Ex Parte Semen et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 8, 201913772833 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/772,833 02/21/2013 Timothy Semen 147311 7590 07/10/2019 Botos Churchill IP Law LLP 430 Mountain A venue Suite 401 New Providence, NJ 07974 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. RESMED 3.0-100 (836) 7550 EXAMINER TIEDEMAN, JASON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/10/2019 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): pto@bciplaw.com rchurchill@bciplaw.com rbotos@bciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY SEMEN, NATALIE ZOTELO, PETER DELANGRE, SAMUEL ROBERT CA VENAGH, CHARLES FORDWICH BLAXLAND, and DANIEL MARK LIVOLSI Appeal2017-009246 1 Application 13/772,833 2 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing held June 27, 2019. 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ResMed Limited (Appeal Br. 1 ). Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3 Timothy Semen, Natalie Zotelo, Peter Delangre, Samuel Robert Cavenagh, Charles Fordwich Blaxland, and Daniel Mark Livolsi (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-26, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a way of providing healthcare professionals and flow generator providers with a simple and fast way to track medical device usage compliance for a number of patients. Specification para. 4. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method comprising: [ 1] communicating, by one or more processors, over a network with a plurality of medical devices to request medical device usage data for a plurality of medical device users; [2] receiving and storing the usage data; 3 Our Decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed January 17, 2017) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 15, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 19, 2017), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 14, 2016). 2 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 [3] determining, with the one or more processors, whether the plurality of medical device users are compliant, wherein compliance is based on whether the received medical device usage data for a respective user device satisfies predetermined usage criteria; [ 4] receiving a request for compliance data for one or more of the medical device users; [5] providing for display, by one or more processors, a compliance indication for each of the one or more medical device users, wherein each compliance indication is based on whether a particular medical device user, of the one or more medical device users, has been determined to be compliant; [6] providing for display, by the one or more processors, a compliance report icon associated with at least one of the displayed compliance indications; [7] receiving a signal indicating that the compliance report icon has been selected; and [8] in response to the compliance report icon having been selected, automatically generating, by the one or more processors, a compliance report indicating whether the at least one medical device user associated with the selected compliance report icon is compliant with respect to the usage criteria. 3 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Yurko US 2003/0208465 Al Ray US 2005/0267780 Al Nov. 6, 2003 Dec. 1, 2005 Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-15 and 23-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Yurko and Ray. Claims 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Yurko, Ray, and Admitted Prior Art. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes icons and reports that are encompassed within the scope of those recited in the claims. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Yurko 01. Yurko is directed to managing medically-related information. Yurko para. 3. 02. Yurko describes a central database resident on a computing system, and the central database includes multiple disparate data fields containing data pertaining to patient-related information. 4 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 The system has a user interface in communication with the central database for accepting user input and transmitting system output. A visual display is in communication with the user interface and displays the disparate data fields in selected or selectable formats. In a preferred embodiment, the system includes a report generating module and a download management module, both of which are in communication with the central database. Yurko para. 18. 03. Yurko describes the inputted data as including compliance data, which are data indicative of a patient's compliance with a prescribed pressure support therapy. Yurko para. 34. 04. Yurko describes predetermined or pre-formatted reports for user selection. For example, this may be useful for reports that are typically and continually used for assessment purposes and should be at the user's "fingertips." Yurko para. 36. 05. Yurko describes that its FIG. 6 illustrates a reports screen listing the predetermined reports available for an individual patient. These reports include, but are not limited to, a compliance report that tracks the patient usage of the medical equipment, an FOSQ trend report, and a patient demographics report. The reports screen is accessed, for example, by selecting the "reports" item listed in the common tasks section of the toolbar from the patient home page. Each of these available reports can be generated by selecting, i.e., clicking, on the desired report from the reports screen. Yurko para. 63. 5 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 06. Yurko describes that its Figs. 18A-19B illustrate screens for creating and presenting aggregate reports, which are reports that display information about the entire patient database, rather than information about a single patient. Yurko para. 98. Ray 07. Ray is directed to methods and systems for use by healthcare professionals to manage a patient's health. Ray para. 2. 08. Ray describes reports of the organized data being printed out automatically. The reports may be configured to display data generated over any period of time, for example, in order for the healthcare professional to observe new trends against historical data. Ray para. 6. 09. Ray describes transmitting patient-specific glucose event and trend information, medication compliance from a medical device to a computer. Ray para. 22. 10. Ray describes software providing trend graphs that display causes of glycemic events, e.g., food, medication, exercise, stress, in a unique iconic format. Ray para. 23. 11. Ray, referring to its Fig. 6, describes data points or glycemic events falling below minimum value and above maximum value being tagged with various icons symbolic of the glycemic event. Additional details, e.g., the specific type of event, date and time of the event or glucose measurement, the value of measurement, user comments, etc., about an event are displayed when a mouse is hovered over the corresponding event icon. Ray para. 33. 6 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 ANALYSIS Claims 1-26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ajudicial exception without significantly more STEP 11 Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ... determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept'"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Alice Corp. v CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Sers. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite 4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). 7 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 one of the judicial exceptions ( a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims "apply, 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." Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 1 recites requesting, receiving, and storing usage data, determining whether data describing users show compliance receiving a request for, and providing compliance data, providing a compliance report icon for display, receiving selection data, and generating a report. Determining whether data show compliance is rudimentary analysis by checking against decision criteria. Providing data is transmission. Generating a report is rudimentary analysis and display. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. 8 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts, 5 (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, 6 and (3) mental processes. 7 Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial and legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of medical compliance reporting. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to report compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data. The advice to report compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data involves compliance reporting, which is a medical and legal act, and collecting compliance data, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of medical commerce. For example, claim 1 recites "generating ... a compliance report," which is an activity that would take place whenever one is reporting medical compliance. Similarly, claim 1 recites "determining ... 5 See, e.g., Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160--61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 7 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 9 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 whether the plurality of medical device users are compliant," which is also characteristic of compliance reporting. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to determining and reporting compliance with medical device usage requirements. Final Act. 2. The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 1 result in a report indicating medical compliance absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations 1, 2, 4, and 7 recite generic data reception and storage. Limitations 5, 6, and 8 recite transmitting and displaying of compliance data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. Limitation 3 recites rudimentary analysis absent any technological implementation details. The limitations thus recite advice for reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data. To advocate reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 4 describes the invention as relating to providing healthcare professionals and flow generator providers with a simple and fast way to track medical device usage compliance for a number of patients. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 is directed to providing medical compliance information, i.e., medical compliance reporting. This is consistent with the Examiner's determination. This in tum is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because compliance is a legal requirement and reporting of compliance is a legal interaction. The concept 10 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 of medical compliance reporting by reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data is one idea for collecting the data for reporting. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (2017) (selection of items); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC, 873 F.3d at 1372 (collection, storage, and recognition of data). Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, storage, analysis, transmission, and display and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation"). As such, claim 1 is directed to receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. 11 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 is directed to medical compliance reporting by reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e., integrated into a practical application. 8 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. "[A]pplication[s]" of such concepts "'to a new and useful end,"' we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the "'buildin[g] block[ s] "' of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps 1, 2, 4, and 7 are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter 8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). 12 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 this. Steps 5, 6, and 8 are insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step 3 recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so presents no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellants' claim 1 simply recites the concept of medical compliance reporting by reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not recite any particular implementation. Claim 1 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. The 15 pages of Specification do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment9 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of medical compliance reporting by reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a 9 The Specification describes a personal computer, such as a desktop or mobile computer. Spec. para. 23. 13 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply medical compliance reporting by reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of medical compliance reporting by advising one to report compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 14 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words 'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."' Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implement[t]" an abstract idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted). "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval----one of the most basic 15 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' .. . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP Am., Inc. 898 F.3d at 1168. Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellants' claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-storage-analysis- transmission-display is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc., 772 F.3d at 715 (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 16 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 1 is representative. The other independent method claim 16 is substantially similar at least as regards to this analysis. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the draftsman's art. '" Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations, we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this, we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and 17 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 legal interaction of medical compliance reporting by reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data, without significantly more. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action 2-7 and Answer 3-13 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "claims improve the manner in which medical device usage compliance for a number of patients may be tracked and presented." Reply Br. 2. The claims only recite a conceptual idea for doing so, viz. reporting compliance as requested by selecting an icon representing a set of medical device compliance data. The claims do not recite technological implementation details. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) case Appellants cite is non-precedential and distinguishable. Reply Br. 3. The claims in Trading Technologies recited "dynamically displaying a second indicator in one of a plurality of locations in an ask display region, each location in the ask display region corresponding to a price level along the common static price axis." No such dynamic positioning of data is recited in the claims at hand. In a related 18 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 precedential Trading Technologies case, also reciting a graphical user interface, the Court held "[t]he claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology." Trading Techs. Int 'l, Inc. v. !BG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Similarly, the claims here are focused on providing information to users in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the condition of whether a patient is compliant in using a medical device is a specified condition that is based on a particular set of usage criteria." Reply Br. 4. Using decision criteria to produce a decision is generic conceptual analysis. Appellants further argue that the asserted claims are akin to the claims found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Reply Br. 5. In DDR Holdings, the Court evaluated the eligibility of claims "address[ing] the problem of retaining website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host's website after 'clicking' on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink." Id. at 1257. There, the court found that the claims were patent eligible because they transformed the manner in which a hyperlink typically functions to resolve a problem that had no "pre-Internet analog." Id. at 1258. The court cautioned, however, "that not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent." Id. For example, in DDR Holdings the court distinguished the patent-eligible claims at issue from claims found patent-ineligible in Ultramercial. See id. at 1258-59 ( citing 19 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 Ultramercial, 772 F .3d at 715-16). As noted there, the Ultramercial claims were "directed to a specific method of advertising and content distribution that was previously unknown and never employed on the Internet before." Id. at 1258 (quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715- 16). Nevertheless, those claims were patent ineligible because they "merely recite[d] the abstract idea of 'offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,' along with 'routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the Internet."' Id. Appellants' asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings. The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited "providing [a] media product for sale at an Internet website"; "restricting general public access to said media product"; "receiving from the consumer a request to view [a] sponsor message"; and "if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query." 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellants' asserted claims recite receiving, storing, analyzing, transmitting, and displaying data. This is precisely the type of Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims are analogous to those in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 5. The claims differ from those found patent eligible in Enfzsh, where the claims were "specifically directed to a self- referential table fora computer database." 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims thus were "directed to a specific improvement to the 20 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 way computers operate" rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of deciding compliance, our reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer "do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter." Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in FairWarning, wherein claims reciting "a few possible rules to analyze the audit log data" were found directed an abstract idea because they asked "the same questions ( though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades." Fair Warning, 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the compliance reports that are generated are real and have practical application, enabling a user to quickly gauge compliance for a plurality of patients and generate detailed reports with a single click." We do not dispute that information has value. That does not elevate the information beyond the realm of abstract subject matter. "Information, whether displayed in the form of price values or P&L values, is abstract." Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims do not preempt the recited subject matter. Reply Br. 7. "Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo [/Alice] framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully 21 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 addressed and made moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claims 1-15 and 23-26 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over Yurko and Ray As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action 8-18 and Answer 13-19 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Examiner's Answer conflates two different types of data identified in Ray, i.e., data relating to 'compliance' and data relating to the 'cause of a glycemic event."' Reply Br. 8. Appellants point out that Ray describes both data directly attributable to compliance and data regarding glycemic events. This argues that Ray describes glycemic event icons and reports rather than compliance icons and reports. Initially, we note that Appellants do not contest the icon and report generated from an icon per se, only the label for the icon and report. The label is given no patentable weight for being printed matter and non- functional. Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cf In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability). Also labels cannot distinguish over the art. Application of Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) ("The specific limitation need not be disclosed in haec verba in the reference"). There is 22 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 also no structural or functional difference imparted by labels; they only serve to apply a known process/structure to a specific context. But even granting weight, first, given that Ray explicitly describes compliance data labeled as such, and the ubiquity of using icons for different applications, it was at least predictable to associate different icons with different reports for reporting Ray's explicitly labeled compliance data. Second, just because Ray describes data labeled as compliance data does not mean the data and icons shown on Ray Fig. 6 are not also within the scope of compliance data and icons. The icons relate to events such as food, medication, and exercise. A report is generated when the mouse hovers above an icon. Such events are at least indicative of a level of compliance with respect to these parts of a regimen. As to separately argued claim 16, Appellants argue that Yurko does not describe "receiving a plurality of compliance indications for the plurality of medical device users" and "in response to the compliance report icon having been selected, receiving a plurality of compliance reports for a set of medical device users." Claim 16, Reply Br. 9. Yurko explicitly describes receiving data regarding plural users and generating aggregate reports. Thus, Yurko describes receiving claim 1 type data from plural users, which describes the first contested limitation. Given that Yurko also describes generating aggregate reports from selecting a report choice, it was at least predictable to also print the individual patient reports making up the aggregate as well, if only to provide all the information needed to drill down into the aggregate report. 23 Appeal2017-009246 Application 13/772,833 Claims 16--22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yurko, Ray, and Admitted Prior Art This is not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 1-15 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yurko and Ray is proper. The rejection of claims 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yurko, Ray, and Admitted Prior Art is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-26 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 24 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation