CareFusion 303, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2021

2019005993 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/099,773 12/06/2013 Tom STEINHAUER 122295-6183 6870
80236 7590 01/22/2021
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (OC)(BD)
600 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
EXAMINER
TIEDEMAN, JASON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ocipdocketing@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOM STEINHAUER, TERRY LEE BLANSFIELD, LEONARD
MULKOWSKY, and ANDRES JESUS CALDERON
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40. Claims 1–20 are cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CareFusion 303,
Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for monitoring
of patient sedation and pain therapy and the process of weaning ventilated
patients off of the ventilator. Spec. ¶ 2.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 21 under appeal read as follows;
21. A machine-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor based on previously obtained
data from one or more infusion pumps and one or more
ventilators associated with one or more ventilated patients,
infusion information for the one or more ventilated patients, the
infusion information indicating infusion interruptions
experienced by the one or more ventilated patients during each
of several time segments occurring during previous
administration of medications to the one or more ventilated
patients;
determining, by the processor, a pattern of a consecutive
amount of time without interruption or with a fixed dosage within
a predefined threshold for the time segments from the infusion
information for the one or more ventilated patients;
determining, by the processor, an optimal time segment
based on the pattern;
calculating, by the processor, one or more baseline
thresholds for the medications for a current patient, the
medications for the current patient being the same as the
medications administered to the one or more ventilated patients
and including sedatives and pain therapy drugs, the one or more
baseline thresholds being calculated from actual dosages of the
medications that were previously administered to the current
patient during a previous time segment corresponding to the
determined optimal time segment;
periodically determining, in real time by the processor, a
current dosage amount of the medications currently being
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
3
administered to the current patient during a respective time
segment by an infusion pump, the current patient being currently
ventilated by a ventilator;
performing a periodic comparison, in real time by the
processor while the current patient is being administered the
medications by the infusion pump and while the current patient
is being currently ventilated by the ventilator, of the current
dosage amount to the one or more baseline thresholds, the
periodic comparison being performed at a predetermined
frequency;
determining, by the processor based on the periodic
comparing, a deviation in the current dosage amount that meets
a threshold deviation from the one or more baseline thresholds;
and
in real time by the processor in response to the deviation:
generating a marker regarding administration of the
medications to the current patient and relating to a ventilator
weaning process for the current patient,
providing, to a client device associated with a care giver
and remote from the processor, a notification indicating the
current dosage amount deviates from a normal or acceptable
dosage of medication administered to the patient and indicating
that an event should be performed, and
increasing the frequency of the periodic comparison or
decreasing the respective time segment for future determining of
dosage amounts being administered to the current patient.
REJECTION
Claims 21–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 2–9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in
light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We agree with
the Examiner and highlight the following for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
4
Rejection and Arguments2
The Examiner determines that, but for the recitation of generic
computer components, independent claim 21 encompasses a series of
rules/steps for weaning a patient off a ventilator, where the steps are capable
of being performed by a human. See Ans. 4–6. As found by the Examiner,
this series of rules/steps covers managing personal behavior or interactions
between people, and, thus, covers a certain method of organizing human
activity. See id. at 6. Therefore, the Examiner determines claim 21 recites
an abstract idea. See id.; see also Final Act. 3–5.
The Examiner further finds the recited abstract idea (i.e., judicial
exception) is not integrated into a practical application. See Ans. 6–7; see
also Final Act. 5–7. As found by the Examiner, claim 21 recites the
additional element of a processor.3 See Ans. 6. As further found by the
Examiner; the processor is not exclusively defined by Appellant, and is
recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic processor
performing/implementing generic computer functions) such that it amounts
to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic
computer component, and does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the idea. See id. at 6–7 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 93, 95, 100–102).

2 Except for general arguments with respect to the dependent claims,
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 19–20. As
permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal based on claim 21.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In this decision, we also address
Appellant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims.
3 The Examiner additionally finds that claim 33 also recites the additional
element of the processor, and that claim 40 recites an additional element of a
non-transitory computer-readable medium. See Ans. 4, 6.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
5
Therefore, the Examiner determines that claim 21 is directed to an abstract
idea. See Ans. 7.
The Examiner also finds claim 21 does not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception. See Ans. 7; see also Final Act. 5–7. As found by the Examiner,
and as previously indicated above, claim 21 recites the additional element of
a processor, and the additional element is recited such that it amounts to no
more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer
component, and does not provide an inventive concept. See Ans. 7. As
further found by the Examiner, claim 21 recites the additional element of a
client device, which the Examiner finds is described by Appellant’s
Specification as a computer, which the Examiner interprets as a well-known,
general-purpose computer that represents an element to which data is
transmitted, and which the Examiner finds is extra-solution activity. See id.
(citing Spec. ¶ 105).
Claim 21 recites the additional elements of infusion pumps and
ventilators, which the Examiner finds only serve as devices from which data
is received (i.e., extra-solution activity) and perform functions that infusion
pumps and ventilators generically perform. See Ans. 7–8 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24). The Examiner further finds a well-known, general-purpose
computer is a well-understood, routine, and conventional element. See
Ans. 8. The Examiner additionally finds receiving or transmitting data over
a network, performing repetitive calculations, and receiving and/or
transmitting data, are all well-understood, routine, and conventional
functions claimed in a generic manner. See id.
The Examiner indicates that the findings regarding claim 21,
described above, are equally applicable to independent claims 33 and 40.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
6
See Ans. 4–8. The Examiner further makes similar findings regarding
dependent claims 22–32 and 34–39. See Ans. 8–9.
Appellant argues the Final Rejection mischaracterizes the claims as
being “drawn to . . . determining a baseline dosage amount and comparing
it,” and that the claims are directed to solving a problem with how to provide
time-critical patient care alerts/notifications in a medical environment where
circumstances are constantly changing via an unconventional improvement
in the mechanism by which patient care systems provide alerts/notifications
regarding time-sensitive patient data in a closed-loop feedback-based
system. See Appeal Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 3). Appellant further argues
claim 21 recites features that are more than a mental process because the
recited features “cannot be performed in the human mind, and are not an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or an opinion.” See Appeal Br. 15–16.
Appellant additionally argues the recited features of claim 21 are also more
than “mere organization of human activity,” because claim 21 describes
“programmatic activities involving an infusion pump and a ventilator,”
“automatic adjustments to a frequency at which infusion data is analyzed,”
and “automatic notification[s] to a remote device.” See id. at 16.4
Appellant additionally argues claim 21 includes additional elements
that integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application, as
claim 21 includes features that recite a particular application of elements to
effect a particular treatment (i.e., weaning a patient from ventilation and

4 Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding that the claims are
similar to the claims at issue in various court cases. See Appeal Br. 13. This
appears to reference the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action. See
Final Act. 4–5. We agree with the Examiner that this argument is moot in
view of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
published by the USPTO. See Ans. 11.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
7
notifying a caregiver of a deviation in a drug dosage) for a medical condition
(i.e., requiring ventilation while on medication), and these features are
further recited in conjunction with particular machines (i.e., an infusion
pump and a ventilator). See Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant asserts claim 21
includes additional elements related to an automatic process that “is not seen
to be an abstract idea identified by the courts.” See id. at 17. Appellant
further argues the recited method of claim 21 improves the process of
weaning a patient off a ventilator. See id. at 17–18. Additionally, Appellant
asserts claim 21 also describes “a specific way to solve the technical
problem of maintaining a correct dosage of a medication, within established
guidelines and/or thresholds, while the patient receiving the medication is
being ventilated,” and thus, is “directed to a technical way to satisfy an
existing problem, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or
outcome.” See id. at 18.
Appellant further argues “the Final Rejection does not explain or
show how the elements of [claim 21] are prevalent or in common use within
the medical industry or the industry of managing patients on ventilation
while being infused with a medication.” See Appeal Br. 19. Appellant
additionally argues the features of claim 21 “include additional subject
matter that is unconventional and thus involve an ‘inventive concept.’” See
id. Appellant additionally argues each of the dependent claims recite
“further specific improvements in the mechanism by which patient care
systems provide alerts/notifications regarding time-sensitive patient data,
and maintaining a correct dosage of a medication while the patient receiving
the medication is being ventilated,” and is “a non-conventional and non-
generic arrangement of elements that, when combined and considered as a
whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” See id. at 20.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
8
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“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)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claim for an “inventive concept,” “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).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
9
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).5 Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then 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.
Abstract Idea
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter

5 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the Guidance. USPTO, October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) (available
at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
10
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity; or (c) mental processes.
Independent claim 21 recites, inter alia, “a machine-implemented
method,” comprising the following steps:
(1) receiving, . . . infusion information for the one or more ventilated
patients, the infusion information indicating infusion interruptions
experienced by the one or more ventilated patients during each of
several time segments occurring during previous administration of
medications to the one or more ventilated patients;
(2) determining . . . a pattern of a consecutive amount of time without
interruption or with a fixed dosage within a predefined threshold
for the time segments from the infusion information for the one or
more ventilated patients;
(3) determining . . . an optimal time segment based on the pattern;
(4) calculating . . . one or more baseline thresholds for the medications
for a current patient, the medications for the current patient being
the same as the medications administered to the one or more
ventilated patients and including sedatives and pain therapy drugs,
the one or more baseline thresholds being calculated from actual
dosages of the medications that were previously administered to
the current patient during a previous time segment corresponding
to the determined optimal time segment;
(5) periodically determining . . . a current dosage amount of the
medications currently being administered to the current patient
during a respective time segment by an infusion pump, the current
patient being currently ventilated by a ventilator;
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
11
(6) performing a periodic comparison . . . while the current patient is
being administered the medications by the infusion pump and
while the current patient is being currently ventilated by the
ventilator, of the current dosage amount to the one or more
baseline thresholds, the periodic comparison being performed at a
predetermined frequency;
(7) determining . . . based on the periodic comparing, a deviation in
the current dosage amount that meets a threshold deviation from
the one or more baseline thresholds; and
(8) in response to the deviation: generating a marker regarding
administration of the medications to the current patient and relating
to a ventilator weaning process for the current patient, providing,
. . . a notification indicating the current dosage amount deviates
from a normal or acceptable dosage of medication administered to
the patient and indicating that an event should be performed, and
increasing the frequency of the periodic comparison or decreasing
the respective time segment for future determining of dosage
amounts being administered to the current patient.
Appeal Br. 22–23.
Consistent with the Examiner’s finding, the aforementioned steps are
steps for determining a baseline dosage amount and comparing it to a current
dosage amount for a patient, and the steps are further related to a process of
weaning the patient off a ventilator. See Ans. 4–6. Such steps manage
interactions between people, and thus, fits squarely within the human
activity organization category of the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing human activity including
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
12
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
(including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)).
Additionally, although not necessary to affirm the Examiner’s
rejection, we conclude the aforementioned steps can be performed in the
human mind or using pen and paper, and thus, also fit squarely within the
mental processes category of the Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (indicating
that mental processes are concepts that can be performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).6 That the
abstract idea recited in claim 21 can either be categorized as a certain
method of organizing human activity or a mental process does not alter the
Examiner’s underlying finding that claim 21 recites an abstract idea. See
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As
the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as
generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first
menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be

6 If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human
using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible
under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the Supreme Court has
altered the § 101 analysis since Cyber Source in cases like Mayo and Alice,
we continue to ‘treat[ ] analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.’” (brackets in original)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Cir. 2016))); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes
can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson[, 409 U.S. 63
(1972)].”).
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
13
described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking
orders from restaurant customers on a computer.”); see also MPEP
§ 2106.04 (“in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite [multiple
abstract ideas], an examiner should identify the claim as reciting [the
multiple abstract ideas] for Step 2A Prong One to make the analysis clear on
the record”).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner has not
mischaracterized claim 21 in analyzing the claim under the Guidance.
Instead, as called for by the Guidance, the Examiner has identified the
specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea and determined
that the identified limitations fall within the human activity organization
category of the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appellant’s argument that claim 21 is more than the mere
organization of human activity is also not persuasive. As found by the
Examiner, the steps recited in claim 21, encompass steps of a process of
weaning a patient off a ventilator, which, but for the recitation of “a
processor,” encompass steps that involve managing an interaction between
people (e.g., a caregiver and a patient). See Ans. 5–6. Further, Appellant’s
argument that claim 21 is more than a mere mental process is also not
persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is not
responsive to the Examiner’s finding that the claim recites a certain method
of organizing human activity. See Ans. 11. Further, the mere recitation of
“processor,” “infusion pumps,” “ventilators,” and “client device,” does not
turn a mental process into patent-eligible subject matter. See CyberSource,
654 F.3d at 1375.
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
14
Integration of Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Although claim 21 recites a judicial exception, we nevertheless must
still determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses 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 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
We therefore (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements
beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluate those elements individually
and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application. See id.
Here, the only elements recited in claim 21 beyond the abstract idea
are “a processor,” “one or more infusion pumps,” “one or more ventilators,”
and “a client device.” See Appeal Br. 22–23. Consistent with the
Examiner’s findings, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application when reading the claim as a whole because
the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amount
to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic
computer component. See Ans. 6–7. Further, the claim does not specify
what is done with the generated notification indicating the determined
deviation of a current dosage amount for a patient and a baseline dosage
amount, and thus, the claim does not recite a technological improvement to
an underlying computer or other technology.
Appellant’s argument that claim 21 recites a particular application of
elements to effect a particular treatment for a medical condition is not
persuasive because the recited elements of the claim do not specifically
describe the particular treatment being applied to the medical condition, but
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
15
instead, merely describe determining a baseline dosage amount and
comparing it to a current dosage amount. Further, we agree with the
Examiner that the collection of data from the recited “infusion pumps” and
“ventilators” is mere extra-solution activity and does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. See Ans. 13. Additionally, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 21 either improves the
process of weaning a patient off a ventilator or is directed to a specific way
of solving a technical problem. Instead, as previously described above, the
claim does not specify what is done with the generated notification
indicating the determined deviation of a current dosage amount for a patient
and a baseline dosage amount. Thus, the claim does not recite a
technological improvement to an underlying computer or other technology.
Thus, claim 21 does not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. Claim 21: (1) does not improve the functioning of a
computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine
(except for a generic computer), (3) does not effect a transformation of a
particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any 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. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 21 is “directed to” a judicial exception,
we consider whether claim 21 recites an “inventive concept.” Under the
Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, we then look to whether
the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
16
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends well-understood, routine, 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.
As previously described, the additional elements recited in claim 21
are “a processor,” “one or more infusion pumps,” “one or more ventilators,”
and “a client device.” See Appeal Br. 22–23. Consistent with the
Examiner’s findings, these additional elements do not provide an inventive
concept because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of
generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the
abstract idea using a generic computer component. See Ans. 8.
Further, Appellant’s Specification provides evidence that the claimed
“processor” is a generic computer component performing generic computer
functions that was well-understood, routine, and conventional to a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art, as Appellant’s Specification describes that
the claimed “processor” is “embedded . . . or coupled [to] . . . any . . . sort of
electronic device” that “retrieves instructions to execute and data to process
in order to execute the processes of the subject disclosure.” See Spec. ¶¶ 93,
95; see also Ans. 8. Similarly, Appellant’s Specification also provides
evidence that the claimed “client device” is also a generic computer
component performing generic computer functions that was well-
understood, routine, and conventional to a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art, as Appellant’s Specification describes that the claimed “client
device” is “a client computer having a graphical user interface or a Web
browser through which a user can interact with an implementation of the
subject matter described in this specification.” See Spec. ¶ 105; see also
Ans. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶ 105). Further, Appellant’s Specification also
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
17
provides evidence that the claimed “one or more infusion pumps” and “one
or more ventilators” merely serve as devices from which data is received and
perform functions that infusion pumps and ventilators generally perform, as
Appellant’s Specification describes that an infusion pump “[administers]
sedation and pain therapy to [a] patient,” that a ventilator “[provides]
ventilation to the patient,” and that “information is collected directly from
these devices.” See Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24–26; see also Ans. 7–8 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24).
Appellant’s argument that the Final Rejection did not explain or show
how the elements of claim 21 are prevalent or in common use is not
persuasive, because the Examiner cited portions of Appellant’s Specification
which disclose that the aforementioned elements of the claims are well-
understood, routine, and conventional, as described above. See Ans. 7–8
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 19, 24–26, 105). With respect to Appellant’s argument that
claim 21 includes subject matter that is unconventional, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence on the record
that the elements of claim 21 are arranged in a particular matter that is non-
conventional or non-generic. See Ans. 16. Further, with respect to
Appellant’s argument regarding the dependent claims, we agree with the
Examiner that the dependent claims merely further describe the abstract
idea, do not provide a technology solution to a technological problem, and
do not provide any conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements.
See Ans. 17.
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
21 is “directed to” an abstract idea, and does not recite an “inventive
concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 and
Appeal 2019-005993
Application 14/099,773
18
the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–40 101 Eligibility 21–40

TIME PERIOD FOR 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