Integer Health Technologies, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2021

2021001033 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
15/225,503 08/01/2016 Jack McCallum INT012-001 6773
22858 7590 08/09/2021
CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP
P.O. Box 802334
DALLAS, TX 75380-2334
EXAMINER
RAPILLO, KRISTINE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2021 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patents@CCLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte JACK McCALLUM, SCOTT ROLOFF,
WILLIAM McCALLUM, and KEN GRIFNO
_____________

Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503
Technology Center 3600
_______________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10 and 13–18. Appeal Br. 2.2 However,
Appellant appeals only the rejection of claims 16–18. See Appeal Br. 4. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Integer Health Technologies, LLC as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 3.
2 All references to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) are to the Appeal Brief
that was filed on May 14, 2019.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 16 recites:
16. A method of searching in a computing
environment for the healthcare providers who will provide a
patient with an optimal outcome, comprising:
organizing the medical and pharmacy claims under an
employer’s health plan in tables;
organizing that employer’s human resource records
relating to employee absence, job category and
payroll in tables;
identifying the root diagnoses for each patient’s claims;
grouping together all the patient’s claims related to a root
diagnosis over the entire continuum of care;
identifying the absences related to each root diagnosis of
each employee by juxtaposing the dates for all the
employee’s claims grouped under that root
diagnosis against the employee’s absence records;
valuing the identified absences at the employee’s pay rate
or a normalized rate;
combining for each root diagnosis of each employee all
the claims and absence costs;
determining a risk score for each patient using age,
gender, disease and pharmaceutical data contained
in the claims and/or human resource records;
creating a numerical job factor for each employee based
on the employee’s job category;
organizing the healthcare providers in tables;
tasking each provider that filed a claim grouped with an
employee’s root diagnosis with both: (1) that
provider’s claims grouped with that root diagnosis
and related absence costs, and (2) all
“downstream” claims and related absence costs
from direct and indirect referrals of the employee
made by that provider to other providers;
sorting the providers into four categories: (1) Primary
Care Physicians (PCPs), (2) Non-Surgeon
Specialists, (3) Surgeons, and (4) Institutions;
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

3
determining each provider’s average risk and job
adjusted cost to treat an employee with a particular
root diagnosis by: (1) combining all the employee
claims and absence costs attributed to that provider
when treating that root diagnosis (including
downstream costs), (2) dividing those total costs
by the average risk score of the employees treated,
(3) dividing that resulting quotient by the average
job factor of the employees treated (alternatively,
the job factor may be applied to only the absence
costs), and (4) dividing that resulting quotient by
the number of employees treated;
pooling the data of employers in the same geographical
area;
ranking the providers in each provider category for each
root diagnosis based on their average risk and job
adjusted costs (claims plus absence costs to return
an employee with that condition to work) from the
best with the lowest average cost, to the worst with
the highest;
directing a person through a search engine to the
providers with the optimal healthcare outcomes for
that person’s particular problem (i.e. root
diagnosis), with the “optimal” outcome being the
lowest overall average adjusted costs to treat that
problem over the entire continuum of care;
filtering the results displayed via drop-down menus by:
(1) root diagnosis, (2) provider category, (3)
geographic proximity, and (4) provider network
(in-network for the person versus out-of-network);
and
filtering the results displayed based on the type of user:
(1) for an employer’s administrative personnel, the
search engine displays all the data, including
configurations in various dashboards and reports,
(2) for PCPs using the search engine to make
patient referrals, the search engine displays a list of
the optimal surgeons, specialists and institutions,
and (3) for an employer’s employees and their
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

4
dependents the search engine displays all the
optimal providers, including PCPs.
Appeal Br. 9–10 (Claims App.).3
REJECTION
Claims 16–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without substantially more.
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 16–18
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 4–10. We select
claim 16 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines that claim 16 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity by managing interactions between a patient and
employer to determine an optimal provider for a patient’s medical condition
and involves fundamental economic principles or practices and/or managing
personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people to include
social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner determines that additional elements of a “computing
environment,” “search engine,” and “drop-down menus” are recited at a high
level of generality as mere instructions to apply the exception using generic
components that do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Id. at 4–5. The Examiner determines the additional elements, individually
and as an ordered combination, perform only well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities without significantly more than the abstract idea. Id.
at 5–8.

3 The Claims Appendix was filed with the Response to Notification of Non-
Compliant Appeal Brief on June 28, 2019.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

5
Principles of Law
Whoever 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
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.4 Id. at 52–55.

4 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

6
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Revised Guidance Step 1
Claim 16 recites a method, which is a statutory category, namely, a
process. 35 U.S.C. § 101; see Final Act. 3.
Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 16 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity involving fundamental economic practices and
managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between people.
Ans. 3–4; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We also determine that
claim 16 recites mental processes. See Final Act. 3 (“an idea of itself”).
The application is titled “COMPUTER SEARCH ENGINE
EMPLOYING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE LEARNING
AND NEURAL NETWORKS FOR OPTIMAL HEALTHCARE
OUTCOMES.” Specification (filed April 9, 2018) 2. The Specification also
states “the invention concludes with directing a patient to the providers with
the optimal healthcare outcomes for that patient’s particular problem (i.e.
root diagnosis). That ‘optimal’ outcome is the lowest overall average
adjusted costs over the entire continuum of care–claims plus absence costs.”
Id. ¶ 202 (23.).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

7
Claim 16’s preamble recites this purpose of “searching in a computing
environment for the healthcare providers who will provide a patient with an
optimal outcome.” Appeal Br. (filed June 28, 2019) 9 (Claims App.).
Optimizing outcomes such as cost or price is a fundamental economic
concept. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (the concept of offer-based price optimization is similar to
other fundamental economic concepts found to be abstract ideas).
Here, claim 16 recites “optimal healthcare outcomes for [a] person’s
particular problem (i.e. root diagnosis), with the ‘optimal’ outcome being the
lowest overall average adjusted costs to treat that problem over the entire
continuum of care.” Appeal Br. (filed June 28, 2019) 10 (Claims App.).
The method tailors healthcare information based on information
known about patients and providers as a fundamental economic practice and
method of organizing human activity. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (providing
customized information to a user based on user demographic information
provided by the user or known about the user is a fundamental economic
concept and abstract idea); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]iltering content is
an abstract idea because it is a long-standing, well-known method of
organizing human behavior . . . .”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring content
based on information known about the user is a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (customizing information based on user demographics is a
fundamental economic practice of organizing human activity).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

8
As claimed, many steps can be performed in the human mind but for
recitation of generic computer components. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. Organizing data in tables (claims, records, healthcare providers),
identifying root diagnoses of claims and absences, and analyzing data by
valuing absences, determining a risk score, creating a numerical job factor,
sorting providers, determining providers’ average risk and job adjusted cost,
pooling data, ranking providers, and filtering results) can be performed as
mental processes at this level of generality. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting
information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does
nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes,
whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based
category of abstract ideas.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims, as noted, are simply directed
to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized
manner. . . . [W]e have applied the ‘abstract idea’ exception to encompass
inventions pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.”); Content
Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d
1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing certain data in the
collected data, and storing recognized data recite mental steps that humans
always have performed such as banks reviewing checks, recognizing data in
checks (e.g., an amount, account number, and account holder), and storing
data); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(a parser’s determination and extraction of parts of standard documents and
reassembly of the parts into composite files was similar to the collecting and
recognizing of Content Extraction and classifying and organizing of TLI).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

9
Nor does collecting and analyzing data from different sources or by
using general mathematical concepts make claim 16 any less abstract. See
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096–97 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (combining and compiling disparate data sources to generate a full
picture of a user’s activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a
computer environment did not differentiate a method from ordinary mental
processes); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have treated 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.”); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1367 (tracking
financial transactions to determine if they exceed a pre-set spending limit
(i.e., budgeting) using a communication medium is a method of organizing
human activity); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758
F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (generating data sets using algorithms and
combining/organizing the data sets into a new data set is abstract); see also
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367 (parsing documents to determine and extract
components and reassemble the components into composite output files for
storing and editing is abstract absent evidence that transforming data from
source to object code improves computer functionality); Adaptive Streaming
Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (converting an
incoming signal format into multiple formats of destination devices does not
claim a specific advance in coding or a technique to implement that idea).
Appellant does not present argument for Prong One. Appeal Br. 4–10
(the issue is whether the invention satisfies Prong 2 of Step 2A or Step 2B).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 16 recites the abstract idea
identified above.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

10
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 16 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that the additional elements
in claim 16 do not improve computers or other technology or implement the
abstract idea on a particular machine that is integral to the claim but instead
apply the exception using only generic computer components. Ans. 4–5.
Nor does claim 16 include elements that transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful
way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. See id. at
5–8; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The Specification describes the “computing environment” as a generic
computing environment of generic components. Multi-processor high speed
machines are used for processing of the databases and extraction of datasets,
or a machine with sophisticated computing power and artificial intelligence
uses complex algorithms to analyze data. Spec. (filed Aug. 1, 2016) ¶ 83. A
rules engine ranks outcomes based on total cost. Id. ¶ 84. A data warehouse
interfaces with stored procedures and adjustment tables to calculate user risk
scores and total cost. Id. ¶ 85. The system extracts data from databases. Id.
¶¶ 92, 93. This generic description of the computing environment and data
processing functions confirms it does not improve computers or technology.
An artificial intelligence machine learning app uses database extracts
to calculate total cost and risk. Id. ¶ 82. It may use complex algorithms to
compare and analyze data. Id. ¶ 83. It “learns” by comparing predictions to
actual costs by using learning modifiers. See Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

11
However, the machine learning features are not claimed. See Ericsson
Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is
directed to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim
language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”); Berkheimer, 881
F.3d at 1369 (the claims did not recite improvements to computer functions
disclosed in the specification and asserted by Berkheimer); Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101
inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”);
Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he complexity of the implementing software or
the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting
only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.”). Claim
16 results only in the determination of optimum outcomes, and “learning”
occurs only after an optimal outcome is determined. See Appeal Br. 9–10.
The search engine and drop-down menus are claimed by “results”
they achieve rather than technical features that achieve these results. They
process and filter data to identify an optimal outcome. Claim 16 lacks “‘the
specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to
one claiming a way of achieving it.’” Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328 (quoting
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
“Merely claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to
technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance,’
does not make a claim eligible at step one.” Id. (citation omitted). These
elements provide extra-solution activity by displaying results of the abstract
data collection and analysis processes. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

12
The Specification describes these elements in generic terms by results
they achieve, namely, they display data and filter results by root diagnoses,
provider categories, geographic proximities, and provider network without
any technical details of how they achieve the results in a way that improves
computers or other technology. Spec. (filed Apr. 9, 2018) ¶ 202 (23–26.).
This description confirms the search engine and drop-down menus are used
to provide extra-solution results of the abstract idea.
Appellant argues that the following features are combined in a new,
unique way: (1) combining two disparate data sets; (2) defining a “good
outcome” as an employee with a root diagnosis problem returning to work;
(3) accumulating all claims over the entire period of care to get an employee
back to work; (4) including an employee’s work absence costs in healthcare
costs; (5) including downstream referral costs in a physician’s costs; (6) risk
adjusting costs to credit providers for caring for sicker patients; (7) adjusting
costs for an employee’s job category; (8) adjusting provider rankings based
on the patients they treated and the patients’ jobs; (9) ranking providers in a
category such as primary care physicians, surgeons, non-surgeon specialists;
and (10) including these features in a search engine with a drop-down menu
to filter and limit results to top-ranked providers. See Appeal Br. 8–9.
As claimed, these features largely recite aspects of the abstract idea
identified under Prong One and thus cannot serve as additional elements to
integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (additional elements are claim features, limitations,
and/or steps recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include
“additional features” to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

13
“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys,
839 F.3d at 1151; see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction.”).
“Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technol-
ogy just as hardware improvements can, and . . . the improvements can be
accomplished through either route.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “to be directed to a patent-
eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed
to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform
itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336–39). Here, claim 16
recites data processing steps that can be performed as mental processes. No
improvements to computer functionality are claimed. See Appeal Br. 8–9.
Automating manual or mental processes on generic computers is not
enough. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054–
55 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (automating loan application processing to combine
information sources, create financing packages, and calculate credit scores
and profits was not patentable); OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363 (using computers to
perform routine tasks more quickly or accurately does not make a claim
patent eligible); Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp., 681 F. App’x
950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (transforming data to a desired format, validating
it with an algorithm engine, analyzing exceptions, and generating a report
without claiming how it is analyzed “is the height of abstraction”); Cellspin
Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he need
to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

14
In Electric Power, the method combined and analyzed data from grid
and non-grid sources to generate metrics and assess power grid vulnerability.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–52. Yet, combining disparate data sources,
generating dynamic stability metrics, and deriving a composite indicator of
reliability from the real time measurements, computations, and the dynamic
stability metric could be performed as mental processes. Id. at 1354–1355;
see Univ. of Fla. Research Found. Inc. v. Gen. Elec., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“data synthesis technology” using “device drivers written
for the various bedside machines” to receive physiological data from bedside
machines and present the data in a configurable fashion in a single interface
was a quintessential “do it on a computer” patent that automated pen and
paper methods to conserve human resources and minimize errors by using a
computer to collect, analyze, manipulate, and display data).
Selecting which data/costs to analyze to assess healthcare costs and
results provided by healthcare providers for various root causes is part of the
abstract idea identified above. See Salwan v. Iancu, 825 F. App’x 862, 865–
66 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (collecting, storing, and communicating patient health
information over a physician-patient network organizes human activity with
respect to this medical information and can be performed by an individual);
see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (enumerating types of information
and data sources to collect, analyze, and display recites mental processes).
In Salwan, the method communicated patient health information from
electronic medical records and billing data between physicians, patients, and
confidential databases of healthcare user groups to include health problems,
medications, diagnoses, prescriptions, diagnostic test results, and patient
billing reports to produce and transmit healthcare reports. Id. at 864.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

15
Here, certain costs are tracked and basic calculations are recited at a
high level of generality without improving computers, databases, interfaces,
or other technologies. Claiming “optimal” outcomes as the lowest overall
average adjusted costs over a course of care is part of the abstract idea.
As our reviewing court held in a similar situation:
The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an
innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing
but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected
information and the presentation of the results of those
calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function).
No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the
claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract
ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract
application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for
patenting.
SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163.
No technical implementation details are claimed for valuing absences,
combining claims and absence costs, determining a risk score, creating a
numerical job factor, or determining a provider’s average risk/job adjusted
cost to rank each provider. The steps are basic mathematical concepts and
comparisons that can be performed as mental processes. The description of
these steps is equally lacking in technical details. Spec. (filed Apr. 9, 2018)
¶ 202, Figs. 27, 28; Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal
Brief (filed June 28, 2019) (citing ¶ 202 and Figs. 27 and 28 as support for
this claimed subject matter). Risk scores and costs are described generally.
Spec. (filed Aug. 1, 2016) ¶¶ 95, 96, 108. An “algorithm” 32 is used to risk
adjust a risk adjusted score. Id. ¶¶ 107, 113, 116, 176–79.
Accordingly, we determine claim 16 lacks additional elements that are
sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

16
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 16 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that
are known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers
whether a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” activity).
Individually, claim 16’s limitations recite the abstract idea identified
under Prong One. The additional elements are known components used to
perform well-understood, routine, and conventional acts to implement the
abstract idea without providing an inventive concept. As claimed, the search
engine filters and displays providers who may provide optimal outcomes for
a particular problem. As such, it does not provide an inventive concept. See
West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, 685 F. App’x 923, 926 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (claims to receiving and analyzing data queries, retrieving/processing
information constituting a response thereto, and generating a visual or audio
response to the data query do not improve computer functionality and lack
an inventive concept as implemented on generic components); see also I/P
Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982, 994–95 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer
J, concurring) (filtering information for relevance to a search query using
content and collaborative data was well-established and widely recognized at
the time of the claimed invention and did not improve computers or other
technology); Spec. (filed Aug. 1, 2016) ¶ 93 (display is LED or OLED).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

17
“Here, the purported improvement is the abstract idea of classification
and filtering of data, not an improvement in the functioning of computer
capabilities.” Braemer Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465,
470 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“On their face, the claims are directed to collecting
(‘receiving a cardiac biological signal’), classifying (‘classifying the
events’), and filtering data into groups based on identifying characteristics
(‘determining a measure of merit,’ ‘comparing the measure of merit’), and
transmitting the data for review. Claims that ‘merely collect, classify, or
otherwise filter data’ are ineligible for patent under § 101.”).
Essentially, the drop-down menus filter search results by category.
See Appeal Br. 9. Our reviewing court has held such concepts to organizing
and accessing records through the creation of an index-searchable database
involve longstanding conduct that existed well before computers or the
Internet. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315,
1327–29 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding the use of XML tags to form an index
and metafiles to provide additional information about the tags’ hierarchical
structure in the index does not provide an inventive concept as it does not
improve computer database technology via a non-conventional technology
or a non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces).
As an ordered combination, claim 16 recites no more than when the
claim limitations and additional elements are considered individually. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281,
1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the
application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
application of an abstract idea.”).
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

18
Other features cited by Appellant as inventive are part of the abstract
idea and cannot provide an inventive concept. See Appeal Br. 8–9; BSG,
899 F.3d at 1290 (“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to
which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the
invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”); see also
Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the
conventional ordering of processing data, routing it, controlling it, and
monitoring its reception with conventional technology to achieve a desired
result of complying with communication protocols in response to user
signals without specifying protocol rules or parameters of user signals was
not inventive); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (the use of off-the-shelf,
conventional computer, network, and display technology to gather, send, and
present desired information is not inventive).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 and dependent claims 17
and 18, which fall with claim 16.5

5 The reference to predicting a person’s costs and comparing the prediction
to actual costs in a neural network loop (Appeal Br. 9–10) is not a separate
argument for claims 17 and 18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (claims argued
separately shall be argued under a separate subheading that identifies the
claim(s) by number; merely pointing out what a claim recites is not an
argument for separate patentability); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356–57
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (same). Nor do such remarks apprise us of Examiner error.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (arguments in the appeal brief shall explain why
the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection); In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Board’s practice is to require an appellant to
identify alleged error in the examiner’s rejection); see Final Act. 3; Ans. 8.
Appeal 2021-001033
Application 15/225,503

19
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
16–18 101 Eligibility 16–18
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