Jason Czaplewski et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2019

13705964 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/705,964 12/05/2012 Jason Czaplewski 79816-858396 1348
20350 7590 12/23/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2019 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON CZAPLEWSKI,
JAMES WEAVER,
GEORGE JOHN D'AMBROSIO,
MANISH PATEL, and KIM HIXSON

Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964
Technology Center 3600

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, and 22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Omnicell, Inc.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates generally to item dispensing, and
in particular to systems and methods for managing inventory at dispensing
units, such as a dispensing units in a medical or other healthcare facility”
(Spec., para. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A dispensing system, comprising:
a plurality of dispensing stations at a medical care facility,
each station having a plurality of storage locations for storing
items to be dispensed at the medical care facility, wherein the
dispensing stations are arranged in a plurality of station groups,
the plurality of station group each including a plurality of
dispensing stations, with at least a first one of the station group
comprising a plurality of dispensing stations at locations
providing acute medical care at the medical facility, the acute
care being a high level of care resulting from sudden or severe
health conditions, and with at least a second one of the station
groups comprising a plurality of dispensing stations at locations
providing non-acute medical care at the medical facility;
a database for storing inventory data relating to the items
stored at the dispensing stations; and
a processor programmed to execute a sequence of
instructions to cause the processor to display, at a display device,
information for a user, by:
providing a selection menu with displayed group
identifiers, each group identifier identifying one of the plurality
of station groups;
receiving from a user a selection at the selection menu of
a first one of the displayed group identifiers identifying the first
one of the station groups;
receiving from the user a selection at the selection menu
of a second one of the displayed group identifiers identifying the
second one of the station groups;
receiving from the user a time identifier identifying a
period of time for which the inventory data is to be displayed;
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

3
calculating statistical outliers from the inventory data for
at least one of station groups identified by the first and second
displayed group identifiers; and
displaying simultaneously, at the display device, at least
two graphic views of inventory data for the station groups
identified by the first and second selected group identifiers, with
the at least two graphic views displayed side-by-side.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Feeney, Jr. US 2002/0032582 A1 May 14, 2002
Hardaway US 2011/0054935 A1 Mar. 3, 2011
Stephens US 2011//0251850
A1
Oct. 13, 2011
The Math Forum (Ask Dr. Math: Questions and Answers from Our
Archives, 2/14/2000).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a),
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Feeney, Jr., Stephens, and The Math Forum.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Feeney, Jr., Stephens, The Math Forum, and Hardaway.
OPINION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a),
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

4
The Examiner states:
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite “displaying
simultaneously, at the display device, at least two graphic views
of inventory data for the station groups identified by the first and
second selected group identifiers, with the at least two graphic
views displayed side-by-side.” However, the specification and
drawings seem to disclose graphic views for only one selected
group at a time (e.g., either acute or non-acute), but not both.
Clarification is required.
Final Act. 3.
Appellant responds:
Appellant respectfully submits that the Specification and
drawings do in fact, disclose the display of graphic views for two
different selected groups, side-by-side. Appellant references,
e.g., Figure 2B of the drawings and paragraphs 0027 and 0047 of
the Specification.
Appeal Br. 6.
According to para. 47 of the Specification, widget 220 displays bars
“for inventory at a group identified as ‘MedSurg Applied’” and widget 222
displays vertical bars “for inventory at a group identified as ‘OR Applied’”.
Fig. 2 is a graphic view depicting both said bars next to each other. Given
this and that the Examiner has not addressed the sufficiency of this
disclosure, we find the evidence weighs in favor of Appellant’s position.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
claiming patent-ineligible subject matter.
Preliminary comment
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), hereinafter “2019 Revised 101 Guidance,”
supersedes the earlier guidance that was in effect at the time the Appeal
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

5
Brief was filed (Oct. 2, 2017). Id. at 51 (“Eligibility–related guidance issued
prior to the Ninth Edition, R–08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018)
should not be relied upon.”) Accordingly, we will not analyze the
sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection against the Office’s previous
guidance. Rather, our analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance.
Introduction
35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.”
In that regard, illustrative claim 1 (above) covers an “apparatus” and
is thus statutory subject matter for which a patent may be obtained.2 This is
not in dispute. The other independent claims on appeal, claim 9, is
nominally directed to the “process” statutory category of invention. That is
also not in dispute.
However, the § 101 provision “contains an important implicit
exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014);
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
In that regard, notwithstanding independent claims 1 and 9 are
statutory subject matter (as are the claims depending from them), the

2 This corresponds to Step 1 of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance which
requires determining whether a “claim is to a statutory category.” Id. at 53.
See also sentence bridging pages 53 and 54 (“consider[ ] whether the
claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable
subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101 . . . .”).
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

6
Examiner has raised a question of patent-eligibility on the ground that they
are directed to an abstract idea.
Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether
claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Alice step one – the “directed to” inquiry
According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” (Id. at 218
(emphasis added)).
The Examiner determined, inter alia, that the claims are “directed to
the abstract idea of managing inventory.” Final Act. 4. See also id. at 4–5:
This abstract idea, including the storing, displaying, providing,
receiving and displaying steps are similar to concepts involving
an idea of itself, and human activity relating to concepts
involving organizing information (e.g., Digitech Image Tech,
LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., and Ultramercial v. Hulu),
and concepts involving data recognition, collection, storage and
management (e.g., Content Extraction, TLI Communications,
and Electric Power Group), and concepts describing
mathematical relationships and algorithms (e.g., Benson, Flook
and Grams), all of which have been found by the courts to be
abstract ideas.
Appellant disagrees, contending, inter alia, that
When considering the recited language of the claims as a whole,
Appellant's claimed concept is much different than the concept
identified at the high level of abstraction used by the Examiner.
Specifically, Appellant submits that the claims are directed to the
concept of specially programmed computer systems and methods
for dispensing items, with a plurality of dispensing stations at a
medical care facility arranged in station groups that each include
a plurality of dispensing stations, where the station groups are
arranged with a first of the station groups of dispensing stations
being at locations providing acute medical care and with a second
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

7
of the station groups of dispensing station being at locations
providing non-acute medical care.
Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant submits that the focus of the claimed
invention/claimed advance over the prior art is the specifically
recited computer implemented operations (as described above)
involving an arrangement of dispensing station groups having
different levels of care (acute and non-acute), the use of group
identifiers to select those different station groups, and displaying
graphic views for the recited inventory data for the different
station groups simultaneously and side-by-side. The focus of the
claimed invention is not the generalized idea characterized by the
Examiner of “managing inventory.”
Id. at 10. See also id. at 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 (“The present claimed concept
. . . is ‘directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate’
(e.g., arranging dispensing stations and groups according to level of care,
and using group identifiers) and also ‘imparts a specific functionality’ (e.g.,
displays inventory data for two station groups, simultaneously and site-by-
side).”)
Accordingly, there is a dispute over what the claims are directed to.
Are they directed to the “managing inventory” (Final Act. 3) or a
technological improvement, “e.g., arranging dispensing stations and groups
according to level of care, and using group identifiers” (App. Br. 18).
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

8
Claim Construction3
Focusing on claim 1 (the other independent claim 9 is substantially
similar to and parallels claim 1), we consider it as a whole4 giving it the
broadest reasonable construction5 as one of ordinary skill in the art would
have interpreted it in light of the Specification6 at the time of filing.
Claim 1 describes a “dispensing system.” It comprises three
elements: (a) “a plurality of dispensing stations at a medical care facility”;
(b) “a database”; and (c) “a processor programmed to execute a sequence of

3 “[T]he important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim.”
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “In Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the court observed that
“claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
determination under § 101.” However, the threshold of § 101 “must be
crossed; an event often dependent on the scope and meaning of the claims.”
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1347–48
(Fed. Cir. 2015).

4 “In determining the eligibility of respondents’ claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, their claims must be considered as a whole.”
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981).

5 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, page 52, footnote 14 (“If a claim, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation . . . .”) (Emphasis added.)

6 “First, it is always important to look at the actual language of the claims.
. . . Second, in considering the roles played by individual limitations, it is
important to read the claims ‘in light of the specification.’” Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (J. Linn, dissenting in part and concurring in part), citing Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), among
others.

Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

9
instructions to cause the processor to display, at a display device,
information for a user.”
According to the claim, each station of the plurality of dispensing
station (a) has a plurality of storage locations for storing items to be
dispensed at the medical care facility, wherein the dispensing stations are
arranged in a plurality of station groups, the plurality of station group each
including a plurality of dispensing stations, with at least a first one of the
station group comprising a plurality of dispensing stations at locations
providing acute medical care at the medical facility, the acute care being a
high level of care resulting from sudden or severe health conditions, and
with at least a second one of the station groups comprising a plurality of
dispensing stations at locations providing non-acute medical care at the
medical facility.
The database (b) “stor[es] inventory data relating to the items stored at
the dispensing stations.”
And the processor (c) causes information to be displayed for a user by
providing a selection menu with displayed group
identifiers, each group identifier identifying one of the plurality
of station groups;
receiving from a user a selection at the selection menu of
a first one of the displayed group identifiers identifying the first
one of the station groups;
receiving from the user a selection at the selection menu
of a second one of the displayed group identifiers identifying the
second one of the station groups;
receiving from the user a time identifier identifying a
period of time for which the inventory data is to be displayed;
calculating statistical outliers from the inventory data for
at least one of station groups identified by the first and second
displayed group identifiers; and
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

10
displaying simultaneously, at the display device, at least
two graphic views of inventory data for the station groups
identified by the first and second selected group identifiers, with
the at least two graphic views displayed side-by-side.
The claimed system comprises a combination of at least two
dispensing stations arranged in station groups depending on the level of care
they provide and a processor; the processor being programmed to provide a
selection menu at a display device displaying identifiers for said station
groups by which a user can selects said groups;
receiv[e] from [a] user a time identifier identifying a period of
time for which [ ] inventory data [relating to items stored at the
dispensing stations] is to be displayed; calculate[e] statistical
outliers from the inventory data for at least one of station
groups identified by the first and second displayed group
identifiers; and display[] simultaneously, at the display device,
at least two graphic views of inventory data for the station
groups identified by the first and second selected group
identifiers . . . side-by-side.
Claim 1.
Figure 1 of the Specification discloses said combination; that is, it
illustrates the arrangement of dispensing stations into station groups
connected to a management system. Details of the management system are
shown in Fig. 12, while Figs. 2 and 3, for example, show a dashboard screen
and selection menu, respectively.
The Specification discusses the arrangement of dispensing stations
into station groups in various places. See e.g., id. paras. 25 and 36. Para. 28
states the following (emphasis added):
[0028] The grouping of dispensing stations can be useful in the
management of inventory. In one embodiment, dispensing
stations located where emergency or acute care is provided are
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

11
grouped separately from other dispensing stations in the facility
(e.g., those located where general or less intensive care is
provided). Dispensing stations involving emergency or acute
care typically have inventory levels that are more difficult to
predict (sometimes requiring higher levels of stock to avoid
depletion during emergencies). Workflow compliance, such as
requiring nurses to enter data (scanning bar codes and the like),
can be more difficult at such stations because of the
circumstances surrounding the level of care provided,
particularly the urgent need for items during that care. By
grouping stations according to the level of care (e.g., stations at
locations requiring a higher level of care are grouped together),
inventory can be more effectively managed using the techniques
described herein.
This disclosure supports viewing the arrangement of dispensing stations into
station groups as not being an insignificant element of the claimed system
but the opposite: “[b]y grouping stations according to the level of care . . .
inventory can be more effectively managed using the [inventory
management] techniques described herein.” Id.
Earlier in the Specification, it is stated that
conventional inventory reporting systems are often not suitable
for tracking pharmaceuticals and other supplies in a medical
facility, such as a hospital, where there can be significant
differences in the level of care provided where dispensing
stations are located. Some locations may have predictable and
routine uses of supplies (making inventory management
somewhat straight forward), but other locations (such as at
emergency and critical care units) may be difficult to manage.
For example, nurses in emergency and critical care locations
might need supplies quickly and have little time to enter data for
items being dispensed. It can also be difficult at those locations
to predict, at any point in time, the type and quantity of items that
may be needed. Thus, unlike routine medical care locations,
supplies for higher levels of care may need to be monitored
frequently and always fully stocked to assure immediate
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

12
availability when needed. At the same time, inventory managers
need to monitor dispensing stations at all levels of care to avoid
mismanagement of supplies by users and, especially, improper
diversion of addictive items, such as narcotics, that may be
stocked at the dispensing stations.
Id. para. 6.
This goes to the problem of locating pharmaceuticals in dispensing stations
that may be needed more quickly than others. Grouping the stations as
claimed helps solve this problem. See also id. para. 28 reproduced above.
Consistent with the intrinsic evidence, we reasonably broadly construe
claim 1 as being directed to the combination of at least two dispensing
stations arranged in station groups depending on the level of care they
provide and a computer-enabled inventory management system performing
certain providing, receiving, calculating, and displaying functions for
managing inventory in said stations, as claimed.
The Abstract Idea7
Normally, we would identify in italics in the illustrative claim the
limitations that recite an abstract idea.8 However, based on our claim
construction analysis (above), it is unnecessary to do so. The subject matter
to which claim 1 is directed to, i.e., the combination of at least two

7 See Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. Step 2A determines
“whether a claim is ‘directed to’ a judicial exception,” such as an abstract
idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Step 2A is a two prong inquiry.

8 See Prong One (a) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under
examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes
recites an abstract idea . . . .” Id. at 54.

Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

13
dispensing stations arranged in station groups and a computer-enabled
inventory management system as claimed, is not subject matter that falls
within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas; that is, “Mathematical
concepts,” “Certain methods of organizing human activity,” and “Mental
processes.” 9
Improvement in the Functioning of a Computer10 (Appellants’
Argument)
Notwithstanding that the claimed subject matter does not fall within
the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 Revised 101
Guidance, the claimed subject matter nevertheless reflects a specific asserted
technological improvement over that which was available in the prior art.

9 See Prong One [“Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception”] (b) of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “To
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners
are now to: . . . (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within
the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section 1 of the
[2019 Revised 101 Guidance].” Id. at 54.
10 See Prong Two (“If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate
Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application”)
of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance. “A claim that integrates a
judicial exception into a practical application will 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.” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54. One consideration, implicated here, that is “indicative that an
additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the
exception into a practical application” (id. at 55) as if “[a]n additional
element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
improvement to other technology or technical field” (id.).

Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

14
The Examiner’s characterization of what the claim is directed to is
inaccurate. The Examiner indicated that the claim is “directed to the abstract
idea of managing inventory.” Final Act. 4. In making the determination
under Alice step one, the Examiner focused on “the storing, displaying,
providing, receiving and displaying steps.” Id. at 4. But there is more going
on than that. It is true that said steps set forth in claim 1 — as well as in
claim 9 — describe a technique for managing inventory. However, there is
also the matter of the arrangement of at least two dispensing stations in
station groups depending on the level of care they provide. As the
Specification states, this “grouping of dispensing stations can be useful in
the management of inventory . . . By grouping stations according to the level
of care (e.g., stations at locations requiring a higher level of care are grouped
together), inventory can be more effectively managed using the techniques
described herein.” Spec. para. 28. Also the Specification suggests doing so
helps solve a problem with locating urgent medical supplies. Accordingly,
characterizing the claim as simply being directed to “the abstract idea of
managing inventory” misses a focus of the invention and glosses over an
advance over the prior art. Claim 1, as we have reasonably broadly
construed it, is the combination of the station grouping and the steps for
managing inventory in said stations, not managing inventory alone.
It is the characterization the Appellant has put forward, e.g., the
focus of the claimed invention . . . namely, an arrangement of
dispensing station groups having different levels of care (acute
and non-acute), the use of group identifiers to select those
different station groups, and displaying graphic views for the
recited inventory data for the different station groups
simultaneously and side-by-side
(App. Br. 11), that is the more accurate characterization.
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

15
“The ‘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., LLC v. DirectTV, 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. As the Federal Circuit stated
in Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2018):
We examine the patent’s “‘claimed advance’ to
determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.”
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2018). “In cases involving software innovations, this
inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the 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. (quoting Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1285–86 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Computers are
improved not only through changes in hardware; “[s]oftware
can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology .
. . .” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304.
We have several times held claims to pass muster under Alice
step one when sufficiently focused on such improvements.
The Specification’s description of the problem and solution shows the
advance over the prior art by the claimed invention is not simply the steps
for “managing inventory” (Final Act. 3) but, in addition to that, an
arrangement of dispensing station groups having different levels of care.
In our view, the claimed combination reflects a specific asserted
technological improvement over that which was available in the prior art.
Accordingly, we find the Appellant’s arguments that the claimed subject
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

16
matter is not directed to managing inventory per se persuasive, given the
present record.
Specific asserted improvements, when claimed, can render claimed
subject matter not directed to an abstract idea. Cf. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“When
looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological
improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques.”)
It should be noted that we have addressed purported specific asserted
improvements in technology under step one of the Alice framework. This is
consistent with the case law. See Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1347 (“We have
several times held claims to pass muster under Alice step one when
sufficiently focused on such improvements.”). It can be discussed under
step two of the Alice framework as well. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[R]ecent Federal Circuit
jurisprudence has indicated that eligible subject matter can often be
identified either at the first or the second step of the Alice/Mayo
[framework].” 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53; see also id.
n.17.
We note that the Examiner addressed the station grouping in the step
two analysis. See Final Act. 5–7:
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter
alia, a plurality of dispensing stations at a medical care facility,
each station having a plurality of storage locations for storing
items to be dispensed at the medical care facility, wherein the
dispensing stations are arranged in a plurality of station groups,
the plurality of station groups each including a plurality of
dispensing stations, with at least a first one of the station groups
comprising dispensing stations at locations providing acute
medical care at the medical facility, and with at least a second
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

17
one of the station groups comprising dispensing stations at
locations providing non-acute medical care at the medical
facility, a database, and a processor programmed to execute a
sequence of instructions to cause the processor to display, at a
display device, information for a user.
However, there isn't any improvement to another
technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer
itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a
computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the
limitations add nothing more than what is present when the
limitations are considered individually. There is no indication
that the Page 6
combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the
computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraph 0069 of the
specification, “The computer system 1200 is shown comprising
hardware elements that may be electrically coupled via a bus
1290. The hardware elements may include one or more central
processing units 1210, one or more input devices 1220 (e.g., a
mouse, a keyboard, scanner, etc.), and one or more output
devices 1230 (e.g., a display device, a printer, etc.). The
computer system 1200 may also include one or more storage
devices 1240, representing remote, local, fixed, and/or
removable storage devices and storage media for temporarily
and/or more permanently containing computer readable
information, and one or more storage media reader(s) 1250 for
accessing the storage device(s) 1240. By way of example,
storage device(s) 1240 may be disk drives, optical storage
devices, solid-state storage device such as a random access
memory (“RAM”) and/or a read-only memory (“ROM”), which
can be programmable, flash- updateable or the like. ”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more
than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously, known to the pertinent industry, is required
by the claims.
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

18
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do
not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract
idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such
that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice
Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S.
June 19, 2014).
The Examiner’s cogent and comprehensive analysis notwithstanding,
the difficulty with the analysis is that it does not take into account the
Specification disclosure (see para. 28 reproduced above) supporting
Appellant’s view that the arrangement of station groupings as claimed is a
focus of the invention. The Specification supports the view that this is an
advance over the prior art inventory management techniques. It is a
significant element of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, in disclosing that “[b]y grouping stations according to
the level of care (e.g., stations at locations requiring a higher level of care
are grouped together), inventory can be more effectively managed using the
techniques described herein” (para. 28), there is sufficient evidence in the
record before us that the claimed subject matter reflects a specific asserted
improvement in technology over that which was practiced in the art and for
that reason we determine that independent claim 1, and independent claim 9,
and the claims depending therefrom, are not directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, within the meaning of the 2019 Revised 101 Guidance, we find
there is an integration into a practical application.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s determination under Alice
step one is not sustainable. Consequently, we do not reach the merits of
Examiner’s determination under Alice step two.
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

19
The rejection is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–13 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Feeney, Jr., Stephens, and The Math Forum.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on Feeney, Jr. as
allegedly disclosing
a plurality of dispensing stations at a medical care facility, each
station having a plurality of storage locations for storing items to
be dispensed at the medical care facility, wherein the dispensing
stations are arranged in a plurality of station groups, the plurality
of station group each including a plurality of dispensing stations,
with at least a first one of the station group comprising a plurality
of dispensing stations at locations providing acute medical care
at the medical facility, the acute care being a high level of care
resulting from sudden or severe health conditions, and with at
least a second one of the station groups comprising a plurality of
dispensing stations at locations providing non-acute medical care
at the medical facility.
Claim 1. See Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner cites paras. 25, 64, 181,
and 183. We have reviewed said disclosures but, as Appellant shows by
reproducing said cited disclosures (Appeal Br. 21–23), they “do not disclose
or suggest ‘a first one of the station groups comprising dispensing stations at
locations providing acute medical care at the medical facility, and with at
least a second one of the station groups comprising dispensing stations at
locations providing non–acute medical care at the medical facility,’ as in
claim 1.” Id. at 23.
For the foregoing reason, the rejection is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Feeney, Jr., Stephens, The Math Forum, and Hardaway.
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

20
This rejection is not sustained for the reason discussed above in not
sustaining the rejection of the respective independent claims on which these
claims depend.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 and 22
is reversed.
More specifically:
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–14 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to judicially-excepted subject matter is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–13, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feeney, Jr., Stephens, and The Math
Forum is reversed.
The rejection of claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Feeney, Jr., Stephens, The Math Forum, and Hardaway is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, 22 § 112, first
paragraph
1, 2, 4–7, 9–
14, 22
1, 2, 4–7, 9–14, 22 § 101  1, 2, 4–7, 9–
14 22
Appeal 2018–004402
Application 13/705,964

21
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6, 9–13, 22 § 103 over Feeney,
Jr., Stephens, The
Math Forum.
1, 2, 4–6, 9–
13, 22
7, 14 § 103 over Feeney,
Jr., Stephens, The
Math Forum,
Hardaway. 
7, 14
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–7, 9–
14, 22

REVERSED