Reddy, Narender

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

11247006 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 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.
11/247,006 10/07/2005 Narender Reddy 0297-0002 6836
33297 7590 01/22/2020
Beem Patent Law Firm
53 W. JACKSON BLVD.
SUITE # 1352
Chicago, IL 60604
EXAMINER
MORGAN, ROBERT W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
patents@beemlaw.com
uspto@beemlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NARENDER REDDY
____________

Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Narender Reddy (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1–28 and 30, the only claims pending in the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed August 30, 2016) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 8,
2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 6, 2017), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 13, 2016).
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

2

application on appeal.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of managing patient medical records
and billing data. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 13, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
13. A method for managing medical records and billing data
comprising:
[1] storing one or more medical forms on a first computer;
[2] converting, using said first computer, each of said forms to a
sequence of screen displays in a form displayable on a handheld
device;
[3] transmitting, by the first computer, said sequence of screen
displays to the handheld device;
[4] receiving, by the handheld device, information in each of
said screen displays as a sequence of selections from one or
more display menus comprising a portion of said screen
displays;
and
[5] uploading, by the handheld device, the information entered
via said screens to the first computer.

2 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 Narender
Reddy (Appeal Br. 1).

3 Appellant presented oral hearing arguments December 5, 2019.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

3

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Jones US 2003/0014284 Al Jan. 16, 2003
Adolph US 2003/0212581 Al Nov. 13, 2003
Metzger US 2005/0182667 Al Aug. 18, 2005

Claims 1–28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 13–16 and 18–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jones, Metzger, and Adolph.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the prior art
describes downloading screens that are used for entering data.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Jones
01. Jones is directed to receiving and formatting medical
information and facilitating medical treatment and related billing
that enables a health care provider to take a comprehensive and
accurate physical examination and medical history of a patient that
is compliant with substantially all third party billing requirements.
Jones para. 4.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

4

Metzger
02. Metzger is directed to performing data collection of insurance
related submitted data, provided by an applicant for insurance, on a
submitted form. Metzger uses a data input portion that inputs the
submitted form so that the submitted data on the submitted form
are available to a data entry operator; and a data collector tool,
which processes entered data that are entered by the data entry
operator, onto an internal electronic form, based on the submitted
data submitted by the applicant. The data collector includes a form
flow portion that presents the data entry operator with a series of
form flows for collection of the submitted data, the form flows
progressing through various user interface screens in collection of
the submitted data, the form flows using content sensitive logic;
and a metadata portion that generates metadata, the metadata
containing information about the entered data, the metadata being
progressively generated during progression of the form flows
through the various user interface screens. Metzger para. 4.
Adolph
03. Adolph is directed to data capture and more specifically to
capturing medical information. Adolph para. 2.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

5

ANALYSIS

Claims 1–28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 14
Claim 13, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as
an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an

4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from the 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

6

abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 13 recites storing form data, converting form data to screen data,
transmitting screen data, receiving selection data, and uploading data.
Converting form to screen data is data analysis and modification. Uploading
data is transmitting data. Thus, claim 13 recites storing, analyzing,
modifying, receiving, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recites
technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite
only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 13 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

7

include (1) mathematical concepts5, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity6, and (3) mental processes7. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing
interactions between people. Like those concepts, claim 13 recites the
concept of medical information management. Specifically, claim 13 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to cut up medical
forms into smaller pieces to aid in gathering and managing medical
information. The advice to cut up medical forms into smaller pieces
involves managing medical records and billing data, which is a managerial
act, and converting medical data, which is an act ordinarily performed in the
stream of medical management. For example, claim 13 recites “managing
medical records and billing data,” which is an activity that would take place
whenever one is managing medical data. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“converting . . . [the medical] forms to a sequence of screen displays,” which
is also characteristic of managing medical data.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to organizing
human activity. Final Act. 2.

5 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

8

The preamble to claim 13 recites that it is a method for managing
medical records and billing data. The steps in claim 13 result in receiving
and uploading medical form data absent any technological mechanism other
than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–5 recite generic and
conventional storing, analyzing, modifying, receiving, and transmitting of
medical form data to convert the data into smaller amounts for more screens,
which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The
limitations thus recite advice for cutting up medical forms into smaller
pieces. To advocate cutting up medical forms into smaller pieces is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
managing patient medical records and billing data. Thus, all this intrinsic
evidence shows that claim 13 recites medical information management.
This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This, in turn, is an example of managing interactions between people
as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing medical
information is the way to communicate medical information to coordinate
medical practice between practitioner and patient. The concept of medical
information management by cutting up medical forms into smaller pieces is
one idea for managing the accumulation of such information. The steps
recited in claim 13 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC
v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(process of taking plural data sets and combining them into a single data
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

9

set); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776
F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (data collection, recognition, and storage);
OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (data optimization); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claimed steps on “routing data gathering, and
displaying information” not eligible, despite “recit[ing] a purportedly new
arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing
information more quickly”).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 13 recites
medical information management by cutting up medical forms into smaller
pieces, which is managing interactions between people, one of certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 13 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.8
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that

8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

10

claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 4 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2
and 3 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating,
and storing data. Step 5 is insignificant post solution activity, such as
storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step 2 recites generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 13 simply recites the concept of
medical information management by cutting up medical forms into smaller
pieces as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual
advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer
processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any
particular implementation.
Claim 13 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 21 pages of specification do not bulge
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

11

with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment9 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of medical
information management by cutting up medical forms into smaller pieces
under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement
in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 13 at issue amounts to
nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply medical information
management by cutting up medical forms into smaller pieces using some
unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to
transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 13 is directed to achieving the result of
medical information management by advising one to cut up medical forms

9 The Specification describes a hand held or laptop computer. Spec. para.
13.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

12

into smaller pieces for communicating medical information among medical
parties, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or
applying that result. This amounts to managing interactions between people,
which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity that
constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 13 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

13

“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for storing, analyzing, modifying, receiving, and transmitting data
amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic,
routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also 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”). None of these activities is used in some
unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “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 America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 13 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

14

modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), 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), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 13 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 13 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

15

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the managing
interactions between people of medical information management by
advising one to cut up medical forms into smaller pieces, without
significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–3 and Answer 2–14 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Board
already held these claims to be patent eligible.” Reply Br. 2. This is not
true. The Board has not opined on the issue. Appellant attempts to equate
the fact that the Board did not address the issue of eligibility where no such
rejection was placed at issue with an affirmative holding of eligibility.
There is no basis for such a conclusion.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Appellant’s
claims provide technical solutions to technical problems.” Id. Appellant
first contends the use of a server is a technical solution. Id. Simply calling
for a server is insufficient for eligibility.
The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer
components recited in the claims—such as a database, user
terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole,
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

16

into “significantly more” than a claim to the abstract idea itself.
“We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers
and networks that are not even arguably inventive are
‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the
application’ of an abstract idea.”
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (citations omitted).
Appellant next contends that claim 24’s “selectively usable data
transfer facility for downloading and uploading the data” is a technical
solution. Reply Br. 2. But this is no more than a label for a conceptual idea
devoid of technological implementation details. Appellant goes on to
enumerate high level benefits the idea produces. Id. But although abstract
ideas are often useful, this does not make them eligible. “That the
automation can ‘result in life altering consequences,’ is laudable, but it does
not render it any less abstract.” Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen.
Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
Appellant next contends that the “creation of such systems and
processes required an integration of electronic hardware and development of
software to allow effective synchronization of these components.” Reply
Br. 3. Appellant goes on to contend that the inventor
developed custom software programs to run on the PDA and
synchronize with other supporting and interconnected
application software as well as hardware-specific operating
systems, to access data stored in a binary format, download
such data and display such data to be legible as well as useful
for the physician and medical services provider.
Reply Br. 4. But no such integration technological implementation details
are recited in the claims, nor are technological process details described in
the Specification.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

17

The main problem that Two-Way Media cannot overcome is
that the claim—as opposed to something purportedly described
in the specification—is missing an inventive concept. While
the specification may describe a purported innovative “scalable
architecture,” claim 1 of the ’187 patent does not.
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1338–1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
Appellant next contends these capabilities were unavailable on
conventional PSAs at the time of the invention. Reply Br. 6. But this is
entirely conclusory and absent evidentiary support. It also defies common
sense as the ability to parse and cut data streams is as old as data processing.
To the extent Appellant means that newly emerging technology for
presenting data at the time of the invention did not have such capability, this
is not commensurate with the broad scope of the claims.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Answer still
fails to clearly articulate a rational[e] for why the claims are directed to an
abstract idea.” Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s determinations
are not specific, not that they are non-existent. We expand upon the
specificity supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “Answer’s
conclusory allegations fail to refute appellant’s evidence about the technical
features recited in the claims and described in the specification.” Reply
Br. 8. This is a repeat of the earlier argument regarding technical solutions
and is equally unpersuasive here.
Appellant next argues that the “Answer does not differentiate
appellant’s claims from the similar patent-eligible example claims.” Reply
Br. 9. Appellant expands on this as follows.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

18

Appellant contends that the claims are analogous to those in Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 10–11.
The claims differ from those found patent eligible in Enfish, where the
claims were “specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer
database.” 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims thus were
“directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate” rather
than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by
contrast, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way
computers operate. Though the claims purport to accelerate the process
of entering medical data, our reviewing court has held that speed and
accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general
purpose computer “do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the
claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims
are more analogous to those in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein claims reciting “a few possible
rules to analyze audit log data” were found directed an abstract idea
because they asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with
different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have
asked for decades.” 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095.
Appellant also cites to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
CQG, Inc., 875 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Reply Br. 12. First, this
case is non-precedential and two related precedential cases with user
interfaces had their claims held ineligible. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Second, the claims do not recite
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

19

and the Specification does not describe structure associated with the process,
only data content. In Trading Technologies, in response to a similar
argument that the claims “provide a particular graphical user interface that
improves usability, visualization, and efficiency,” the court determined that
“the claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that
helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers
or technology. . . . The ‘tool for presentation’ here . . . is simply a generic
computer.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1384–85
(citations omitted). Similarly here the claims are not focused on an
interface, but on providing information to users in a way that helps them
process information more quickly, not on improving computers or
technology and the tool for presentation is a generic computer.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claims 6 and 18
recite a conversion module for converting data from the screen displays to
standard ADT (Admit-Discharge-Transfer) HL-7 (Health Level 7
international standard) record segments. Reply Br. 13. As with claim 13,
this claim does not recite technological implementation details for doing so.
As such records are by definition defined by international standards, simply
reciting their use is entirely conventional.
Claims 13–16 and 18–23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jones, Metzger, and Adolph
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner failed to
rebut Appellant’s argument that the art does not describe limitation 2, as
recited in claim 13. Reply Br. 13.
Appeal 2017-008036
Application 11/247,006

20

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 13–16 and 18–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jones, Metzger, and Adolph is improper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–28, 30 101 Eligibility 1–28, 30
13–16,
18–23
103 Jones, Metzger, Adolph 13–16,
18–23
Overall Outcome 1–28, 30

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED