KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 17, 2022

2021002768 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2022)

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. 14/972,287 12/17/2015 NORMAN MAURICE DELISLE 2014P01332US01 2462 24737 7590 02/17/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER TIEDEMAN, JASON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2022 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NORMAN MAURICE DELISLE, PATRICK GUINEY, and JEFF HEYMAN ____________ Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention “relates to communications between medical instruments and more particularly to a mobile hub providing interconnectivity between multiple devices.” (Spec. 1, ll. 5-6.) Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites: 1. A mobile healthcare hub for remotely accessing patient data including at least one of measurement data and historic data for a particular patient, the mobile healthcare hub comprising: a mobile communication device; at least one processor; a non-transitory memory coupled to the at least one processor; a display coupled to the at least one processor; and wherein the non-transitory memory is encoded with modules including instructions for execution by the at least one processor, the modules including: a communications module configured to, upon the mobile healthcare hub entering a communication envelope of a plurality of monitoring devices storing the patient data, establish communications by the mobile communication device with the plurality of monitoring devices; an information monitoring module configured to receive, consolidate and process the patient data from the plurality of monitoring devices via the mobile communication device based upon at least one of a relevancy data score and a contextual data score by the information monitoring module for each monitoring device of the plurality of monitoring devices; and a display formatting module configured to format the patient data for display on the display based upon a ranking of the plurality of monitoring devices derived from the at least one of the relevancy data score and the Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 3 contextual data score for each monitoring device of the plurality of monitoring devices. REJECTIONS2 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Martin (US 2013/0096649 A1, pub. Apr. 18, 2013) and Douglass (US 2016/0042146 A1, pub. Feb. 11, 2016). Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Martin, Douglass, and Baker (US 2012/0003933, pub. Jan. 5, 2012). ANALYSIS The § 101 rejection “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. Section 101, however, “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). 2 The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite was withdrawn. (See Answer 3.) Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 4 Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (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, 573 U.S. at 217. Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if “the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if “the elements of the claim . . . contain[] an ‘ “inventive concept” ’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 221 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79). With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a “directed to” two-prong test to: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”). The Examiner determines that “the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people” and that “under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing human activity.” (Final Action 4.) More particularly, the Examiner determines that “the claims encompass a person collecting patient data from patient Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 5 monitoring devices, deciding what data to display, and causing display of the data.” (Id.) Appellant argues that the claimed subject matter of claims 1-20 is narrowly directed to a communication protocol executed by a mobile healthcare hub for establishing communication between a mobile communicate [sic] device of the mobile healthcare hub with monitoring device(s) when the mobile communication device enters a communication envelope of the monitoring devices(s), whereby the mobile healthcare [sic] may remotely access patient data from the monitoring device(s) without any human interaction. (Appeal Br. 14-15.) Under step one of the Alice framework, we “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) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The “directed to” inquiry . . . cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon . . . . Rather, the “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether “their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In other words, the first step of the Alice framework “asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant technology] or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 6 which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335-36; see also 2019 Guidance at 54-55. The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the invention “relates to communications between medical instruments and more particularly to a mobile hub providing interconnectivity between multiple devices.” (Spec. 1, ll. 5-6.) Claim 1 provides further evidence. Claim 1 recites a “mobile healthcare hub comprising: a mobile communication device; at least one processor; a non-transitory memory coupled to the . . . processor; and wherein the . . . memory is encoded . . . with modules,” the modules “including: a communications module configured to . . . establish communications . . . with the plurality of monitoring devices,” “an information monitoring module configured to receive, consolidate and process the patient data from the plurality of monitoring devices,” “and a display formatting module configured to format the patient data for display on the display.” The claim limitations recite establishing communications (transmitting and receiving data), receiving, consolidating, and processing data (receiving and analyzing/manipulating data), and displaying data. Transmitting and receiving data, analyzing/manipulating data, and displaying data have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims “directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data’”), FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 7 information, including when limited to particular content’” as well as analyzing and presenting information), Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (treating as an abstract idea “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data”), Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (obtaining information, analyzing the information, and presenting customized information based on the analyzed information determined to be directed to an abstract idea), Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to organizing, storing, and transmitting information determined to be directed to an abstract idea). The inquiry as to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea “often turns on whether the claims focus 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.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC, 822 F.3d at 1335-36). In this case, the asserted improvement is to the information provided and how it is displayed. The generically recited mobile communication device, processor, memory, and display are invoked merely as tools performing the generic computer functions of transmitting data, receiving data, analyzing/manipulating data, and displaying data. The step of establishing communications is a preliminary step for collecting data. The receiving step is simply a data collecting step. The analyzing/manipulating steps merely recite data analysis and manipulation, a Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 8 basic computer function. The displaying step describes the generic computer function of outputting data to a display device. Claim 1 does not recite “a particular way of programming or designing the software . . . , but instead merely claim[s] the resulting system[].” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, claim 1 does not recite how the communications module establishes communications with the monitoring devices, how the information monitoring module receives, consolidates, and processes the patient data from the monitoring devices, or how the display formatting module formats the patient data for display. “Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In other words, claim 1 merely recites functional results to be achieved by any means. Moreover, the Specification makes clear that the recited mobile communication device, processor, memory, and display, were well known. (See, e.g., Spec. 8, l. 12- 11, l. 22.) “As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The “character of [the] information simply invokes a separate category of abstract ideas.” Id. Moreover, “[a] claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 9 a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021). As discussed above, the Examiner determines that claim 1 encompasses “a person collecting patient data from patient monitoring devices, deciding what data to display, and causing display of the data,” and that this “covers a method of organizing human activity.” (Final Action 4.) We agree that establishing communications and receiving, analyzing/ manipulating, and displaying patient data recite certain methods of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships by following rules or instructions to collect, manipulate, and present patient data. Additionally, we note that “[t]his is a quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent” reciting establishing communication (observation), receiving, consolidating, and processing patient data (information gathering, observation, evaluation, judgment), and displaying patient data (judgment, presenting information), i.e., the claim also falls within the mental processes subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc., 916 F.3d at 1367 (“[D]ata from bedside machines was previously collected, analyzed, manipulated, and displayed manually, and [the patent] simply proposes doing so with a computer.”). Moreover, we do not find any indication in the Specification that the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record that attributes an improvement in computer technology or functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 10 drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” (See 2019 Guidance at 54-55.) “[T]he claimed invention merely improves the abstract concept . . . using a computer only as a tool. This is not what the Supreme Court meant by improving the functioning of the computer itself nor is it consistent with [the Federal Circuit’s] precedent applying this concept.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Therefore, under prong one of the two-prong test in the 2019 Guidance, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity (as well as mental processes); and, under prong two, additional elements in claim 1 do not “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.” (See 2019 Guidance at 54.) As such, under step one of the Alice framework, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and we move to step two. Step two of the Alice framework has been described “as a search for an ‘ “inventive concept” ’ -i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in claim 1 by the generically recited mobile communication device, processor, memory, and display are purely conventional. Transmitting and receiving data, analyzing/manipulating data, and displaying data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 11 Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept . . . .”); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining receiving, processing, and sending data to be well-known, generic computer-implemented steps), Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining claims requiring “arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, determining” to “involve the normal, basic functions of a computer” and to be “conventional, routine, and well-known”), In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). Considered as an ordered combination, the generically recited mobile communication device, processor, memory, and display add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the mobile communication device, processor, memory, and display themselves. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26; see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 12 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of receiving, analyzing, modifying, generating, displaying, and transmitting data recited an abstraction). Nonetheless, Appellant argues that “the communication module, the information monitoring module and the display formatting module in an ordered combination amount to significantly more than any judicial exception by remotely providing access to patient data for a particular patient.” (Appeal Br. 15.) We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant’s argument relies on the ineligible concept itself to establish that claim 1 recites an inventive concept. But “[i]t has been clear since Alice that 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.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, “[i]f 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.” Id. at 1290-91. The claimed invention is, at most, an improvement to the performance of the abstract idea. In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments that are not responsive to new subject matter eligibility arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer, e.g., arguing “the Examiner failed to consider the following preambles of independent claims 1, 9 and 16” (Reply Br. 13), and for the first time arguing individual limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (id. at 9-13, 14-19). Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2), we need not consider new arguments absent a showing of good cause. No showing was made. Therefore, these new arguments are not considered. Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 13 In view of the foregoing, we will affirm the rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 16, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 were not separately argued in the Appeal Brief and we do not consider the new arguments raised in the Reply Brief. Therefore, these claims fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The § 112(a) rejection The test for sufficiency of a written description is “whether the disclosure clearly ‘allow[s] persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2010) (en banc) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed.Cir.1991)). The disclosure must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1351. Possession means “possession as shown in the disclosure” and “requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (brackets in original). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Ariad Pharm., Inc., 598 F.3d at 1351. This inquiry is a question of fact. Id. The Examiner determines that “there is no specific description as to how the relevancy data score and contextual data score are specifically calculated or how the scores are used to receive, consolidate and process the at least one of measurement data and/or historic data.” (Final Action 8.) Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 14 Appellant disagrees and points to page 10, line 19 to page 11, line 8 of the Specification. (Appeal Br. 17.) That portion of the Specification discloses: The information monitoring module 126 is configured to receive, consolidate and process the measurement data and/or historic data for the particular patient from the one or more monitoring devices based upon relevance and context. Relevance can refer to a latest measurement, a measurement made before or after an event, etc. Context can include the type of treatment, sickness, ailment, etc. For example, an EMS worker can be responding to a cardiac arrest event, in such a case, the patient’s prior ankle sprain is of little relevance and outside of the current context of the emergency call. Relevance and context scoring can be performed by the information monitoring module 126. This scoring can be employed to determine the display formatting as higher ranked relevant and/or contextual medical data and history will have a higher likelihood of being prominently display in a display pane on a display 118. Scoring can be derived manually or automatically by setting scoring parameters and values in advance. Different scoring methods may be known to those skilled in the art. (Spec. 10, l. 19-11, l. 8.) In other words, the Specification discloses that relevancy and context scoring can be derived manually and set in advance, and that “[r]elevance can refer to a latest measurement, a measurement made before or after an event, etc.,” and that “[c]ontext can include the type of treatment, sickness, ailment, etc.” (Id.) In view of the foregoing, we do not agree with the Examiner that the Specification fails to describe how relevancy and contextual data scores can be determined. The Examiner also determines that there is no specific description as to “how the scores are used to receive, consolidate and process the at least Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 15 one of measurement data and/or historic data.” (Final Action 8.) Appellant argues that the Specification provides an explicit written description corresponding with the scope of the claims 1-20 on appeal . . . describing “the information monitoring module 126 is configured to receive, consolidate and process the measurement data and/or historic data for the particular patient from the one or more monitoring devices based upon at least one of a relevancy data score and a contextual data score by the information monitoring module for each monitoring device of the plurality of monitoring devices” with reference to a figure depicting such a module. (Appeal Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 22-23.) However, Appellant provides no citation to the Specification for this quote and we are unable to find the quoted language in the Specification, with or without a reference to a figure. Regardless, we do not find, and Appellant does not direct us to, sufficient written description support regarding how the information monitoring module consolidates and processes patient data based on a data score by the information monitoring module for each monitoring device. In short, Appellant’s disclosure does not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventors had possession of this claimed subject matter at the time of filing.3 In view of the foregoing, we will affirm the rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 16, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 were not separately argued. Therefore, these claims fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 Claim 1 recites that the “information monitoring module [is] configured to receive, consolidate and process the patient data.” Thus, consolidating and processing are steps in addition to simply receiving patient data from the monitoring devices. Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 16 The § 103 rejections Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of underlying facts. Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)). With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner finds that Martin teaches a mobile healthcare hub for remotely accessing patient data including a mobile communications module configured to, upon the mobile healthcare hub entering a communication envelope of a plurality of monitoring devices [Para. 0112, 0116, 0144, 0209, 0220, 0222 teaches that the BOA [(Back of Ambulance device)], patient monitoring devices, and patient charting device are connected via Bluetooth, which only provides for connection upon the devices being within a communication range (a communication envelope) as is known in the art. Para. 0220 teaches multiple devices.] (Final Action 12 (emphasis omitted) (second brackets added).) Appellant argues that “Martin fails to describe, expressly or inherently, . . . a conditional establishment of communications between the system and the monitoring device(s) based on entering a communication envelope of the monitoring device(s) and the relevance/contextual ranking of Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 17 the connected monitoring devices in communication with the system.” (Appeal Br. 24.) Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, i.e., the claim does not recite conditional establishment of communications. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that “[w]ith respect to the ‘envelope’ feature, Martin expressly teaches that patient monitoring devices and patient charting devices are connected to [a] Back of Ambulance (BOA) device via the Bluetooth communications protocol. See Martin at Para. 0112, 0116, 0144, 0209, 0222” and that “[t]his is also how the Specification at Pg. 9, Ln. 19 - Pg. 10, Ln. 1 describes such a transfer of data.” (Answer 8; see also Martin ¶ 169.) Additionally, we note that the Examiner relies on Douglass, not Martin, to teach relevance/contextual ranking. Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive. With regard to Douglass, the Examiner finds that Douglass “teaches that it was old and well-known in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to calculate a relevancy score associated with patient data and to display an ordered list of data based on the score.” (Final Action 14 (citing Douglass ¶¶ 34, 45).) Additionally, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the data collection, analysis, and display system of Martin to calculate a relevancy score associated with patient data and to display an ordered list of data based on the score as taught by Douglass, with the motivation of improving patient treatment quality. (Final Action 15 (citing Douglass ¶ 67).) Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 18 Appellant argues that Douglass fails to describe or teach a modification of Martin to incorporate . . . a conditional establishment of communications between the mobile communications device and the monitoring device(s) based on entering a communication envelope of the monitoring device(s) and the relevance/contextual ranking of the connected monitoring devices in communication with the mobile communication device. (Appeal Br. 25.) Appellant argues that “at best, Douglass teaches a filtering of the listed devices . . . in accordance with Martin to facilitate a user selection of the listed device at block 1712 in FIG. 17 of [Martin].” (Reply Br. 28.) As an initial matter, we note that in KSR, the Supreme Court stated: Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. . . . . When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 420-21. In other words, “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Moreover, a reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Douglass discloses an electronic healthcare records (EHR) system that, “[b]ased on medical information describing practice of the physician and feature information associated with the plurality of medical Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 19 applications” (including hardware medical devices that monitor a patient’s vital signs), “filters the plurality of medical applications to generate a recommended list of medical applications.” (Douglass, Abstract, ¶ 37.) Douglass discloses that “the EHR system may determine a match between the medical information describing health of the patient and feature information of the medical application.” (Id. ¶ 43.) Douglass further discloses that relevancy between feature information of the medical application and the medical information of patient determines the match. For example, the EHR system can calculate a relevancy score between the feature information and the medical information. If the relevancy score is above a threshold value, then the medical application can be added to the recommended list. (Id. ¶ 45.) Appellant does not persuasively argue why the Examiner erred in determining that it was old and well-known “to calculate a relevancy score associated with patient data and to display an ordered list of data based on the score” (Final Action 14 (citing Douglass ¶¶ 34, 45)), and that in view of this, it would have been obvious to modify the “system of Martin to calculate a relevancy score associated with patient data and to display an ordered list of data based on the score” (id. at 15). With regard to Appellant’s general argument that “Martin fails to describe, expressly or inherently, the underlined limitations of the aforementioned limitations of claims 1, 7, 9, 16 and 19” (see Appeal Br. 21- 24), we note that “[a] statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 20 In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents new arguments that are not responsive to new obviousness arguments raised in the Examiner’s Answer, e.g., arguing that the “Communication Protocol Limitations of independent claims 1, 9 and 16 on appeal encompasses [sic] an autonomous action by the mobile healthcare [sic] to establish communication . . . and does not encompass an execution of a user-command by the mobile healthcare hub to establish communication with a plurality of monitoring devices.” (Reply Br. 26 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 28.) Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2), we need not consider new arguments absent a showing of good cause. No showing was made. Therefore, these new arguments are not considered. In view of the foregoing, we will affirm the rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 16, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. Appeal 2021-002768 Application 14/972,287 21 Specifically: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 101 Eligibility 1-20 1-20 112(a) Written Description 1-20 1-5, 7-13, 15-20 103 Martin, Douglass 1-5, 7-13, 15-20 6, 14 103 Martin, Douglass, Baker 6, 14 Overall Outcome 1-20 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