CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2020005047 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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.
14/919,996 10/22/2015 Olga Matlin 10309-06616 US 9715
145838 7590 12/23/2020
Patent Law Works LLP/CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
310 East 4500 South, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84107
EXAMINER
COBANOGLU, DILEK B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
docketing@patentlawworks.net
patents@patentlawworks.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM SHRANK, STEVEN KYMES,
OLGA MATLIN, and ALLA STAVNITSER

Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–14, 17, 18, and
20–25, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

2

CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relate[s] generally to medication
adherence and patient intervention and, in particular, to the use of predictive
modeling to select intervention type and timing.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 21,
reproduced below, with modified formatting and bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
21. A system comprising:
[a] a memory;
[b] a processor;
[c] a trajectory data store including a set of patient-
adherence trajectories for a prescribed medication, wherein:
[d] the set includes a plurality of patient-adherence
trajectories for the prescribed medication; [e] each of the patient-
adherence trajectories is based on training data for a span of time
and a population of patients grouped statistically using group-
based trajectory modeling; and
[f] each of the patient-adherence trajectories includes a
plurality of time-based data points representing the probability
that a new patient associated with the selected patient-adherence
trajectory will be adherent to a medication therapy for the
prescribed medication during a time unit in the selected patient-
adherence trajectory;
[g] a pattern mapping table stored in the memory, wherein
the pattern mapping table maps a value pattern to a highest
trajectory probability for each of the plurality of patient
adherence trajectories;
[h] an intervention selector stored in the memory and
executable by the processor for:
[i] receiving a patient adherence data set including a
plurality of adherence values representing patient adherence to
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

3

the medication therapy for the new patient for a plurality of time
units;
[j] determining a patient-adherence pattern using a
selected time series of adherence values from the plurality of
adherence values for a selected period from the plurality of time
units;
[k] selecting, responsive to determining the patient-
adherence pattern, an associated patient-adherence trajectory
from the plurality of patient-adherence trajectories by matching
the patient-adherence pattern to the value pattern in the pattern
mapping table for the associated patient-adherence trajectory;
[l] selecting, using the associated patient-adherence
trajectory, an intervention of a plurality of intervention types; and
[m] sending, responsive to selecting the intervention, the
intervention to the new patient according to a schedule based on
the associated patient-adherence trajectory.
Appeal Br. 28–30 (Claim App.).

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–14, 17, 18, and 20–25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–14, 17, 18, and 20–25 as a
group. Appeal Br. 13–22; Reply Br. 2–6. We select independent claim 21
as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 21. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

4

35 U.S.C. § 101 Framework
Section 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

5

rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

6

USPTO Section 101 Guidance
We are also guided by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
Guidance, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”), incorporated into
the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §§ 2104–06, Rev. 10.2019
(“MPEP”) in June 2020. “The guidance sets out agency policy with respect
to the USPTO’s interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements
of 35 U.S.C. [§] 101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. Although “[a]ll USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance,” the Guidance “does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO.” Id.
The Guidance, by its terms, applies to all applications, and to all patents
resulting from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Id.
at 50.
Under USPTO Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and products of nature (see MPEP §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(b))
(“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application (see id. §§ 2106.04(II)(A)(2),
2106.04(d)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).2

2 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

7

Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the additional elements, individually or in combination,
provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §§ 2106(III), 2106.05. “An
inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or
natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Id. § 2106.05 (quoting
Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Among the considerations in determining whether the additional elements,
individually or in combination, amount to significantly more than the
exception itself, we look to whether they add a specific limitation beyond the
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(II); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and Step 2A, Prong
One of USPTO Guidance, the Examiner determines that the independent
claims recite broadly “an abstract idea of detecting a patient is not adhering
to a prescribed medication and selecting an intervention based on the
detection.” Final Act. 2. More particularly, the Examiner states that the
claims recite:
“selecting one of a plurality of patient-adherence trajectories
based on a highest trajectory probability corresponding to a

practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at
54–55, MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

8

patient adherence pattern in the received adherence data for the
patient, selecting one of the plurality of patient-adherence
trajectories comprising matching patterns and selecting one of a
plurality of intervention types based on the selected patient-
adherence trajectory”, which is a mental process (which can be
done in the human mind or by human using pen and paper).
Id. Under Prong Two of USPTO Guidance, the Examiner also determines
that
[t]his judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with
additional generic computer elements, such as “receiving, via a
network interface, adherence data representing patient adherence
for the patient to the prescribed medication”, and amounts to
mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra
solution activity. The computer processor that performs
selecting steps is also recited at a high level of generality, and
merely automates the selecting steps. Each of the additional
limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the
exception using a generic computer component (computer
processor).
Id. at 3.
In response, Appellant disagrees and contends that, under Prong One,
the claims “are directed to a specific improvement in automated systems for
selecting patient interventions using a novel data structure in computer
memory, the pattern mapping table, and related steps for using that data
structure to select interventions.” Appeal Br. 14. With “the intervention
selector” of independent claim 21, Appellant asserts that the independent
claims
may appear to include elements that could be done by a human
being using pen and paper. But such an analysis overlooks the
technical configuration of the trajectory data store and pattern
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

9

mapping table, as well as the application of the pattern mapping
table to the operations of the intervention selector.
Id. at 15. Under Prong Two, the Appellant contends that “[t]he detailed
process implemented by the intervention selector claims an improvement in
the functioning of pharmacy computer systems governing patient
interventions, using the pattern mapping table in memory.” Id. at 17.
Under the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework and Step 2A
USPTO Guidance, we first determine to what claim 13 is directed, i.e.,
whether claim 21 recites an abstract idea and if so, whether claim 13 is
directed to that abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the
‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light
of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed
to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the
focus of the claim is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on
a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are
invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the
Specification, including the claim language, that claim 21 focuses on an
abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical
field.
Reciting a Judicial Exception
In making this determination, we note that the Specification is titled
“PATIENT MEDICATION ADHERENCE AND INTERVENTION USING
TRAJECTORY PATTERNS,” and states that the disclosure “relate[s]
generally to medication adherence and patient intervention and, in particular,
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

10

to the use of predictive modeling to select intervention type and timing.”
Spec. ¶ 1. According to the Specification, it is difficult to predict whether
patients adhere to taking their prescribed medicine on “a daily, semi-daily,
or weekly schedule.” Id. ¶ 2. However, “[i]f these non-adherent patients
can be identified, intervention by a third party (such as by a telephone call,
SMS text message, email, or in-person visit) may encourage them to start
taking their medication again and adhere to the prescribed schedule.” Id.
The Specification identifies that known methods for identifying “non-
adherent patients are less than ideal” because they
focus on a binary prediction measure: a patient is categorized as
adherent or not if the patient is deemed to possess their
medication greater than a threshold ratio of time ( e.g., greater
than 80% of the time). This classification, however, collapses a
broad spectrum of adherence behaviors into an overly simplistic
dichotomy that misses important distinctions among unique
behaviors.
Id. ¶ 3. The Specification discloses that this potential for misclassifications
“may lead to missed opportunities for interventions or make interventions
ineffective or wasteful, resulting in adverse clinical outcomes and increased
healthcare costs.” Id. ¶ 4.
To address these drawbacks, the present invention includes a system
and method “for identifying patients who are most likely to be in need of
intervention, as well as when and how the intervention is best implemented
to thereby increase intervention effectiveness and efficiency.” Id. ¶ 5. More
particularly, the Specification describes using “a set of training data” based
on historical adherence information over a period of time “to create a
number of ‘trajectories’ – curves that each approximate adherence over time
for a different subset of the patients - using what is known as ‘group-based
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

11

trajectory modeling.’” Id. A current patient’s adherence information is then
compared to the historical “trajectories” in order “to predict the long-term
adherence of those patients.” Id. And, based on this comparison, “an
adherence pattern is identified,” which allows an intervention to be selected
that “maximize[s] the chance that non-adherent patients return to their
prescribed schedules of taking medication.” Id.
Consistent with this disclosure, independent claim 21 recites a system
for managing comprising “a memory”(limitation [a]), “a processor”
(limitation [b]), “a trajectory data store including a set of patient-adherence
trajectories for a prescribed medication” (limitations [c]–[f]), “a pattern
mapping table stored in the memory” (limitation [g]), and “an intervention
selector stored in the memory” (limitation [h]). The system includes
processes for “receiving a [new] patient adherence data set . . . for a plurality
of time units” (limitation [i]), “determining a patient-adherence pattern”
(limitation [j]), in response to “determining the patient-adherence pattern,”
“selecting, an associated patient-adherence trajectory from the plurality of
patient-adherence trajectories by matching the patient-adherence pattern”
with one of the patterns store in the “pattern mapping table” (limitation [k]),
“selecting . . . an intervention of a plurality of intervention types” (limitation
[l]), and “sending, responsive to selecting the intervention, the intervention
to the new patient” (limitation [m]). Appeal Br. 28–30 (Claim App.).
Upon reviewing the Specification and independent claim 21, as
summarized above, we agree with the Examiner that independent claim 21
recites broadly “an abstract idea of detecting a patient is not adhering to a
prescribed medication and selecting an intervention based on the detection”
(Final Act. 2), which can be characterized as a mental process. Here, the
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

12

Specification discloses that the computing device, i.e., “memory,”
“processor,” “data store,” recited by claim 21 is a generic, conventional
computing device that includes a processor, memory, and database. See
Spec. ¶30 (“[A] suitably programmed general-purpose computer 400
implementing embodiments of the present invention.”). In addition, we note
that storing data, i.e., “trajectory data store,” “pattern mapping table,”
(limitations [c]–[g]) is a mental process. See Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is
undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these
functions.”). See also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (using hierarchies “is a building block, a
basic conceptual framework for organizing information”). The step of
receiving data (limitation [i]) is an extra solution activity. See id.; Electric
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as
insignificant extra-solution activity). The steps of determining a patient-
adherence pattern, selecting an associated patient-adherence trajectory based
on comparison, and selecting an intervention (limitations [j]–[l]) include
steps for organizing and analyzing information, which are mental processes.
See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing cases) (“[W]e
have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their
minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental
processes”). Lastly, the output step of sending the intervention to the new
patient based on the result of the analysis (limitation [m]) is abstract and
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

13

merely an extra-solution activity. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1353).
Therefore, when considered collectively and under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claim 21 recite a way of
“detecting a patient is not adhering to a prescribed medication and selecting
an intervention based on the detection” by storing, receiving, analyzing, and
sending data.3 Cf. Final Act. 2. This is an abstract idea comprising
“[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52;
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). As such, we disagree with the Appellant’s
assertion that the Examiner “overlook[ed] the technical configuration of the
trajectory data store and pattern mapping table, as well as the application of
the pattern mapping table to the operations of the intervention selector”
(Appeal Br. 15) in characterizing independent claim 21 as an abstract idea
comprising “[m]ental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” And, as
discussed more fully below with respect to Prong Two, simply reciting a
“trajectory data store,” “pattern mapping table,” and “operations of the
intervention selector” (see id.; see also Reply Br. 2–6) does not change the
result that the claim recites an abstract idea. At best, the specific physical
elements “limit[] the invention to a technological environment for which to

3 We note that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240
(Fed. Cir. 2016). The Board’s “slight revision of its abstract idea analysis
does not impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241.
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

14

apply the underlying abstract concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Capital One
Fin.”).
This is similar to the concepts found abstract in University of Florida
Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366–68
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (claim for standardizing data to be conveyed to a bedside
device for graphical display was directed to the abstract idea of “collecting,
analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data”), Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d at 1339–40 (claim for
manipulating XML documents by organizing, identifying, mapping,
defining, and modifying data was directed to the abstract idea of “collecting,
displaying, and manipulating data”), and Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d at 1351–54 (claim for detecting events by receiving,
detecting, analyzing, displaying, accumulating, and updating data, and
deriving a composite indicator from that data was directed to the abstract
idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis”).
Having concluded that claim 21 recites a judicial exception under the
Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One, we next consider whether the claim recites
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
Integration into a Practical Application
We look to whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception,” i.e., “integrates a judicial exception
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

15

into a practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP
§ 2106.04(d). Here, the only additional elements recited in claim 21, i.e.,
elements beyond the abstract idea, are the “memory,” “processor,” and “data
store” — elements that, as the Examiner observes (see Final Act. 3), are
described in the Specification as generic. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 30 (“The
computer 400 includes a processor 402 having one or more central
processing units (CPUs), volatile and/or non-volatile main memory 204
(e.g., RAM, ROM, or flash memory), one or more mass storage devices 206
(e.g., hard disks, or removable media[)].”).
As is clear from the Specification, there is no indication that the
operations recited in claim 21 require any specialized computer hardware or
other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any
asserted inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is
implemented using other than generic computer components to perform
generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no
doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). We also find no indication in the
Specification that the claimed invention as recited in claim 21 effects a
transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s argument that
“[t]he detailed process implemented by the intervention selector claims an
improvement in the functioning of pharmacy computer systems governing
patient interventions, using the pattern mapping table in memory.” Appeal
Br. 17. More particularly, Appellant argues that “[t]he addition of a specific
type and configuration of lookup table (i.e., a pattern mapping table stored in
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

16

the memory, wherein the pattern mapping table maps a value pattern to a
highest trajectory probability for each of the plurality of patient-adherence
trajectories” provides “an improvement of computer indexing of trajectory-
based models.” Reply Br. 5.
However, Appellant does not direct our attention to anything in the
Specification to indicate that the invention provides a technical improvement
similar to the improvement in “the way a computer stores and retrieves data
in memory” in Enfish (822 F.3d at 1339) or in a physical or logical
technological structure. Instead, the Specification identifies a need for
“providing improved interventions” (Spec. ¶ 4) based on using better data
collection and analysis techniques, i.e., “group-based trajectory modeling.”
Id. ¶¶ 5–10; see also id. ¶ 20 (“One of skill in the art will understand that the
methods of group-based trajectory modeling are well-known and that it, any
variation thereof, and the use of similar techniques are within the scope of
the present invention.”). Spec. ¶ 20.
Any improvement “in the functioning of pharmacy computer systems
governing patient interventions” (Appeal Br. 17) is not a technical or
technological improvement; but rather a business improvement related to
“providing improved interventions.” Spec. ¶ 4. Cf. OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that
claims are directed to “the abstract idea of offer-based price optimization”);
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336 (focusing on whether the claim is “an improvement
to [the] computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for
which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”). See also Bridge & Post,
Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 893 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(“The ability to run a more efficient advertising campaign, even if novel, and
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

17

even if aided by conventional computers, is an advance ‘entirely in the realm
of abstract ideas,’ which we have repeatedly held to be ineligible.”).
Appellant further argues that claim 21 “addresses a business challenge
(reducing the processing overhead for scheduling patient interventions to
improve adherence) that is particular to pharmacy data systems” and “[t]he
claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem arising in the realm of data processing, namely the
indexing of complex data sets.” Appeal Br. 18 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC
v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Reply
Br. 3–4. We disagree.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims
addressed the problem of retaining website visitors who, if adhering to the
routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be
transported instantly away from a host’s website after clicking on an
advertisement and activating a hyperlink. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257.
The Federal Circuit, thus, held that the claims were directed to statutory
subject matter because they claim a solution “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks.” Id. The court cautioned that “not all claims
purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent.” Id.
at 1258. And the court contrasted the claims to those at issue in
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014), in that, 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.
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

18

Here, Appellant does not state what “problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks” claim 21 addresses. Rather, Appellant
contends that the claimed invention “addresses a business challenge
(reducing the processing overhead for scheduling patient interventions to
improve adherence) that is particular to pharmacy data systems.” Appeal Br.
18. As discussed above, the Specification discusses the prior art problem of
accurately classifying adherence behaviors among patients. Spec. ¶ 3. The
problem of accurately classifying adherence behaviors to prevent “missed
opportunities for interventions or make interventions ineffective or wasteful,
resulting in adverse clinical outcomes and increased healthcare costs” is not
a technological problem or a problem rooted in technology arising out of
computer networks, but rather a problem of better patient interventions that
existed prior to the Internet and computers. See In re Greenstein, 778
F. App’x. 925, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he problem of trustworthy
recommendations predates the Internet”).
Also, unlike DDR Holdings, here, the purported solution of
“indexing . . . complex data sets” (Appeal Br. 18) involves the use of a
generic computing system operating in its ordinary capacity (see, e.g., Spec.
¶ 30) to store, receive, analyze, and send data. Appellant argues that claim
21 includes “an additional technical element in the pattern mapping table
that connects the patient-adherence trajectories to the operation of the
intervention selector through a novel technical feature.” Appeal Br. 18.
However, Appellant does not direct our attention to, and we do not see,
where the Specification describes the “novel technical feature” acting in an
unconventional manner to further the desired solution of
“indexing . . . complex data sets” in order to improve patient interventions.
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

19

Instead, we agree with the Examiner that claim 21 simply “recites
determining [a] patient adherence pattern, selecting an associated patient-
adherence trajectory and [selecting] an intervention, using a computer
processor (a generic computer). These steps can be done by a medical
professional in [the human] mind or using pen and paper.” Ans. 5. See
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266,
1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be
performed more efficiently . . . does not materially alter the patent eligibility
of the claimed subject matter . . . the computer simply performs more
efficiently what would otherwise be accomplished manually.”); see also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d
1363, 1367, 1370 (“[O]ur precedent is clear that merely adding computer
functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not
confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”).
Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination
that the additional elements of claim 21 do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, as the term is used in USPTO
Guidance, and we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
determination that claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework
Under the second step in the Alice framework and USTPO Guidance
Step 2B, we “[e]valuat[e] additional elements to determine whether they
amount to an inventive concept [which] requires considering them both
individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception itself.” MPEP § 2106.05(I).
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

20

As discussed above, there is no indication here that the operations,
recited in independent claim 21, require any specialized computer or
inventive computer components — the Specification indicates just the
opposite. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 30–33. Here, the only claim elements in
independent claim 21 beyond the abstract idea are the “memory,”
“processor,” and “data store,” i.e., generic componentry, operating in its
routine and ordinary capacity to store, receive, analyze, and send data. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (gathering, sending, monitoring, analyzing,
selecting, and presenting information does not transform the abstract process
into a patent-eligible invention); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921
F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d at, 1341 (determining that there was “no
‘inventive concept’ that transform[ed] the abstract idea of collecting,
displaying, and manipulating XML data into a patent-eligible application of
that abstract idea.”); OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia,
sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized
system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting
offers to potential customers found to merely recite “‘well-understood,
routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by requiring conventional computer
activities or routine data-gathering steps” (alteration in original)). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that
[t]he claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because receiving data, selecting a matching pattern
data and selecting an intervention type based on the obtained data
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

21

are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as
recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Final Act. 3.
Viewed as a whole, independent claim 21 simply recites a series of
operations for “detecting a patient is not adhering to a prescribed medication
and selecting an intervention based on the detection” by storing, receiving,
analyzing, and sending data. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he claimed sequence of steps comprises only
‘conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ which is
insufficient to supply an ‘inventive concept.’” (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at
222)). Here, independent claim 21 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, as discussed above
with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A. Instead, independent claim 21
amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the
abstract idea using generic computing elements, which, under our
precedents, is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226.
To the extent the Appellant contends that claim 21 recites an inventive
concept because “the Examiner found no reference or suggestion of using a
pattern mapping table as an index between patient-adherence trajectories and
the selection logic for patient interventions” (Appeal Br. 19), an abstract idea
does not transform into an inventive concept just because the prior art does
not disclose or suggest it. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. Indeed, “[t]he
‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is
of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

22

within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr,
450 U.S. at 188–89; see also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91 (rejecting “the
Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the
better established inquiry under § 101”).
Moreover, the steps of “receiving a patient adherence data set”
(limitation [i]), “determining a patient-adherence pattern” based on the
received data set (limitation [j]), “selecting . . . an associated patient-
adherence trajectory” by matching the patient-adherence pattern to a stored
value pattern in the pattern mapping table (limitation [k]), and then
selecting . . . an intervention” based on the matching step (limitation [l]) are
all part of the abstract idea and can be performed mentally. “It has been
clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to
which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the
invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC
v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Moreover, as
discussed above, the claim simply recites the functional results to be
achieved by a generic processor. The claims “provide[] only a result-
oriented solution[] with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes
it. Our law demands more.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin.
Corp., 850 F.3d at 1342.
Appellant further argues that the claimed invention is analogous to the
claims included in Example 36 of the December 2016 Business Method
Example Update.4 Appeal Br. 19–20. However, Appellant does not explain

4 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Business Methods, USPTO,
(available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

23

how this example – which includes one patent-ineligible exemplary claim
and two patent-eligible exemplary claims (Business Method Examples,
13–17) – shows that claim 21 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
For example, one patent-eligible exemplary claim recites the use of “a
high-resolution video camera array with overlapping views to track items of
inventory” –a use that “was not well-understood, routine, conventional
activity to those in the field of inventory control.” Id. at 16. The other
patent-eligible exemplary claim includes a “combination of limitations [that]
provides a hardware and software solution that improves upon previous
inventory management techniques by avoiding the cumbersome use of RFID
and GPS transmitters and the inaccuracy issues that plagued previous
computer vision solutions.” Id. at 17.
Here, we are unpersuaded that claim 21 includes any similar hardware
and software solution, as discussed above. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 21 does no more than employ a generic computer to
accomplish the claimed steps of “determining a patient-adherence pattern,
selecting an associated patient-adherence trajectory, [and] selecting an
intervention of a plurality of intervention types.” Ans. 6.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21, and claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10–14,
17, 18, 20, and 22–25, which fall with claim 21.

101_examples_1to36.pdf; issued Dec. 2016) (“Business Methods
Examples”).
Appeal 2020-005047
Application 14/919,996

24

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7,
10–14, 17,
18, 20–25
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 6, 7,
10–14, 17,
18, 20–25

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED