Ex Parte Ivanoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2018

14971618 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/971,618 12/16/2015
21186 7590 07/13/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Kent F. Ivanoff
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4497.003US2 8671
EXAMINER
MILEF, ELDA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT F. IVANOFF, VINCENT MARTINO,
NIKOLAUS TROTTA, and DAVID ARNETT
Appeal2017-004177 1
Application 14/971, 618
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 and 3-29. We
have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention generally relates "to techniques to acquire or otherwise
access data pertaining to healthcare transactions and to provide business
intelligence functionality and/or information." Spec. ,r 2.
1 The Appellants identify iVinci Partners, LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for healthcare transaction data processing provided
through a user-interactive graphical user interface, comprising
electronic operations implemented with processor circuitry of a
computing system, and the electronic operations comprising:
receiving a first set of healthcare transaction data records
that represent a first healthcare transaction and
receiving a second set of healthcare transaction data
records that represent a second health care transaction,
the first set of health care transaction data records and
the second set of healthcare transaction data records
originating from an electronic healthcare billing
system, wherein the first set of health transaction data
records are associated with a first encounter and the
second set of health transaction data records are
associated with a second encounter;
creating an aggregate set of healthcare transaction data
records from the first set of health care transaction data
records and the second set of health care transaction
data records, wherein the aggregate set of healthcare
transaction data records is associated with a user;
creating a payment due data record from the aggregate set
of healthcare transaction data records, wherein the
payment due data record is established at a time of
generation of the graphical user interface, and wherein
the payment due data record indicates an aggregated
balance due for open charges of the first healthcare
transaction and the second healthcare transaction that
are tracked by the electronic healthcare billing system
and held by an asset holder;
creating a dynamic financing data record for the user,
wherein the dynamic financing data record is
established at the time of generation of the graphical
user interface, and wherein the dynamic financing data
record is established from:
evaluating a set of asset holder requirement data
records to determine current repayment
requirements of the asset holder, wherein the
2
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
current repayment requirements are evaluated for
the open charges that are held by the asset holder;
evaluating a set of user characteristic data records to
determine current repayment characteristics of
the user, wherein the current repayment
characteristics are uniquely evaluated for the user
for repayment of the aggregated balance due; and
generating a minimum amount due and financing
repayment characteristics for a financed
repayment of the aggregated balance due,
wherein the minimum amount due and the
financing repayment characteristics are
constrained to the current repayment
requirements of the asset holder indicated in the
asset holder requirement data records and the
current repayment characteristics of the user
indicated in the user characteristic data records;
generating the graphical user interface, wherein the
graphical user interface:
outputs the aggregated balance due and aggregated
healthcare transaction information including data
from the aggregate set of healthcare transaction
data records;
outputs multiple available payment options that are
uniquely generated to the user, wherein the
multiple available payment options are
associated with reduced financing payments that
are customized to the minimum amount due, the
financing repayment characteristics for the
financed repayment of the aggregated balance
due, and the current repayment characteristics of
the user; and
outputs a customization interface to receive user
selection of a selected payment option from
among the multiple available payment options,
wherein the customization interface receives a
customized payment amount for the selected
payment option;
3
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
receiving an indication of the selected payment option and
the customized payment amount, in response to input
by the user in the graphical user interface;
verifying that the customized payment amount complies
with the financing repayment characteristics for the
financed repayment of the aggregated balance due;
and
in response to successful verification of the customized
payment amount for the selected payment option,
updating the graphical user interface to:
output updated payment terms for the selected
payment option, wherein the customized
payment amount for the selected payment option
provides financed repayment of the aggregated
balance due for the open charges of both of the
first healthcare transaction and the second
healthcare transaction that complies with the
financing repayment characteristics according to
the updated payment terms.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-16, and 18-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Pourfallah et al. (US 2012/0239417 Al, pub.
Sept. 20, 2012) (hereinafter "Pourfallah").
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Pourfallah and Yang (US 2005/0033609 Al, pub. Feb. 10,
2005).
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent in-eligible subject matter.
We AFFIRM, but, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b), denominate our
affirmance as a NEW GROUND of rejection.
4
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
ANALYSIS
Re;ection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner found the "[S]pecification fails to provide an adequate
written description for the 'creating a dynamic financing data record for the
user, wherein the dynamic financing data record is established .... '" Final
Act. 3.
We are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the Specification
provides adequate support for the limitation. Appeal Br. 15-16 ( citing Spec.
,r,r 43, 50, 66, 101, 106, 110, 189, and 205). When an explicit limitation in a
claim is not present in the written description, it must be shown that a person
of ordinary skill would have understood that the description requires that
limitation. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The
Specification describes "triggered actions 514C corresponding to stage 2
( financing plan) may include a) creating a financing plan record 218
corresponding to the account record 212." Spec. ,r 119. We are persuaded
that the ordinary artisan would have understood that a data record, when
read in light of the cited portions of the Specification, as a whole, can be
changed, and is, thus, dynamic. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the
above paragraph provides adequate written description support for the claim
language about creating a dynamic data record concerning financing.
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
Re;ection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Each of independent claims 1, 15, and 24 recite language substantially
identical to "verifying that the customized payment amount complies with
5
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
the financing repayment characteristics for the financed repayment of the
aggregated balance due."
We are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the sections of
Pourfallah cited by the Examiner as disclosing the "verifying" limitation
describe "spending rules" that "are set by a consumer, and have no relation
to financing repayment characteristics of a financing plan, or 'current
repayment requirements of the asset holder' as claimed." Appeal Br. 20-21.
The claims recite "multiple available payment options are associated
with reduced financing payments that are customized to the minimum
amount due" are presented to a user (patient, guarantor), from which the user
may select from, or modify, the options. The claim then verifies whether the
user selection "complies with the financing repayment characteristics."
However, according to earlier-recited claim language, "the financing
repayment characteristics are constrained to the current repayment
requirements of the asset holder."
The sections of Pourfallah cited by the Examiner as disclosing the
"verifying" language, paragraphs 36, 66, 127, 128, 149, and 274 (Final
Act. 13, Answer 7-8), do not address the "requirements of the asset holder."
The "asset holder" is the provider, or an entity that holds the receivable. See
Spec. ,r 178 ("The authorized payment terms may be preconfigured by a
provider or other asset holder with legal ability to collect a payment.").
Specification paragraph 36 addresses the user of a "payment device"
for a user to make payment. Paragraphs 66, 127, and 128 address sources of
payments, such as insurance, HSA accounts, and so on, which each have
rules associated with their use. Paragraph 149 describes that "the H-W allet
may allow the patient to view specifics of the balance due billing."
6
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
Paragraph 274 describes the structure of a database table displayed in
Figure 13B, identifying "financially responsible entity identifiers." See
Spec. ,r,r 36, 66, 127, 128, 149, and 274. None of these paragraphs concerns
requirements a provider or asset holder has on the extension of financing to a
user, as claimed.
The Examiner has therefore not supported adequately the finding that
Pourfallah anticipates at least the "verifying" limitation of claims 1, 15,
and 24. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 15,
and 24, nor of dependent claims 3, 5-14, 16, 18-23, and 25-29 that were
rejected along with claims 1, 15, and 24.
Re;ection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner has not established on the record that Yang remedies
the shortcomings of Pourfallah as to "verifying that the customized payment
amount complies with the financing repayment characteristics for the
financed repayment of the aggregated balance due." For this reason, we do
also not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Re;ection under 35 U.S. C. § 1 OJ
Principles 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. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include implicit
exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are
not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court's two-
7
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 ( citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-78 (2012)).
In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is
"directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. See Id. at 2356 ("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."); Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners'
application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against
risk."); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981) ("Analyzing
respondents' claims according to the above statements from our cases, we
think that a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic
rubber products falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable
subject matter."); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--595 (1978)
("Respondent's application simply provides a new and presumably better
method for calculating alarm limit values."); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 64 (1972) ("They claimed a method for converting binary-coded
decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals.").
The following method is then used to determine whether what the
claim is "directed to" is an abstract idea:
[T]he decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine
earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can
be seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were
decided. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54. That
is the classic common law methodology for creating law when a
single governing definitional context is not available. See
generally Karl N. Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition:
Deciding Appeals (1960). This more flexible approach is also
the approach employed by the Supreme Court. See Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2355-57. We shall follow that approach here.
8
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
The patent-ineligible end of the spectrum includes fundamental
economic practices, Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611;
mathematical formulas, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594--95; and basic tools of
scientific and technological work, Benson, 409 U.S. at 69. On the patent-
eligible side of the spectrum are physical and chemical processes, such as
curing rubber, Diamond, 450 U.S. at 184 n.7, "tanning, dyeing, making
waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores," and a process for
manufacturing flour, Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 67.
If the claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea, we then
consider the elements of the claim-both individually and as an ordered
combination-to assess whether the additional elements transform the nature
of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355. This is a search for an "inventive concept"-an element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
"significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. Id.
Analysis
The Examiner finds the claims as a group "is/are directed to the
abstract idea of healthcare transaction data processing including managing
payments for services or products in the healthcare industry." Final Act. 3-
4, Answer 10.
Independent method claim 1 recites limitations to receive and
aggregate billing information, calculate a remaining balance due from the
patient, establish a minimum amount due and payment options based on
provider and patient factors, and present the periodic payment options to a
9
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
patient, receive a selection from the among the options including a new
proposed periodic payment amount, evaluating the proposed periodic
payment amount for compliance with provider terms, and updating the
presentation to reflect the selected payment option and accepted periodic
payment amount. The claim does not recite steps to take, except for offering
periodic payment options, because it only offers "financing" of the balance
due based on a "minimum" that is paid each period. The claim also does not
recite steps to take if the patient-proposed periodic payment amount fails to
be verified as complying with provider "financing repayment
characteristics."
Therefore, for claim 1, we would reformulate the Examiner's finding
to be that claim 1 is directed to consolidating billing information, offering to
the user periodic payment options for the amount due, and permitting the
user to alter the periodic payment amount the payments are based on.
This is similar to the claims the Federal Circuit held "are directed to
the abstract idea of billing insurance companies and organizing patient
health information." In re Salwan, 681 F. App'x 938,941 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied sub nom. Salwan v. Mata!, 138 S. Ct. 278, 199 L. Ed. 2d 178 (2017),
reh 'g denied, 138 S. Ct. 496, 199 L. Ed. 2d 379 (2017). The Court
explained "while these concepts may be directed to practical concepts, they
are fundamental economic and conventional business practices." Id.
Claim 1 in Salwan included, similar to claim 1 here, communicating
information originated, entered and controlled by at least one or
more first healthcare service providers affiliated with the one or
more healthcare user groups, including at least accounts
information confidential for the first healthcare user groups, the
confidential information includes at least accounts information
10
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
of one or more insurance companies, which is at least used by
the billing software to calculate patient portion of the bill.
Claim 1 is also similar to claims held to be directed to abstract ideas
that are directed to "a loan-application clearinghouse or, more simply,
coordinating loans." LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App'x 991,
996 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Both claim 1 and LendingTree involve collecting
information for the purpose of negotiating a loan. Claim 1 is additionally
similar to claims that involve "processing an application for financing a
purchase." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
In addition, the steps of claim 1 can be performed mentally by a
human with the use of pen and paper, except for the requirement that the
claimed method be "implemented with processor circuitry of a computing
system," and, arguably, that the method, which generates and updates a
"graphical user interface," requires a computer to enable the use of a
"graphical user interface." The "receiving" of data is merely insignificant
extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. See Bilski v. Kappas,
545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), ajfd sub nom Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as
insignificant extra-solution activity). The aggregating of information,
creating of a balance due, evaluating, determining, and generating of
minimum payment amount and financing options, and verifying steps can be
done mentally by a person thinking about and making calculations from the
data. The output of information also is merely insignificant extra-solution
activity. The claim, outside of the call for a computer, encompasses only
data gathering and output steps, as well as steps that can be performed
mentally. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
11
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting, in the context of the claims in that case, that
"a method that can be perfonned by human thought alone is merely an
abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under§ 101.").
For these reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. We tum to
the second step of the analysis to examine the claims for an "inventive step"
or "something more."
The receiving and aggregating of data is certainly within the
capabilities of a general purpose computer, as is outputting data to a
graphical user interface, since that just presents data. The creating of a
payment due data record involves merely addition and subtraction operations
on the data, which general purpose computers are easily capable of
performing. We, thus, focus on the remainder of the claim language, which
is directed to the two evaluating steps, language about "generating a
minimum amount due," and the verifying step.
As to the "evaluating a set of asset holder requirement data records to
determine current repayment requirements of the asset holder," the
Specification describes "the system 100 can evaluate the open charges
balance to determine an appropriate set of terms (e.g., pre-set financing
tem 1 s and/ or authorized financing terms) to offer for the open charges
balance," but does not describe an algorithm for the evaluating. Spec. ,r,r 71
( cited at Appeal Br. 5). We construe this broadly, therefore, as a step that
looks up stored data, which general purpose computers routinely perform.
As to the language that "requirements are evaluated for the open
charges," the Specification describes "terms that can be compared to
provider-authorized terms." Id. ,r 56 (cited at Appeal Br. 5). The
Specification also describes the system can "compare authorized payment
12
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
terms with the specific characteristics of a given guarantor." Id. ,r 178 ( cited
at Appeal Br. 5). This is a simple comparison of data elements that general
purpose computers can perform.
As to "evaluating a set of user characteristic data records to determine
current repayment characteristics of the user," cited paragraph 67 describes
using propensity-to-pay scoring, "based on the specific historical payment
behaviors of the guarantor being scored or a like guarantor," but does not
describe or disclose an algorithm for the scoring. Id. ,r 67 ( cited at Appeal
Br. 5), see also ,r 211,213 ("decisioning rules"). This, in the broadest
reasonable construction, involves only seeing if any payment records exist.
This is a step a general purpose computer can do by checking for the
existence of data records.
As to "current repayment characteristics are uniquely evaluated," the
Specification describes "assigning PTP scores" (Spec. ,r 78, cited at Appeal
Br. 6) and various types of bills (id. ,r 98), but does not describe any
evaluation algorithm, or process to ensure an evaluation is unique among
users. This step, thus, may broadly, but reasonably, encompass determining
if any repayment records are present. Checking for the existence of data is a
simple data lookup step any general purpose computer may perform.
As to "generating a minimum amount due and financing repayment
characteristics for a financed repayment of the aggregated balance due," the
Specification describes that financing terms "may be based upon criteria of
the guarantor at one or more of a provider level, a guarantor level, and/or a
visit level." Id. ,r 185 (cited at Appeal Br. 6). The Specification, however,
does not describe how a minimum amount due is generated. See also id.
,r,r 200, 205 ( cited at Appeal Br. 6). This step may broadly, but reasonably,
13
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
involve only adding up the amount due and using that total as the minimum
amount due, which involves mathematical operations any general purpose
computer can perform.
As to constraining an amount due and "repayment characteristics ...
to the current repayment requirements of the asset holder," the Specification
describes that the system "may provide allowable ranges into which
guarantor-configured financing terms may fall." Spec. ,r 226 (cited at
Appeal Br. 6). This may involve only comparing data to see if it falls within
a range, which is a task a general purpose computer can perform.
The claim recites "data processing provided through a user-interactive
graphical user interface, comprising electronic operations implemented with
processor circuitry of a computing system." The Specification describes that
the computing system "includes a processor 1002 ( or one or more
processors), a memory 1004," and several engines, each of which "provides
functionality." Spec. ,r 171 (cited at Appeal Br. 4). The Specification, thus,
only refers to general purpose computer components.
The method steps, individually and as a whole, involve data input or
output, and steps that can be performed mentally, or by a general purpose
computer, which is the only computer required by the claim language.
Therefore, we do not find an "inventive concept" or "something more" in the
claim that transforms the abstract idea, to which claim 1 is directed, into
eligible subject matter.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that, according to
the Appellants, the "claims are not directed to the performance or execution
of some financial technique: they are directed to data processing (and
technology) that is ancillary to the financial technique itself." Appeal
14
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
Br. 26-27; see also id. 28 ("The recited computer operations are performed
exclusively in a computer, excluding any possibility that the claims are
directed to human activities or ideas by themselves."). For the reasons set
forth above, including that the claims can be performed by a human using
pen and paper, the claims are not directed to data processing and technology.
Similarly, we are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that "the
present claims are directed to an improvement in data processing and
graphical user interface functionality in a computer system for healthcare
transaction data," for the same reason. Appeal Br. 28.
The Appellants argue claim 1 is "not directed to economic concepts
like buySafe, Bilski, and Alice were." Appeal Br. 27. The argument is moot,
since we find claim 1 is similar to claims in other cases the Federal Circuit
has agreed are directed to ineligible subject matter, as we established above.
The Appellants next argue error on the part of the Examiner for
"dissection of the claim to omit the novel operations performed by the
computer," as evidenced by the Declaration filed along with the application
by Mr. Ivanoff. Appeal Br. 29-30.
In considering the Declaration, the Examiner states the "affidavit filed
on 12/16/2015 and 4/15/2016 have been considered and are not deemed
persuasive." Final Act. 25-26. The Examiner, however, provides no further
explanation of the reason the Declaration was considered unpersuasive.
The Declaration first assets the claimed invention "is the first and only
fully integrated patient billing, payments and financing (referred to within
the industry as 'revenue cycle management') platform in the US healthcare
15
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
market," which was designed to address a number of problems in existing
systems. Deel. 1-2. 2
The Declaration asserts the VisitPay product, was designed to
"automatically integrate data inputs from multiple billing systems into
a . .. single, universal data structure." Deel. 3. More than merely
consolidating data, this implies a translation of data format. The only
relevant claim, with respect to this assertion, is dependent claim 6, which
recites translating data into a "normalized data format," but neither the
alleged "universal data structure" nor the "normalized data format" are
defined, described, or depicted in the written description. This means there
is no way to know if the data structure utilized transforms the abstract idea
into eligible subject matter. In addition, translation has been held to be
directed to an abstract idea (see Novo Transforma Technologies, LLC v.
Sprint Spectrum L.P., 2015 WL 5156526 (D.Del. 2015), affd, 2016 WL
5335040 (Mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and to be a mental process (see Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Declaration next assets "VisitPay's matching algorithm
authenticates guarantors in a fashion that is configured differently for any
given provider depending on that provider's unique data structure and data
availability." Deel. 3. There is, however, no guarantor authentication
claimed.
Next, the Declaration asserts "VisitPay tracks and collects the superset
of data (contained only in VisitPay) to build a longitudinal and
2 The only apparent difference between the Declaration filed along with the
initial Disclosure, and the one filed in April 2016, is the reference in the
later-filed version to the assigned application serial number.
16
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
comprehensive history of transactions and events" which is "stored in a
CRM-like information system organized around the guarantor." Id.
However, no history or "CRM-like" system is claimed, and the organization
of data stored is not described in the Specification.
The Declaration describes that "VisitPay executes logic to determine
the exact visit state at a point in time," and "can update a balance, close or
return visits to the provider, suspend visits due to user dispute, classify visits
as 'past due', etc." Deel. 4. However, no "state machine" or object is
claimed or described in sufficient detail in the Specification to determine its
nature, and the claims do not address the "state" of any "visit."
The Declaration additionally highlights more features that are not
found in the claim language. Mr. Ivanoff asserts "VisitPay allows the user
to choose a payment due date" (id.), but the claims do not recite any such
function. Mr. Ivanoff also asserts that "only visits in billable statuses as
defined for each associated billing system are included in the aggregate
balance due" (id.), but, again, this function is not claimed. Further, the
Declaration asserts users may be sent a notification that a bill is ready, and
offered discounts, (id. 5), but no such notification or discount function is
claimed. On pages 5---6, the Declaration asserts "a payment rules engine
runs to determine how to allocate a single payment to visits and transactions,
based on specific provider and creditor payment allocation rules," but no
such allocation-rules-based allocation is claimed. Id. 5---6. Similarly, the
Declaration describes several attributes of "Interest-Bearing Finance Plans"
(id. 6), but the claims do not require interest charges. Additionally, the
Declaration describes "where one user manages another user's account," but
the claims only recite where the single user is a guarantor for a second user
17
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
(see, e.g., claim 5), but the other described functions are not recited in the
claim. Deel. 6.
Also, Mr. Ivanoff asserts a "patient can be billed through a single,
monthly, online statement, regardless of the number or type of source billing
systems, and can interact with all of the components of their bill through a
common user interface." Id. 4. However, consolidating data can be done
mentally by a human, and a user interface is merely a way to implement data
input and output functions on a general purpose computer. See also Elec.
Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding
that "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis" are "a familiar class of claims 'directed to' a
patent-ineligible concept").
The Declaration describes a function that "splits the payment into a
set of one to many sub-payment transactions that are routed." Deel. 6.
However, this is similar to the claims in Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN
Interactive Grp., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court said "the
idea of collecting information in classified form, then separating and
transmitting that information according to its classification, is an abstract
idea that is not patent-eligible." Id. at 992.
Mr. Ivanoff describes functions such as the ability to "set absolute
financing boundaries that are dynamically applied through the financing
rules engine within VisitPay at the user level as a mathematical function of
various independent variables." Id. 7. However, no algorithm or
mathematical function is claimed or described in the Specification.
Functions described in the affidavit include a "digital signature process,"
which is not claimed. Id. Similarly, the Declaration describes a customer
18
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
service portal, but no such portal is recited in the claims. Id. 8. Also, Mr.
Ivanoff describes that "VisitPay also includes functionality to track and
dynamically determine which System of Record (SOR) for each type of
patient billing domain should serve as the master record, then ensure that
each adjacent system honors that designation." Id. This set of functions also
is not claimed. Nor is the function to "update adjacent billing system(s) and
continuously synchronize information across all systems." Id. 9.
Mr. Ivanoff s Declaration, therefore, does not provide persuasive
evidence that the claims are not abstract ideas, or that the claims include an
inventive concept, or "something more," that transforms the abstract idea
into eligible subject matter.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as directed to
ineligible subject matter.
We see little meaningful difference between independent method
claim 1 and independent medium claim 15, because both are directed to the
same underlying invention. We also see little meaningful difference
between independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 24,
which recites a memory, processor, and medium including "engines" that are
each recited as performing numerous functions. Although we do not address
the specific algorithms in the Specification behind each software "engine,"
the claim on its face is directed to the same underlying invention as claim 1.
As the Federal Circuit has made clear "the basic character of a process claim
drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by
computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on
a computer readable medium." See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375-76
(citing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982)).
19
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
Dependent claims 3-5 limit the meaning of the data, such as requiring
the charges are from two different medical care transactions, or that two
people were patients. Claim 6 transforms data into a "normalized data
format." Claims 7 and 8 recite that the charges come from different billing
systems. Claim 9 recites receiving user input related to payment,
determining a payment date, and sending a message to affect payment.
Claims 10 and 11, each of which depends from claim 9, pay two different
billing systems. Claim 12 recites that payment options presented to the user
include "one-time payment, recurring payment, or payment-in-full," and
multi-payment options "are customized to dynamic elements" that include at
least one of a list of factors. Claim 13 recites that payment options are
"based on decisioning rules configured by the asset holder and an eventual
asset holder of the open charges." Claim 14 recites "wherein the selected
payment option is defined by the current repayment characteristics of the
user for one or more of: a minimum payment amount due, a maximum
duration, a maximum credit limit, an interest-free period, an amount of
interest to collect, or an interest rate for a given duration." The claims that
depend from independent claims 14 and 24 recite substantially identical
language.
The nature of the dependent claims does not alter the analysis or
conclusion of being directed to abstract ideas, because they primarily recite
changes in the nature of the data the system uses to present options to a user.
Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent in-eligible subject matter.
20
Appeal2017-004177
Application 14/971, 618
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a).
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-16, and 18-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l).
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1 and 3-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(b) (2008). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new [ e ]vidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
21