Cosentino, Daniel L. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2019

13920718 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2019)

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.
13/920,718 06/18/2013 Daniel L. Cosentino C00006680USU2/
LG10574.082
8154
118252 7590 10/28/2019
Medtronic, Inc.
710 Medtronic Parkway
MS LC340
Minneapolis, MN 55432
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, TERESA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2019 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):
rs.patents.three@medtronic.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DANIEL L. COSENTINO, CHRISTOPHER T. ABRAHAMSON,
and KRISTIN N. PARROTT
__________

Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,7181
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, TAWEN CHANG, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.

TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system
for improving the accuracy of patient data, which have been rejected as
being directed to patent ineligible subject matter, failing to comply with the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and/or as being obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant Cardiocom, LLC identifies the real party in
interest as Medtronic, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3, see also Filing Receipt dated June
8, 2013.)
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system for receiving patient data
that is “verified” by a health care professional after having automatically
been flagged and filtered by the system and which system thereafter
transmits the verified data to a client. (See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 18.)
Claims 11–15 and 17–30 are on appeal. Claim 11 is representative
and reads as follows:
11. A system for improving the accuracy of patient data
transmitted to a client, the system comprising:
a remote patient monitoring apparatus;
a central processing unit, the central processing unit
including a flagging and filtration system and a database storing
a predefined rule set, the flagging and filtration system in
communication with the remote patient monitoring apparatus
via a network; and
a health care communication device, the health care
communication device in communication with at least the
flagging and filtration system, wherein the remote patient
monitoring apparatus is configured to:
collect patient data, the patient data comprising at
least one patient measurement; and
transmit the patient data to the flagging and
filtration system, wherein the flagging and filtration
system is configured to:
receive the patient data from the remote
patient monitoring apparatus;
store the patient data in the database;
categorize and flag the patient data based on
the predefined rule set to create categorization and
flagging information that specifies a level of
accuracy for the patient data;
present, on the health care communication
device for verification by a health care
professional, the patient data with the
categorization and flagging information;
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

3
update the patient data in the database to
reflect changes made to the levels of accuracy
specified by the categorization and flagging
information during the verification by the health
care professional;
filter the patient data based on the levels of
accuracy specified in the categorization and
flagging information, including the changes made
to the levels of accuracy, to create a portion of the
updated patient data; and
transmit the portion of the updated patient
data to a client.

(Appeal Br. 16.)

The following grounds of rejection by the Examiner are before us on
review:
Claims 11–15 and 17–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 25 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as lacking
written description.
Claims 11, 15, 23, 24, 26–28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knapp2 and Pratt.3
Claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knapp,
Pratt, and Banet.4
Claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knapp,
Pratt, and Papadopoulos.5

2 Knapp, US 6,278,999 B1, issued Aug. 21, 2001.
3 Pratt et al., US 2005/0192843 A1, published Sept. 1, 2005.
4 Banet et al., US2008/0097178 A1, published Apr. 24, 2008.
5 Papadopoulos et al., US 8,618,930 B2, issued Dec. 31, 2013.
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

4
Claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Knapp, Pratt, and Shusterman.6
Claims 25 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Knapp, Pratt, and Muradia.7
DISCUSSION
I
Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
The Examiner finds that “claims 11–15 and 17–30 are directed to the
abstract idea of filtering and flagging collected patient data based on a
predefined rule set [and] present[ing] the patient data with the flagging
information for verification by a health care professional.” (Final Action 2.)
The Examiner also finds that the claims “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. at 2–3.) The
Examiner explains that “the basic computer functions of filtering, flagging
collected patient data, further to transmit, receive, store, categorize, create,
present, update, and reflect changes are not effecting upon the components
as ‘an improvement to computer systems’, but is rather performing basic
data manipulating and filtering operations that any generic computer would
be expected to do.” (Ans. 4.) Moreover, the Examiner notes that “[w]ith

6 Shusterman, US 7,801,591 B1, issued Sept. 21, 2010.
7 Muradia, US 2008/0077436 A1, published Mar. 27, 2008.
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

5
regards to automated functions improving an automated computer system,
some of the steps of the claimed invention, such as verifying patient data and
updating the patient data specified by the categorization and flagging
information during the verification, are actually carried out by a health care
professional. Therefore, transformational steps of the claimed invention are
carried out manually, not automatically.” (Id. at 4–5.)
Appellant argues that “the claimed solution offers a specific, technical
solution to problems with existing remote patient monitoring systems.”
(Appeal Br. 9.) According to Appellant, “[w]hile it is true that a general
purpose computer could be programmed in such a manner, once it has been
so programmed it ceases to be a general purpose computer and becomes a
specially-programmed computer.” (Id.) Appellant further notes that “the
claimed solution is a hybrid solution in which categorization information is
first automatically generated and then provided for review and editing by a
health care professional ( e.g., a trained nurse). The edited categorization
information is then used to filter the patient data before it is transmitted to a
client.” (Id. at 10–11.) Appellant explains that the claimed invention
“allow[s] healthcare providers to improve filtering by providing customized
changes to the categorization and filtering information.” (Id. at 12.)
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 defines patent eligible subject matter. The Supreme
Court has carved out exceptions to what would otherwise appear to be
within the literal scope of § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014). One of these exceptions are claims “directed to” an
abstract idea. Id. at 217. This appeal involves the abstract idea exception to
patent eligibility under section 101.
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

6
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for
“distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Id. “First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to” a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, “we 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.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)).
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued the
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”),
indicating how the PTO would analyze patent eligibility under the Supreme
Court’s two-step framework. 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (January 7, 2019).
Applying the Guidance, we agree with the Examiner that the pending claims
are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
STEP 2A, Prong One:
Under the Guidance, in determining what concept a claim is “directed
to” in step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, we first look to
whether the claim recites judicial exceptions, such as a mathematical
concept (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or
equations, mathematical calculations), methods of organizing human activity
(such as advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business
relations, as well as managing interactions between people), and/or a mental
process (concepts performed in the mind, including an observation,
evaluation, judgment or opinion). Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54 (Step
2A, Prong One). Concepts performed in the mind include performance in
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

7
the mind (including using a pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic
computer components. Id. at 52 n.14. These types of judicial exceptions are
deemed abstract ideas. Id. at 51–52.
Claim 11 recites a system that includes a remote patient monitoring
apparatus that is configured to “collect patient data” and “transmit the
patient data to the flagging and filtration system.” The system of claim 11
also includes a flagging and filtration system that is part of a central
processing unit that is configured to “receive the patient data from the
remote patient monitoring apparatus,” “store the patient data,” “categorize
and flag the patient data. . . creat[ing] categorization and flagging
information that specifies a level of accuracy for the patient data,”
“present . . . the patient data [along] with the categorization and flagging
information” to a “health care communication device for verification by a
health care professional,” “update the patient data in the database to reflect
changes made to the levels of accuracy . . . during verification by the health
care professional,” “filter the patient data based on the levels of
accuracy . . . to create a portion of the updated patient data,” and “transmit
the portion of the updated patient data to a client.” Thus, the system of
claim 11 recites computer components that are configured to receive,
analyze, modify, and transmit data.
Each of the activities that the flagging and filtration portion of the
CPU is configured to perform involve managing collected patient data,
including the provision of that data to a healthcare communication device for
verification of the accuracy of the data. The categorizing and flagging as
well as updating and filtering are activities that a person can do mentally or
with a pen and paper, with the exception of the recitation of generic
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

8
computer implementation. Like the data collection and analysis in Electric
Power Group, claim 11 recites mental processes, which is one of the
categories of subject matter deemed abstract under the Guidance. Electric
Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in
their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category”); id. at 1353 (“[W]e
have treated collected information, including when limited to particular
content (which does not change its character as information), as within the
realm of abstract ideas.”).
STEP 2A, Prong Two:
Having made the determination that claim 11 recites abstract ideas,
under the Guidance, we next examine whether there are additional elements
beyond the mental processes that integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. Under the Guidance, this is referred to as the “Prong Two”
inquiry under “Step 2A.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. That is, under
the Prong Two analysis we look to whether the claim as a whole “appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception.” Id.
One of the “examples in which a judicial exception has not been
integrated into a practical application” is when “[a]n additional element . . .
merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” Id. at 55. See
also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(stating that “[t]he Court in Alice made clear that a claim directed to an
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

9
abstract idea does not move into section 101 eligibility territory by ‘merely
requir[ing] generic computer implementation’”) (alteration in original).
The additional elements of a remote patient monitoring apparatus, a
health care communication device, a CPU, and a database are not sufficient
recitations to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In
the first place, Appellant’s Specification discloses that these elements are
generic computer elements. (See Spec. ¶¶ 22 and 29.) As our reviewing
court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of
generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223). We fail to see how the generic
recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system
including them so integrates the judicial exception so as to “impose[] a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53.
Second, the fact that the remote patient monitoring apparatus is
configured to collect data that is then transmitted to the flagging and
filtration system of the CPU is simply a system element that is involved in
pre-solution activity. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (mere data gathering does not make a claim patent-
eligible).
As noted above, claim 11 recites a system for collecting information
remotely and processing that information via the flagging and filtration
system of the CPU for transmission to a third party. Appellants assert that
the processing combines both automated tasks of categorizing the
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

10
information and human verification to ensure accuracy before providing the
information to a third party. (See, e.g., Response dated Feb. 28, 2017 at 9;
Appeal Br. 5 (noting that the flagging and filtration system of the computer
system “flag[s], and filter[s] patient data according to the level of accuracy
for the patient data” . . . [and] allow[s] a set of trained healthcare
professionals to review the data before it is sent to the client.”).) According
to Appellant, this system that provides for “verification from healthcare
professionals” improves automated categorization by “improv[ing] the
accuracy of data after it is collected but before it is sent to the client (e.g., to
a hospital).” (Appeal Br. 10.) Notably, Appellant does not assert, nor do we
determine any, improvement to the technology to identify or flag errors or to
the provision of updated data that has a particular level of accuracy to a third
party. The level of accuracy of the data is improved by virtue of the fact that
a human reviews the data, which has been organized by the CPU according
to particular predefined rules, to determine the accuracy of the data and
changes the data as necessary to reflect a particular level of accuracy. (See
Response at 9.) The system receives the human verification input just as it
does the original data and assimilates and filters the data accordingly before
transmitting it to a third party, i.e., data processing.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim does not recite an
improvement to the structure or function of a computer. (Final Action 24.)
The flagging and filtration system of the CPU is simply configured to
perform basic data manipulation, including taking into account input from
additional non-computer sources (i.e., the verification information from the
health care professional). (See, id. at 26.)
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

11
The capability of the CPU to transmit the processed data is
insignificant post-solution activity akin to displaying results of data
processing. MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) (“Use of a computer or other machinery
in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or
transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic
practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more.”).
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that claim 11 is directed to the
abstract idea of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data, not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
We disagree with Appellant that the fact that the claim is a “set of
ordered and specific steps” means that it is a “technical improvement to
technologies” (Appeal Br. 13–14). Cf. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, No. 2017-2257, 2019 WL 1716242, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This
invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This
is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”). Appellant relies on part
of the identified abstract ideas to provide an inventive concept (the
automated categorization and updating of the data reflecting changes to the
data by the health care professional), but an “abstract idea itself cannot
supply the inventive concept.”’ Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBGLLC, 921
F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Appellant’s solution to accuracy of
patient data obtained from remote collection being provided to a client is not
a technical improvement to any technology, despite that the patient data that
was collected remotely that is supplied via a computer to the third party
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

12
client has been improved as to accuracy by an intermediate human review of
that data.
Appellant’s reliance on Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is unavailing (Appeal
Br. 11–12). In Bascom, although the underlying idea of filtering Internet
content was deemed to be abstract, under step 2 of the Alice analysis, the
claims carved out a specific location for the filtering system, namely a
remote Internet service provider (ISP) server, and required the filtering
system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual
network accounts. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1352. The Federal Circuit
recognized that Bascom’s installation of an Internet content filter at a
particular network location is “a technical improvement over prior art ways
of filtering such content,” because such an arrangement advantageously
allows the Internet content filter to have “both the benefits of a filter on a
local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server” and “give[s]
users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network
accounts.” Unlike the claims in Bascom, claim 11 does not cover a
technology-based solution that improves an existing technological process.
The improvement is to the non-technical process of data management, not in
any computing resources used to implement that process.
Similarly, we do not find Appellant’s reliance on DDR Holdings,
convincing (Appeal Br. 13–14). In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit
evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of retaining
website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of
Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a
host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement and activating a
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

13
hyperlink.” 773 F.3d at 1257. The Federal Circuit found the claims in DDR
Holdings to be patent-eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily
rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. Specifically, the Federal
Circuit found the claims addressed the “challenge of retaining control over
the attention of the customer in the context of the Internet.” Id. at 1258.
Here, by contrast, Appellant’s claim does not address a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer technology. The problem of inaccurate data
is not a computer technology specific problem and Appellant’s claim 11
recites a system that uses generic computing elements. In DDR Holdings,
the computer network was not operating in its “normal, expected manner”
and the claims did not “recite an invention that is [] merely the routine or
conventional use of the Internet.” Id. at 1258–59. Appellant does not direct
attention to, and we do not see, where the Specification describes computer
components acting in an unconventional manner to further the desired
solution of transmitting more accurate information to a third party client, and
the claim does not recite such an unconventional interaction. Nor does the
claim recite a specific technological way of accessing the data that is
analyzed in an unconventional way. As we noted above, the improvement to
data accuracy arises from the human review of the data before it is
transmitted to the client.
Appellant contends the claimed invention does not monopolize or pre-
empt the relevant technical field. (See Appeal Br. 13.) Such an argument
does not compel finding the claim patent-eligible. “While preemption may
signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption
does not demonstrate patent eligibility” or render a claim any less abstract.
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

14
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may
be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them
any less abstract.”).
STEP 2B:
We next turn to Step 2B to evaluate whether claim 1 provides an
inventive concept. Guidance at 54. Neither a finding of novelty nor a non-
obviousness determination automatically leads to the conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is patent-eligible. Although the second step in the
Mayo/Alice framework is termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the
analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a
search for “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, citation omitted).
Step 2B requires that we look to whether the claim “adds a specific
limitation” beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field.” Guidance at 56. Using generic
computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the
necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); see also SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163, 1170
(finding that the invocation of such computers for use in carrying out
improved mathematical calculations amounts to recitation of what is well-
understood, routine, and conventional). Also, “steps that do nothing more
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

15
than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on computer’ cannot confer
eligibility.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d
1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, the fact that the system sends
data to a human for verification and receives input from the verification to
update the records is not inventive. Indeed, the Examiner has cited a number
of prior art references that demonstrate human review of remotely collected
information for verification is standard practice. (See, e.g., Pratt ¶¶ 12, 62,
117–118.)
We conclude the claim fails to add a specific limitation beyond the
judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in
the field. As discussed above, the Specification describes using
conventional components to collect patient data and general purpose
computers to analyze and organize the data. The function to be performed
by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer.
None of these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor
do any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it
invented any of these activities. In short, the claim does no more than
require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 11 and their configuration to receive, analyze, modify, and
transmit data add nothing that is not already present when they are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional and
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

16
“amount[s] to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply [an]
abstract idea” using generic computer technology. See Alice, 573 U.S. at
226 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1354–56 (holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying
in real-time was abstract); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond,
Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was
abstract).
In light of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s determination that claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea and
that the limitations of that claim do not transform it into significantly more
than the abstract idea.
Claims 12–15 and 17–30 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
II
New Matter
The Examiner finds that claims 25 and 29 lack written description as
to the limitation “wherein is further configured to prevent, based on one or
more categories of the patient data, the health care professional from
verifying transmission of the patient data to the client.” (Final Action 6.)
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and
29 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Thus, we
summarily affirm this rejection. See MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

17
may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
III
Non-Obviousness
The Examiner finds that Knapp “discloses a system for improving the
accuracy of patient data transmitted to a client.” (Final Action 7.) The
Examiner finds that the personal health digitizer is a remote patient
monitoring apparatus that is configured to collect patient data, that the
information management system is a CPU that has a flagging and filtration
system and a database storing a predefined rule set, and that the health
digitizer is in communication with the flagging and filtration system. (Id. at
7–9.) In particular, the Examiner asserts that the filtering steps implemented
in steps 306, 307, 309, and 310 have pattern recognition subroutines that flag
patterns generated from the personal health digitizer. (Id.) The Examiner
also finds that Knapp discloses a health care communication device that is in
communication with the flagging and filtration system. (Id. at 8.) The
Examiner acknowledges that Knapp is silent regarding categorizing and
flagging patient data to create the categorization and flagging information
that specifies a level of accuracy for the patient data, as well as presenting
the data with the categorization data on the health care communication
device and updating patient data made to levels of accuracy during
verification by the health care professional, filter that data and transmitting
the filtered data. (Id. at 9–10.)
According to the Examiner “Pratt teaches that it was old and well
known in the art of monitoring patient medical conditions at the time of the
invention to categorize and flag the patient data based on the predefined rule
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

18
set to create categorization and flagging information on the health care
communication device for verification by a health care professional.” (Final
Action 10.) The Examiner states:
In ¶0012, verified patient data and portions of patient data have
levels of accuracy such as “inconsistent”, “accurate” and “not to
be accurate” categories, when compared to patient data
previously stored in a database. The additional measurement
mentioned in ¶0120, serve as changes made to obtain the most
accurate level of patient information possible, where a
healthcare provider is a physician (¶0121). In 0010 Pratt flags
possible errors and presents them to the user for validation.
(Id. at 10–11.) The Examiner concludes from the foregoing that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of
monitoring patient medical conditions at the time of the
invention to modify the method, software and system of Knapp
to categorize and flag the patient data based on the predefined
rule set to create categorization and flagging information on the
health care communication device for verification by a health
care professional, the patient data with the categorization and
flagging information, update the patient data in the database to
reflect changes made to the levels of accuracy specified by the
categorization and flagging information during the verification
by the health care professional, filter the patient data based on
the levels of accuracy specified in the categorization and
flagging information, including the changes made to the levels
of accuracy, to create a portion of the updated patient data and
transmit the portion of the updated patient data to a client, as
taught by Pratt, to provide standardized time saving information
to appreciate healthcare providers when there are life-threading
conditions of a patient.
(Id. at 11.)
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

19
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability”). We disagree with the Examiner that Knapp discloses a
system for improving the accuracy of patient data transmitted to a client in a
way that one would find the teachings of Pratt regarding verification of
categorized and flagged data by a health care professional relevant. While
Knapp certainly indicates that “data that is collected by the patient must be
accurate in nature” (Knapp 3:13–17), Knapp is concerned with “data
collected [having] sufficient baseline data to enable the medical practitioner
to detect anomalies in the pattern of data that is collected over time” (Knapp
3:17–20). Knapp states “there is presently no mechanism available to
collect data on a frequent basis and communicate this data to the medical
practitioner, or to perform an automated pattern analysis function on such
data, if collected, or to automate a report to the consumer.” (Id. at 3:20–24.)
The Knapp invention is directed to improving the accuracy of data analysis
by comparing it to sufficient baseline data. As stated by Knapp:
the information management system collects a statistically valid
volume of data from numerous consumers and performs pattern
matching and other statistical analyses on this data in a multi-
dimensional manner to thereby deliver relevant information to
the various classes of users who access the information
management system.
(Id. at 3:37–42.)
Pratt is directed to a system “for gathering, formatting, validating,
storing and/or distributing medical information” where the patient
information submitted is timely validated. (Pratt ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, 12, 39.) Pratt
explains the validation of data by the physician upon review of data from the
medical device or physician entered data such as the reasonableness of
objective data, e.g., height or weight of a patient, or the reasonableness of
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

20
diagnosis. (Id. ¶¶ 115–119.) Pratt explains that in some instance “to obtain
the most accurate information possible, it sometimes is beneficial to perform
multiple or back-up measurements” and the system can prompt a physician
to do so. (Id. ¶ 120.) Pratt explains that
[i]f the system requests back-up measurements, but the
physician has not entered them, the system will prompt the
physician to enter the additional measurement data (block 619).
They physician can elect to enter the additional measurements
(block 619), or the physician can elect not to enter the
additional measurement. If the additional measurements are not
entered, the system can flag the measurement data as being less
reliable.
(Id.)
Other than to assert that both Knapp and Pratt include in their systems
flagging and filtration systems where data is categorized based on
predefined rule sets, the Examiner has not identified what about these
systems are equivalent components such that one of ordinary skill in the art
would combine the data verification teaching in Pratt with the Knapp
system. In other words, the Examiner does not explain how or why the
similarities of these systems is such that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand them to perform similar functions such that one would
have categorized and flagged patient data based on the predefined rule set
that flag patterns generated from the personal health digitizer of Knapp to
create a categorization and flagging information that specifies a level of
accuracy for the patient data in Pratt. Nor do we find the reason to be self-
evident from the teachings of the references. “[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (alteration in original).
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

21
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11, 15, 23, 24, 26–28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Knapp and Pratt.
The additional references relied on by the Examiner in the remaining
obviousness rejections do not cure the defect just discussed. Therefore, we
also reverse the rejection of:
claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knapp,
Pratt, and Banet;
claims 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knapp,
Pratt, and Papadopoulos;
claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Knapp, Pratt, and Shusterman; and
claims 25 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Knapp, Pratt, and Muradia.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
11–15, 17–
30
101 11–15, 17–
30

11, 15, 23,
24, 26–28,
30
103

Knapp, Pratt 11, 15, 23,
24, 26–28,
30
12–14 103

Knapp, Pratt,
Banet
12–14
17–20 103

Knapp, Pratt,
Papadopoulos
17–20
21, 22 103 Knapp, Pratt,
Shusterman
21, 22
Appeal 2018-007708
Application 13/920,718

22
25, 29 103 Knapp, Pratt,
Muradia
25, 29
25, 29 112, 1st
paragraph
New matter 25, 29
Overall
Outcome
11–15, 17–
30

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).

AFFIRMED