a task screen;
(b) "in response ... processing ... data to determine a
plurality of patient icons, each ... representing a ... patient-
associated task comprising review and confirmation of the
patient physiological data ... ; " and
9
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
( c) displaying the task screen ... [by] displaying the
patient information and the patient physiological data."
Under step one, we agree with the Examiner that the inventions
claimed in each of independent claims 1, 8 and 9 are directed to an abstract
idea, i.e., comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify
options, which we also conclude involves using categories to organize, store,
display, and transmit information. See Ans. 3.
As the Specification discloses:
Implementations of the present disclosure are generally
directed to an enterprise scalable, data- and vendor-agnostic
mobility architecture to securely deliver patient data and
information from medical devices, electronic medical records
(EMRs) and patient monitors to healthcare providers anywhere
across a healthcare continuum. More particularly,
implementations of the present disclosure provide integrated
and unified views of patient data and patient information on
mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets) from a plurality of
data sources across the healthcare continuum.
Spec. ,r 19. 4 We find this type of activity, i.e., comparing information to
identify options, includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the
advent of computers and the Internet, and could be carried out by a human
4 See also Spec. 44 ("Abstract"):
Implementations are directed to providing a user of a
mobile device access to patient information and patient
physiological data. Actions can include receiving user input, the
user input indicating a user command to display a task screen,
in response to the user input, processing user-specific data to
determine one or more patient icons, each patient icon
representing a time-sensitive, patient-associated task, and
displaying the task screen on the mobile device, the task screen
displaying one or more patient icon groups, each patient icon
group including a patient icon of the one or more patient icons.
10
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
with pen and paper. See Cy her Source Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely mental processes can be
unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson."). 5
Our reviewing court has previously held other patent claims ineligible
for reciting similar abstract concepts. For example, while the Supreme
Court has enhanced the § 101 analysis since Cy her Source in cases like Mayo
and Alice, the Court continues to "treat[ ] analyzing information by steps
people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category."
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354).
In addition, our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas
include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Additionally, the collection of information and analysis of
information (e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset) are also
abstract ideas. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting information
and "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category"). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
5 CyberSource further guides that "a method that can be performed by
human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible
under§ 101." CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373.
11
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Further, a
process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
information to generate additional information is abstract. Digitech Image
Techs., LLC v. Elec.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Also, more recently, our reviewing court has also concluded that
acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are abstract ideas.
Berkeimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellants' argue:
[T]he subject matter of the instant application, as embodied in
the claims, is fundamentally rooted in computer technology.
That is, and as noted above, the subject matter of the claims is
directed to interacting with a user through a task screen on the
mobile device, which includes a set of machine-readable
instructions that governs the mechanisms of interaction between
the user and the data processing device. Consequently, the
subject matter of the claims is not directed to some fundamental
truth or business practice that could have existed in the pre-
Internet era. Indeed, it is the underlying technological features
recited in the claims, the existence of which is required for the
subject matter of the claims to itself even exist.
App. Br. 12.
Regarding Appellants' preemption argument (App. Br. 14),
While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject
matter, the absence of complete preemption does not
demonstrate patent eligibility .... Where a patent's claims are
deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under
the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption
concerns are fully addressed and made moot.
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("that the claims do not preempt all price
12
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce
setting do not make them any less abstract").
Therefore, in agreement with the Examiner, we conclude claim 1
involves nothing more than comparing information to identify options- an
abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. 6 Accordingly, on
this record, and under step one of Alice, we agree with the Examiner's
conclusion the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Alice Step 2 -Inventive Concept
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
we must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply
describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into
patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any "additional
features" in the claims that constitute an "inventive concept," thereby
rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Those "additional features" must be
6 Merely automating previously manual processing by using computers does
not qualify as an eligibility-rejection-defeating improvement. Credit
Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
13
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 566
U.S. at 79.
Appellants argue:
Appellant notes that the subject matter of the claims is
rooted in computer technology in order to overcome problems
specifically arising in the realm of providing patient
information and patient physiological data to remotely located
mobile devices, which qualifies claims 1, 8 and 9 as patent-
eligible subject matter. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, LP (Fed. Cir. 2014). In short, the subject matter of
claims 1, 8, and 9 is directed to a problem that is unique to
providing patient information and patient physiological data to
remotely located mobile devices, and the solution provided by
claims 1, 8 and 9 "is tethered to the technology that created the
problem." See, e.g., Messaging Gateway Solutions, LLC v.
Amdocs, Inc. et al., D. Del., l-14-cv-00732 (April 15, 2015)[].
App. Br. 14.
We disagree because, while we find the technology implemented in
the claimed invention may be useful to solve a business problem, we also
find the additional elements are not a technological solution to a
technological problem, or a solution to a problem introduced by the
technology itself. See Alice Step 2 analysis, infra.
Moreover, in DDR, applicable to a Mayo/Alice Step 1 abstract idea
analysis, the claims at issue involved, inter alia, "web pages displays [with]
at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a
buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants" ( claim 1 of
US 7,818,399). The Federal Circuit found the claims in DDR to be patent-
eligible under step one of the Mayo/Alice test because "the claimed solution
is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
14
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257. Specifically, the Federal Circuit found the claims addressed
the "challenge of retaining control over the attention of the customer in the
context of the Internet." Id. at 1258. We find the rejected claims are
dissimilar to DDR's web page with an active link, and the Specification does
not support the view that the computer related claim elements are
unconventional. See Spec. ,r,r 21-25 and 120-121.
Evaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we agree with the Examiner that it lacks an inventive concept that
transforms the abstract idea of comparing information and using rules to
identify options into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. See
Ans. 4--6.
We agree because, as the Examiner concludes, when considering the
claims as a whole:
The computer as recited is a generic computer component that
performs functions (i.e. receiving user input, processing user-
specific data, displaying tasks and icons). These are generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. The
additional elements include a processor, display screen, mobile
device, memory, and CRM, which are recited at a high level of
generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract
idea beyond generally linking the system to a particular
technological environment, that is, implementation via
computers. Additionally, receiving user input and displaying a
task screen with patient icon groups are merely extra-solution
and/or post solution activity that does not meaningfully limit
the claims. Using patient information to display tasks that are
time-sensitive is merely limiting the claims to a particular field
of use.
15
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
Ans. 4.
The Examiner also finds:
Furthermore, the as-filed specification discloses the mobile
device can include a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet
computing device, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a laptop
personal computer (PC), a desktop PC. A display can include a
thin-film-transistor (TFT) liquid crystal display (LCD), or an
organic light emitting diode (OLED) display. A memory can
include a volatile memory unit or units, and/or a non-volatile
memory unit or units. An input interface can include a
keyboard, a touchscreen, a mouse, a trackball, a microphone, a
touchpad (i10022---0023). This is further evidence that the
Applicant does not consider the computer functions and/or
components themselves to be the invention, rather the abstract
idea of determining and displaying icons that represent time-
sensitive patient-associated tasks. Therefore, the claims do not
amount to significantly more that the underlying abstract idea.
Ans. 4--5.
With respect to the Examiner's finding above, and as further evidence
of the conventional nature of the claimed network components and
processes, we point to Appellants' Specification in paragraphs 21-25
and 120-121.
Notwithstanding Appellants' arguments, we agree with the Examiner
that the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as
reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in
light of Appellants' Specification, as cited above. 7
7 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the
16
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
Thus, with respect to the Step 2 analysis, we agree with the Examiner
because, as in Alice, the recitation of either a "computer-implemented
method for providing a user of a mobile device access to patient information
and patient physiological data, the method being executed using one or more
processors" ( claim 1 ); a "non-transitory computer-readable storage device
coupled to one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon
which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more
processors to perform operations for providing a user of a mobile device
access to patient information and patient physiological data" ( claim 8); or a
"system, comprising [] one or more processors" and a "computer-readable
storage medium" is simply not enough to transform the patent-ineligible
abstract idea here into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2357 ("[C]laims, which merely require generic computer implementation,
fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.").
Our reviewing court has held, "the use of generic computer elements
like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP v. Iatric
Sys. Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the appealed claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, we sustain the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
17
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2-9,
not argued separately, and which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 1-9
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 15-19; Reply Br. 5---6) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Bello, Reyes, and Humphrys is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests "[a] computer-implemented method for providing a user of a
mobile device access to patient information and patient physiological data,
the method being executed using one or more processors," that includes,
inter alia:
(a) "receiving ... user input indicating a user command
to display a task screen";
(b) "determine a plurality of patient icons, each patient
icon representing a time-sensitive, patient-associated task
comprising review and confirmation of the patient
physiological data that is updated in real-time"; and
( c) "one or more patient icon groups that are
differentiated based on an urgency of the time-sensitive,
patient-associated task, each patient icon group comprising a
patient icon of the plurality of patient icons,"
as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior
art would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the
18
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants have not
challenged the combinability of the teachings of Bello, Reyes, and
Humphrys.
"Receiving" Limitation (a) 8
The Examiner finds the "receiving" limitation is taught or suggested
by Bello. Final Act. 4 ( citing Bello Fig. 24; ,r 439); and see Ans. 7
(additionally citing Bello ,r 438).
Appellants contend "the interface screen of Bello allows a clinician to
add or remove patients, which is different than receiving, by the one or more
processors, user input, the user input indicating a user command to display a
task screen, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 9." App. Br. 17-18.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Bello discloses after a clinician selects a shift, interpreted as
user input, a "to-do" list is provided based on patients, the
clinician's tasks or both. Different levels of shading and/or
coloring may be utilized to differentiate between the levels of
urgent care required for a specific patient. Additionally,
various icons may be used in connection with the patients to
provide the clinician a quick understanding of the care required
by a patient (i-f 438).
Ans. 7.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants assert "the visual indicators of Bello
are utilized to differentiate between the level of urgent care required for a
specific patient, which is different than displaying the task screen on the
mobile device." Reply Br. 5.
8 Limitation (a): "receiving, by the one or more processors, user input, the
user input indicating a user command to display a task screen."
19
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
We disagree with Appellants' assertion under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard. See n. 7.
In this case, Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's
interpretation that the claimed "user command to display a task screen" reads
on Bello's clinician selection of a shift on patient interface screen 2313.
Specifically, and in agreement with the Examiner, we find Bello discloses:
A view patient interface screen 2313 is shown in FIG. 23.
In that screen 2313, after the shift has been selected, the
clinician 116 may view the patients associated with the
clinician 116. The clinician 116 may also view the tasks
associated with the clinician 116. Accordingly, a "to-do" list
may be provided based on the patients, the clinician's tasks or
both.
Bello ,r 438 ( emphasis added).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding above that Bello teaches
or at least suggests the recited "receiving" limitation as recited in claim 1.
"Plurality of Patient Icons" and "Icon Groups" Limitations (b)/(c) 9
Appellants contend " [ a ]t least the cited portions of Reyes fail to
disclose or render obvious each patient icon representing a time-sensitive,
patient-associated task including review and confirmation of the patient
physiological data that is updated in real-time." App. Br. 18.
9 Limitation (b ): "in response to the user input, processing, by the one or
more processors, user-specific data to determine a plurality of patient icons,
each patient icon representing a time-sensitive, patient-associated task
comprising review and confirmation of the patient physiological data that is
updated in real-time to be remotely executed by the user within a time period
that is determined based on a time at which the patient physiological data
started to be recorded."
20
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
We disagree with Appellants' argument because it is not responsive to
the Examiner's rejection and Response to Arguments in the Answer. Final
Act. 4--5; Ans. 8.
The Examiner relies upon the combination of Bello and Reyes as
teaching or suggesting this limitation. In particular, the Examiner cites Bello
as teaching or suggesting "each patient icon representing a time-sensitive,
patient-associated task" (Final Act. 4--5), and cites Reyes as teaching or
suggesting "the task comprising review and confirmation of the patient
physiological data, the task screen displaying the patient physiological data,"
and also "a display of a group of patient icons, where a physician selects a
patient icon to review and confirm displayed patient vital signs." Ans. 5
(citing Reyes Figs. 2, 3; ,r,r 13, 49, and 69). 10 We agree with the Examiner's
findings. See n.10.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding above that Bello teaches
or at least suggests the recited "plurality of patient icons" and "group icons"
limitations as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
10 "Active appointments, as well as, pending and completed appointments
represented collectively herein as indicia 205 may be physically
characterized by interactive boxes, windows, or icons displayed within
electronic interface 126. In one embodiment an icon 205 may list some
information as text, such as the patient's name, gender and age, and the date
and time for the session." Reyes ,r 49. Also, "[a]t step 313, the physician
may select the icon associated with pre-evaluation or vitals to review the
data before accepting the appointment. The physician may also access other
information from other information sources connected to the network and
review such data before accepting an appointment." Reyes ,r 69.
21
Appeal2017-001086
Application 14/193,246
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do
we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, and grouped claims 2-9 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping,
supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1---6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.4I(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to patent-ineligible
subject matter Rejection RI of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we
sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejection
R2 of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
22