Damodar Karra et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

14199162 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/199,162 03/06/2014 Damodar Karra 27098.224532 2658
46169 7590 09/30/2019
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(Cerner Corporation)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
KANAAN, MAROUN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
BPARKERSON@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
docketing.shb@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAMODAR KARRA and RAMCHANDRAN K. BALA
__________

Appeal 2018-0056251
Application 14/199,1622
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–29, which are all the claims pending in the
application, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception
without significantly more. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our Decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Jan. 8, 2018), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 7, 2018), the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 7, 2018), and Final Office Action (“Final
Act.,” mailed July 6, 2017).
2 Appellants identify “Cerner Innovation, Inc.” as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Appellants’ claims “relate to patient care plan determination.
Specifically, the present embodiments relate to determining patient care plan
options automatically using patient and facility characteristics as well as cost
and quality data.” Spec. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with
bracketed notations (Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.)), is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for patient care plan determination for a patient, the
method comprising:
[(a)] identifying, with at least one processor, at least one
patient care plan to be implemented from a plurality of patient care plans
based on topical characteristics of the patient, wherein the plurality of patient
care plans comprise care plan components and care plan characteristics, the
care plan characteristics comprise an indicated effectiveness for treating
conditions, and each of the care plan components of the at least one patient
care plan to be implemented are associated with a cost;
[(b)] designating, with the at least one processor, at least one
identified care plan as a candidate care plan when at least one patient care
plan characteristic matches a first at least one clinical characteristic of the
patient;
[(c)] determining, with the at least one processor, the at least
one candidate care plan’s indicated effectiveness for the at least one patient
care plan characteristic matching the first at least one clinical characteristic
of the patient;
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

3
[(d)] determining, with the at least one processor, the
compatibility of the at least one candidate care plan with the patient, wherein
the at least one candidate care plan components are analyzed for a conflict
with a second at least one clinical characteristic of the patient, wherein the
determining comprises
[(1)]) identifying the care plan components of the
at least one candidate care plan,
[(2)] determining an established goal associated
with the second at least one clinical characteristic of the
patient,
[(3)] generating a compatibility threshold at least
partially based on the established goal,
[(4)] comparing the care plan components with
the compatibility threshold, wherein when the care plan
components meet or exceed the compatibility threshold
the at least one candidate care plan is determined to be
compatible with the second at least one clinical
characteristic of the patient;
[(e)] designating, with the at least one processor, the at least one
candidate care plan as a preferred candidate care plan when the at least one
candidate care plan is compatible with the second at least one clinical
characteristic of the patient;
[(f)] determining, with the at least one processor, a cost of the at least
one preferred candidate care plan, the cost based on the costs of the care plan
components;
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

4
[(g)] providing, through a graphical user interface, in real-time the at
least one preferred candidate care plan to a user, the providing comprising
providing the indicated effectiveness for treating conditions of the preferred
candidate care plan and associated cost of the preferred candidate care plan;
[(h)] receiving a selection, through an input device communicatively
coupled to the graphical user interface, of at least one of the at least one
preferred candidate care plan; and
[(i)] altering the patient’s treatment by associating the selected at
least one preferred candidate care plan with the patient’s electronic medical
record.

ANALYSIS
Principals of Law
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 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 Supreme Court’s two-step 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
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

5
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in
petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
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.
USPTO § 101 Guidance
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under Step 2A, Prong One of
the Guidance, we determine if the claim recites a judicial exception,
including particular groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes).
Id. at 52–53. If so, we then analyze the claim to determine whether the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance. Id. at 53–55; MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). Only if the
claim fails to integrate the exception and thus is “directed to” the judicial
exception, do we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

6
beyond the judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity in the field or whether the claim simply appends well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Alice Step 1
Does claim 1 recite a judicial exception?
Under the first step of the Alice inquiry, the Examiner determined
“Claim[s] 1–29 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving care plan
informant, analyzing it to determine a preferred car plan, and displaying the
results to the user.” Final Act. 2. According to the Examiner:
Claim 1 recites the method for performing the steps of
identifying at least one patient care plan (i.e. collecting
information), determining indicated effectiveness for the
at least one patient care plan (i.e. analyzing information),
determining the compatibility with the patient (i.e. analyzing
information), generating a compatibility threshold (i.e.
analyzing information); comparing the care plan components
with the compatibility threshold (i.e. analyzing information);
determining a cost factor (i.e. analyzing information); providing
preferred care plan to a user (i.e. displaying certain results).
The processes in these steps can be performed mentally.

Id. at 3.
Appellants argue claims 1–29 as a group. See Appeal Br. 28. We
select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and,
thus, claims 2–29 stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In
particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner “has failed to provide any
reasoned rationale” (Appeal Br. 13) in support of the rejection, and that the
claims are directed to “a specific improvement in how computers carry out a
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

7
basic function,” and, thus, directed to patent eligible subject matter. Id. at
19. We are not persuaded for the following reasons.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method for patient care plan determination for a
patient” comprising nine steps: (a) “identifying . . . at least one patient care
plan to be implemented from a plurality of patient care plans based on
topical characteristics of the patient, wherein the plurality of patient care
plans comprise care plan components and care plan characteristics, the care
plan characteristics comprise an indicated effectiveness for treating
conditions, and each of the care plan components of the at least one patient
care plan to be implemented are associated with a cost;” (b) “designating . . .
at least one identified care plan as a candidate care plan when at least one
patient care plan characteristic matches a first at least one clinical
characteristic of the patient;” (c) “determining . . . the at least one candidate
care plan’s indicated effectiveness for the at least one patient care plan
characteristic matching the first at least one clinical characteristic of the
patient;” (d) “determining . . . the compatibility of the at least one candidate
care plan with the patient, wherein the at least one candidate care plan
components are analyzed for a conflict with a second at least one clinical
characteristic of the patient, wherein the determining comprises”
(1) identifying the care plan components of the at least
one candidate care plan,
(2) determining an established goal associated with the
second at least one clinical characteristic of the patient,
(3) generating a compatibility threshold at least partially
based on the established goal,
(4) comparing the care plan components with the
compatibility threshold, wherein when the care plan
components meet or exceed the compatibility threshold the at
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

8
least one candidate care plan is determined to be compatible
with the second at least one clinical characteristic of the patient;

(e) “designating . . . the at least one candidate care plan as a preferred
candidate care plan when the at least one candidate care plan is compatible
with the second at least one clinical characteristic of the patient;” (f)
“determining . . . a cost of the at least one preferred candidate care plan,
the cost based on the costs of the care plan components;” (g) “providing . . .
the at least one preferred candidate care plan to a user, the providing
comprising providing the indicated effectiveness for treating conditions of
the preferred candidate care plan and associated cost of the preferred
candidate care plan;” (h) “receiving a selection . . . of at least one of the at
least one preferred candidate care plan;” and (i) “altering the patient’s
treatment by associating the selected at least one preferred candidate care
plan with the patient’s medical record.” See Claim 1 supra.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a) through (f) of
claim 1 describe a process of “determin[ing] a suitable care plan for a patient
having a particular medical condition from a collection of care plans” (Spec.,
Abstract), which can be practically performed in the human mind, and, thus,
recite an abstract idea within the Guidance’s mental-process grouping. See
Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (“Mental processes—concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion”).
For example, identifying a patient care plan from a plurality of patient care
plans based on topical characteristics3 of the patient, as recited in step (a),

3 “Topical characteristics may include any characteristic of a patient related
to the general status or existence of a patient. For example, topical
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

9
may be performed by a person evaluating and identifying care plan
characteristics that for example “match both the age and gender of a patient”
(Spec. ¶ 25), and designating that identified plan as a candidate care plan
(step (b)), wherein “[t]he designation may be made by any technique” (id.
¶ 30), such as committing the “at least one identified care plan” to memory.
Determining the candidate care plan’s effectiveness for a patient care plan
characteristic matching a clinical characteristic4 of the patient (step (c)) may
be performed by a person by mentally comparing and evaluating those
characteristics. Step (d) of determining the compatibility of the candidate
care plan with the patient “may be assessed using any technique capable of
determining that a patient may be eligible and/or able to undergo the care
plan” (id. ¶ 33), including mental observation and evaluation, by comparing
the care plan components with the compatibility threshold (e.g., “if a cost
threshold is $15,000, only care plans having a cost of equal or less than
$15,000 may be passed through the filter.”). Id. ¶ 52. Designating the
compatible candidate care plan (e.g. “designated as appropriate for treating
the diagnosed condition”) (id. ¶ 50) as a preferred candidate care plan (step
(e)) may be performed mentally as discussed in step (b). Finally, the act of
determining a cost of the preferred candidate care plan based on costs of the
care plan components, as recited in step (f), may be performed mentally “by

characteristics may involve an age, gender, ethnicity, basic physiological
findings such as height or weight, mobility of a patient, general patient
habits such as alcohol intake, the geographical location of a patient, or any
other basic or demographic data relating to a patient.” Spec. ¶ 25.
4 “Clinical characteristics may involve any characteristic relating to a
condition of the patient. For example, clinical characteristics may involve
problems or symptoms of a patient, allergies of a patient, or a diagnosis of a
patient.” Id. ¶ 31.
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

10
summing the resultant costs of each care plan component included in the
care plan.” Id. ¶ 38. The aforementioned steps of claim 1 recite evaluations
that, when considered in the context of the claim as a whole, can practically
be performed in the mind. Thus, claim 1 recites a concept that falls within
the Guidance’s mental-processes grouping.
Further, Appellants’ disclosure describes the aforementioned
evaluations as filtering content. According to the Specification:
The patient characteristics may be used to initially filter the care
plans to meet basic topical characteristics of the patient such as
gender or age. Care plans may be further filtered based on
other characteristics such as insurance applicability,
performance measures, and cost characteristics of specific care
plans. Care plans passing through the various filters may be
provided to a user such that pertinent information such as cost,
frequency, and effectiveness of care for each filtered plan may
be displayed.

Spec., Abstract (emphasis added). See also Spec. ¶¶ 17 (“Patient care plans
may be determined using the characteristics of the patient to filter a
collection of patient care plans.”), 47–62 (describing filtering stages and
techniques). The Federal Circuit has held that “filtering content is an
abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing
human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract.”
BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (hereinafter “BASCOM”). See also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “tracking financial transactions to
determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)” is
an abstract idea that “is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

11
be abstract in other cases . . . involving methods of organizing human
activity”); see also Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (finding that “1)
collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and
3) storing that recognized data in a memory” was an abstract idea because
“data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known” and
“humans have always performed these functions”). An abstract idea
implemented on a generic computer is still an abstract idea. See Intellectual
Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 n.2 (collecting cases).
The remaining steps (g), (h), and (i) of claim 1 describe a process of
obtaining a care plan to receive health insurance coverage for a patient,
which falls with the Guidance’s “[c]ertain methods of organizing human
activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk),” and, thus, recite an abstract idea. Guidance 84
Fed. Reg. at 52. For example, step (g) recites providing the indicated
effectiveness for treating conditions of the preferred candidate care plan and
associated cost of the preferred candidate care plan, which “may be
displayed as a list with associated data.” Spec. ¶ 39. In step (h), a selection
of at least one preferred candidate care plan is received, and “[a]fter
selection of a care plan for a patient, [in step (i),] the care plan may be
implemented and associated with the patient in a healthcare system.” Id.
¶ 61. Essentially, the abovementioned steps describe activities a patient
would engage to procure a health care plan: be presented with care plan
options, select a care plan, and based on the selection, implement the
selected health plan with the patient’s medical record.
Thus, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions under the Guidance’s
groupings of abstract ideas.
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

12
Is claim 1 “directed to” the recited judicial exception?
Because claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we determine whether the
recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. When a claim recites a judicial exception and
fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception. Id. The claim may integrate the judicial
exception when, for example, it reflects an improvement to technology or a
technical field. Id. at 55.
In that regard, Appellants argue that the present claims are similar to
Enfish,5 McRO,6 and Trading Technologies.7 Appeal Br. 19–23. We
disagree. There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality
improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to
perform a particular task, on the other. In Enfish, for example, the court
noted that “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer
technology just as hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335.
The court asked “whether the focus of the claims is on [a] specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that
qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool.” Id. at 1335–36. The court found that the “plain focus of the claims”
there was on an improvement to computer functionality itself (a self-
referential table for a computer database, designed to improve the way a

5 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(hereinafter “Enfish”).
6 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (hereinafter “McRO”).
7 Trading Technologies International Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x. 1001
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (hereinafter “Trading Technologies”).
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

13
computer carries out its basic functions of storing and retrieving data), not
on a task for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Id.
Appellants have not offered any persuasive evidence or technical reasoning
that the computer implementation improves the functioning of the claimed
“processor” itself.
In McRO the court asked whether the claim as a whole “focus[es] on a
specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” or is
“directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely
invoke[s] generic processes and machinery.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314–15
(Claims determined not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation.”). The claims in McRO were directed
to a system of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated
characters, and the court concluded that the computerized system in McRO
operated by rules whose implementation was not previously available
manually. Id. at 1316. Here, in contrast to McRO, implementation was
previously available and conducted, although without computer assistance.
And, although manual review is time consuming and difficult to scale,
computer-based efficiency does not save an otherwise abstract method. See
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1277–78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Performance by computer of operations that
previously were performed manually or mentally, albeit less efficiently, does
not convert a known abstract idea into eligible subject matter.). Unlike
Enfish and McRO, we find the focus of the claim as a whole here is directed
to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea, because the claimed
computer processor is merely invoked as a tool for automating patient care
plan determination. Therefore, we determine that the claims do not “apply,
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

14
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception,” i.e., the claims do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54.8
In Trading Technologies, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district
court’s holding that the patented claims (which recited a method and system
for displaying market information on a graphical user interface) did not
simply claim displaying information on a graphical user interface and were
not directed to an abstract idea; instead, the claims required “a specific,
structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality
directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to
and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.”
Trading Technologies, 675 F. App’x. at 1004. In contract, Appellants’ claim
1 merely recites “providing, through a graphical user interface” a preferred
candidate care plan to a user, which is described in the Specification as
being “performed using the workstation” or a general purpose computer.
Besides using a GUI as a tool in its ordinary capacity, Appellants have not
shown that the claimed invention reflects an improved interface.
We look to the background of the Specification to assess the problems
recognized and solution advanced by Appellants, because “[t]he
‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the ‘focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a
whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex. v.

8 For purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, these
considerations are made under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office guidance).
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

15
DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016 (quoting Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see
also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. According to the Specification, “[t]he
multitude of factors involved in determining a care plan can cause the
manual creation of patient care plans to be inefficient and time consuming
for a health care system user in a facility.” Spec. ¶ 5. Appellants solved this
problem by “determining patient care plan options automatically using
patient and facility characteristics as well as cost and quality data.” Id. ¶ 2
(emphasis added). This notion is reinforced by Appellants’ statement that
“the current claims allow for an automated process by removing human
subjectivity in determining appropriate care plans to consider in the
treatment of a patient.” Appeal Br. 23. Efficiency through automation
reflected in steps (a)–(f), which Appellants argue is the technological
improvement over the prior art (id.), does not reflect an improvement to the
functioning of the claimed processor but rather invokes the computer as a
tool in its ordinary capacity to filter content efficiently. See Secured Mail
Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert.
denied, 138 S. Ct. 2000 (2018) (“The fact that an identifier can be used to
make a process more efficient, however, does not necessarily render an
abstract idea less abstract.”).
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 5–6) and find that
the additional elements which claim 1 recites (“the at least one processor,”
“a graphical user interface,” and “an input device communicatively coupled
to the graphical user interface”) do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. Notably, the claim does not recite, and the
Specification does not describe, an improvement to the functioning of a
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

16
computer, or to any other technology or technical field. Nor are the
additional elements directed to a particular machine or transformation.
Essentially, the recited processor executes the abstract idea. The
Specification discloses that the processor can be a general-purpose processor
having a graphical user interface executing a program. Spec. ¶¶ 65, 91. A
particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim indicates that
the abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application. Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55. But a general-purpose processor that merely executes
the judicial exception—as is the case here—is not a particular machine.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716–17 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
cited in MPEP § 2106.05(b)(I).
For all these reasons, the claimed method does not use the “at least
one processor” in a way that indicates that the judicial exception has been
integrated into a practical application. On this record, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 1 is directed to a judicial
exception.
Alice Step 2
Does claim 1 provide an inventive concept?
To determine whether a claim provides an inventive concept, the
additional elements are considered—individually and in combination—to
determine whether they (1) add a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

17
Under step two of the Alice framework, Appellants argue that the
claims include limitations that recite significantly more than the abstract idea
because of their similarity to BASCOM and Amdocs.9 Appeal Br. 23–27.
We cannot agree.
Appellants’ reliance on BASCOM for Alice Step 2 analysis is
misplaced. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit held that “[t]he inventive
concept described and claimed in the ’606 patent is the installation of a
filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with
customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” BASCOM,
827 F.3d at 1350. The court explained that the remote location of a filtering
tool having customizable user-specific filtering features provides the
filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits
of a filter on the ISP server, which is a technical improvement over prior art
ways of filtering content. Id. at 1350–51. Here, Appellants have not
demonstrated any particular arrangement in the claim as providing an
inventive concept parallel to BASCOM’s technology-based solution.
In Amdocs, the court held that “[claim 1] is eligible under step two
because it contains a sufficient ‘inventive concept.’” Amdocs, 841 F.3d
at 1300. The claim at issue recited “computer code for using the accounting
information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to
enhance the first network accounting record.” Id. The court explained that
the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data
in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows
[that] previously required massive databases).” Id. The court noted that,

9 Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (hereinafter “Amdocs”).
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

18
although the solution requires generic computer components, “the claim’s
enhancing limitation necessarily requires that these generic components
operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in
computer functionality.” Id. at 1300–01. When determining that the claim
was patent eligible, the Federal Circuit explained that the “enhancing
limitation necessarily involves the arguably generic gatherers, network
devices, and other components working in an unconventional distributed
fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Id. at 1301. The court
distinguished the claim from the claims held unpatentable on the grounds
that the “enhancing limitation . . . necessarily incorporates the invention’s
distributed architecture—an architecture providing a technological solution
to a technological problem.” Id. (citations omitted). But unlike the generic
components at issue in Amdocs, the generic components recited in claim 1
here do not operate in an unconventional manner to achieve an improvement
in computer functionality.
We agree with the Examiner that the recited processor’s activity is
well‐understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Final Act. 4.
Specifically, using a computer only for its most basic function, the filtering
of content by comparing and matching data,” fails to impose meaningful
limits on the claim’s scope. The recited processor performs operations that
can practically be performed mentally, which suggests that the method only
requires a computer with basic functions. Indeed, as discussed above, the
Specification discloses that the recited processor can be a general-purpose
processor. Spec. ¶ 65. Because claim 1’s method uses this general-purpose
processor to execute the abstract idea, the recited processor adds nothing
more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, specified at a
Appeal 2018-005625
Application 14/199,162

19
high level of generality, to the abstract mental process. See MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii).
Thus, the steps—considered individually and in combination—do not
provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and claims 2–29, which fall
with claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
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