Poeze, Jeroen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2020

2018006449 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2020)

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.
12/898,663 10/05/2010 Jeroen Poeze CERCA.014A 4227
20995 7590 09/14/2020
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2020 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEROEN POEZE, GREGORY A. OLSEN,
MARCELO LAMEGO, and MASSI JOE E. KIANI
____________

Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 6–11, 13–15, 41, and 42, which are all
the claims pending in this application.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 An oral hearing scheduled for this appeal on May 14, 2020, was waived.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Cercacor Laboratories, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
3 Claims 1–5, 12, 16–40, and 43–45 have been canceled.
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “portable and handheld personal
health organizers that are adapted to be coupled with patient monitors that
measure physiological characteristics such as blood glucose level, total
hemoglobin, SpO2, methemoglobin, carboxyhemoglobin, and the like.” See
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 6 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
6. A personal health organizer device comprising a
handheld single screen portable device, the personal health
organizer device comprising:
a display configured to display information to a user;
a first data storage storing instructions for a personal
health organizer module and medical data of the user, the
medical data including medical history of the user;
a first hardware processor configured to execute the
stored instructions for the personal health organizer module;
an integrated camera configured to capture images;
a user input interface configured to receive input from the
user;
a sensor interface configured to receive physiological
reading data from a sensor,
wherein the instructions comprise:
receiving a first user input from the user via the
user input interface to capture an image;
capturing an image using the integrated camera in
response to receiving the first user input from the user;
detecting data fields in the captured image;
retrieving the medical data of the user from the
first data storage based in part on the detected data fields;
displaying the data fields on the display and the
retrieved medical data associated with the detected data
fields;
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

3
receiving a second user input from the user via the
user input interface to update the displayed data fields;
updating the medical data corresponding to the
displayed data fields in the first storage device in
response to receiving the second user input;
sending transmission data including at least the
updated medical data corresponding to the displayed data
field and the physiological reading data over a network to
a remote computer including a second hardware
processor, wherein the second hardware processor is
configured to:
synchronize second medical data of the user
stored in a second data storage based at least in
part on the transmission data;
analyze the physiological reading data using
the transmission data of the user to determine a
physiological measurement; and
send the physiological measurement back to
the personal health organizer device over the
network; and
displaying the physiological measurement
determined by the second hardware processor on the
display.
Appeal Br. 40–41 (Claim Appendix).
Claims 6–11, 13–15, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Final Act. 2–5.
ANALYSIS
“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Arguments Appellant could have
made, but chose not to make, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

4
Rejection and Arguments
The Examiner concludes “Claim 6 is directed to the abstract idea of
capturing medical data of a patient, analyzing the captured data, and
displaying the analyzed data, which is directed towards an ‘idea of itself,’
which is an example identified by the courts to be abstract ideas.” Final Act.
2. The Examiner also determines, “The claim(s) do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a
high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not
add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.” Id. The Examiner
identifies the functions recited in claim 1, as well as claims 7–11, 13–15, 41,
and 42, and further explains:
This merely encompasses the abstract idea of collecting
information (capturing medical history, physiological reading
data, images), analyzing it (analyzing the image for detection of
data fields and associating the data fields to captured medical
history and analyzing the physiological reading), and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis (displaying the
analyzed information) (Electric Power Group).
Final Act. 3. The Examiner also determines that the additional elements
recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the additional elements pertain to “(a) generic computer
structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that serve to
merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e.
display, input interface, processor, camera, sensor, etc.).” Final Act. 4
(citing Spec. ¶ 8). According to the Examiner, the claims do not recite any
limitations that include
[I]mprovements to another technology or technical field;
improvements to the functioning of the computer itself;
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

5
applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular
machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
article to a different state or thing; adding a specific limitation
other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in
the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim
to a particular useful application.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends claim 6 is not directed to an abstract idea because,
similar to the claims in Enfish,4
[T]he pending claims nonetheless recite a specific
implementation of a solution to a problem [and] an improved
“personal health organizer device” which allows a care provider
to collect a series of physiological measurements and non-
measurement patient data using a single device. The recited
“personal health organizer device” incorporates a network
architecture that improves data analysis and synchronization of
such data for the purposes of integrating patient monitoring. In
contrast to gathering, viewing, and analyzing various
physiological data measured from patient monitoring devices
on multiple devices, the claimed device allows such data to be
seamlessly integrated into a single, physical device along with
non-measurement patient data.
Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues the disclosed personal health organizer is
“a dedicated portable device” that, similar to the claims in Trading Techs.,5
is directed to a monitoring device that is “seamlessly integrated into a single,
physical device along with non-measurement patient data.” See Appeal Br.
18–20. Additionally, Appellant argues that unlike the claims in Electric
Power Group,6 claim 6 recites “inventive technology for performing”

4 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
5 Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, INC., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
6 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

6
different recited tasks in a distributed system. Appeal Br. 22–23. With
respect to the recited additional elements, Appellant argues that the pending
claims, similar to the claims in DDR Holdings,7 “improve the computer
architecture and communication workflow of physiological monitoring
devices” and “overcome problems with conventional methods and devices
used to view and analyze various non-measurement, non-electronic patient
data along with physiological measurement data from multiple patient
monitoring devices.” Appeal Br. 26–27; see also reply Br. 9 (citing Spec.
¶ 6–7). With respect to implementing the recited functions on generic
computer components, Appellant argues that “Claim 6 recites a specific,
detailed, distributed network architecture between ‘a personal health
organizer device’ and a ‘remote computer’ that improves data analysis and
synchronization of physiological measurement data and non-measurement
data for the purposes of integrating patient monitoring.” Appeal Br. 35
(citing Digitech).8
Legal Principles
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the
Patent Act, which recites:
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.
There is, however, an implicit, longstanding exception to patent-
eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101: “[l]aws of nature, natural

7 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2014).
8 Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

7
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted). This exception precludes
patenting of “the basic tools of scientific and technological work” from
which all inventions spring. Id. at 216–17 (quotation marks and citation
omitted). Invention or discovery under § 101 is distinguished as being the
application of such tools to an end otherwise satisfying the requirements of
the patent statutes. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972).
The Supreme Court has established a framework for this eligibility
determination. Where a claim is directed towards a law of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract idea, the elements of the claim as a whole must
ensure that the claim, in practice, amounts to significantly more than a patent
on the law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea itself. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18. In applying this eligibility analysis, our reviewing court has
stated, “the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier
cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen[,] . . . the
classic common law methodology for creating law when a single governing
definitional context is not available.” Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom,
Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under
that guidance (“Step 2A”), the office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

8
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 10. 2019, June 2020)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then (pursuant to
the Guidance “Step 2B”) look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). After considering the
argued claims in light of the case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in
error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, to the
extent consistent with our analysis herein. We add the following primarily
for emphasis and clarification with respect to the Guidance.
I. Step 2A
Prong One
Pursuant to the Guidance, we find that claim 6 is directed to an
abstract idea, and more specifically to a medical diagnostic system including
a display, a processor, an integrated camera, a user input interface, a sensor
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

9
interface for receiving user input, capturing an image, detecting data fields,
and displaying the data fields and the data retrieved from those fields. The
recited system further receives a second user input and updates the medical
data that is sent for further analysis and measurement of a physiological data
and display on the personal health organizer device. As such, we agree with
the Examiner’s statement that “using communication interfaces to capture
data from a camera and a sensor merely gathers information and does not
provide an improvement to the communication workflow” is not
oversimplifying the claimed invention. See Ans. 3.
The Guidance states that the abstract idea exception includes
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing activity, and mental
processes. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Guidance describes mental
processes as observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, where
such can be practically performed in the human mind. October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 7, accessible at https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf. Cases reciting steps
of collecting, comparing, and analyzing known information, which are
practically performed in the human mind, are provided as examples of such
mental processes. Id. at 7–8 (citing Classen,9 Electric Power Group).
We determine that claim 6 recites limitations related to an act of
judgment and evaluation in the form of the above-cited limitations, which
allows a user receive, record, select, and evaluate patient data in data fields,
receive additional data to update the data fields with physiological reading
and measurement that is analyzed and sent back to be stored or presented on

9 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (collecting and comparing known information).
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

10
the display. Such acts are characteristic of mental processes, which
comprise a category of abstract ideas. Many of these steps––receiving user
input and captured data, detecting data fields and displaying patient data in
those fields, receiving a second user input, updating the data in the field, and
sending the data to be analyzed and measured––involve mental processes,
i.e., concepts that are performed in the human mind and can be performed by
a person using pen and paper. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Indeed, the
Specification also describes viewing and analyzing different physiological
characteristics on separate devices as having limited data analysis or
synchronization capabilities that was performed essentially as mental
processes. Spec. ¶ 6. Such mental processes are not patent eligible. E.g.,
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (holding that a claim whose “steps can be performed in the
human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” is directed to an
“unpatentable mental process[ ]”) and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims to
“detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment based on
analyzing data such as in log files, or other similar records, including user
identifier data” to be an ineligible mental process).
We further observe that claim 6 describes functions related to
providing certain physiological measurements to the received data and
updating the patient data for display, which are directed to “managing
personal behavior[,] relationships [and] interactions between people
(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Pursuant to the Guidance, such limitations are
the abstract concept of “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity.” Id.
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

11
Prong Two
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error pursuant to
Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance. Appellant has not shown the claim
includes additional elements that improve the underlying computer or other
technology. As the Examiner explains, Appellant’s disclosure describes a
problem that exists outside “the realm of technology” and “[t]he proposed
solution is one that could have been implemented directly by a general
purpose computer applied to facilitate the functions at a high level of
generality or with the assistance of additional elements performing well-
known, conventional functions.” Ans. 9. In fact, Appellant’s Specification
does not describe how the solution to the stated problem in conventional
methods of receiving, capturing, and analyzing physiological data on
separate devices improves the computer technology similar to Enfish.
Appellant’s alleged improvement to the underlying technology is described
as “improve the computer architecture and communication workflow of
physiological monitoring devices.” See Appeal Br. 26–27. However, the
recited steps of receiving physiological reading data, retrieving and updating
the user medical data, determining a physiological measurement, and
sending the data to a network system for processing and storage merely
involve sending/receiving data, adding different types of data, and
storing/displaying the modified data.
The recited steps involve functions that do not improve the computer
or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the way
those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal
Circuit in Enfish, despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Reply Br.
4–6). The claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a specific type of data
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

12
structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data
in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellant contends that
the claimed invention uses such a data structure or using the stored medical
information to improve a computer’s functionality or efficiency, or
otherwise change the way that device functions, there is no persuasive
evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention.
Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
claimed invention is rooted in computer technology the way the claims in
DDR were. Unlike the inventive concept found in DDR (modification of
conventional mechanics behind website display to produce dual-source
integrated hybrid display where “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted
in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising
in the realm of computer networks”) (see Appeal Br. 26), the claims at issue
here merely require “off-the-shelf, conventional, computer, network, and
display technology.” See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Additionally, “merely adding computer functionality to increase the
speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an
otherwise abstract idea.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, Appellant’s
purportedly improved abstract concept of collecting a series of physiological
measurements and non-measurement patient data using an integrated
camera, processing and sending data to a network system for processing and
storage (Appeal Br. 26–27), is still an abstract concept under the Guidance.
See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

13
idea”) (emphasis omitted). That is, monitoring and recognizing manual
activities by receiving, storing, and transmitting information, even
performed on a computer, are parts of the recited abstract idea, as discussed
above. See also Ans. 8–9.
In other words, unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved
how the physical display operated to produce better quality images, the
claimed invention here merely uses generic computing components to
collect and process medical information for analysis presented on a remote
device. This generic computer implementation is not only directed to a
mental process, but also does not improve the underlying technology, such
as a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See Reply Br. 3; McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific
asserted improvement in computer animation”); see also SAP Am. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
McRO).
Additionally, the holding in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Elec., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), shows why the abstract ideas in
this case are not integrated into a practical application. See Reply Br. 3.
Unlike Appellant’s claim 6, the claims in Core Wireless recited an improved
user interface. 880 F.3d at 1362. The claimed “application summary”
specified a particular manner to access a summary window, a particular type
of data to be displayed in the summary window, and a particular time to
display the summary window when an application is in an un-launched state.
Id. at 1362–63. The claims thus recited a specific improvement to user
interfaces that displayed a limited set of information using unconventional
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

14
user interface methods. Id. at 1363.
As the argued elements are part of the abstract idea, they are not
additional elements that integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55 (“[E]valuate integration into
a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional
elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Because we determine the “claim recites a judicial exception and fails to
integrate the exception into a practical application,” we proceed with
“further analysis pursuant to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO
Step 2B).” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
II. Step 2B
We agree with the Examiner that the claims include additional
elements that “perform functions that are well-known, routine, and
conventional in the field.” Ans. 10. As further explained by the Examiner,
merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
See Ans. 10 (citing Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (“The process of receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad,
offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the
ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from 
the sponsor of the ad all describe an abstract idea, devoid of a concrete or
tangible application.”)). We also agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
claims are different from the claims in Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1294 (explaining
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

15
that, in determining whether claims are patent-eligible under § 101, “the
decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which
a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen—what prior cases were
about, and which way they were decided”). See Ans. 10–11. In other
words, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 11), the Court in Amdocs stated
“the claim’s enhancing limitation requires that these generic components
operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in
computer functionality” and “[t]he enhancing limitation depends not only on
the invention’s distributed architecture, but also depends upon the network
devices and gatherers—even though these may be generic—working
together in a distributed manner.” We agree with the Examiner that “[t]he
current claim limitations do not provide such ‘enhancements,’ but merely an
efficient and accurate manner to carry out the invention.” Id.
Regarding the other elements, we observe that the claimed display,
input interface, processor, camera, sensor system, and display devices
merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea
(i.e., a series of steps for collecting and processing medical information for
analysis presented on a remote device which amount to nothing more than
requiring a generic computer system (e.g. processor, memory, databases and
electronic devices) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. See Spec.
¶ 90 (describing the built-in camera as CCD or CMOS cameras); ¶ 126
(describing user interface 112 as “a touch-screen display, an LCD display,
an organic LED display, or the like”); ¶ 127 (describing generic computing
components such as storage devices, signal processor, network interface, and
controllers). Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas
does not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

16
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these
elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly
more” than the abstract ideas themselves. Therefore, the claims have not
been shown to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additionally, we note the Examiner has made the above findings as
required by the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 132. See also In re Jung,
637 F.3d at 1363 (declining “to impose a heightened burden on examiners
beyond the notice requirement of § 132”). In rejecting the pending claims
under § 101, the Examiner notified Appellant that the claims recite steps that
describe the abstract concept of receive, record, select, and evaluate patient
data in data fields, receive additional data to update the data fields with
physiological reading and measurement that is analyzed and sent back to be
stored or presented on the display, a method of organizing human activity or
mental processes, and that the claims do not include additional elements that
would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See Final Act. 2–
6. In particular, contrary to Appellant’s assertions (Reply Br. 7–8) and in
accordance with Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2018), the Examiner specifically referred to the decision in Amdoc stating
that “the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention would
only be meaningful in a 101 analysis if it involved more than the
performance of a ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry.’” Ans. 10. The Examiner also correctly
found that “[t]he current claim limitations do not provide such
“enhancements,” [similar to those identified in Amdoc] but merely an
efficient and accurate manner to carry out the invention.” Ans. 11. The
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

17
Examiner specifically cited portions of Appellant’s Specification and Court
decisions to establish the recited database-related functions, storing and
retrieving information, and transmitting data over a network constitute
elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled
artisan. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3–5.
OTHER § 101 ISSUES
Preemption
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the pending
claims do not preempt “any ‘building blocks of human ingenuity.’” Appeal
Br. 24. As stated by the Examiner, “[w]hile preemption may signal patent
ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not
demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ans. 7.
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) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S.
66 (2012)); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
6 is “directed to” an abstract idea and do not recite an “inventive concept.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, as well as the
Appeal 2018-006449
Application 12/898,663

18
remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6–11, 13–
15, 41, 42
101 Eligibility 6–11, 13–
15, 41, 42

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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