KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2021000667 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/899,764 12/18/2015 Richard E Gregg 2012P01455WOUS 8349
24737 7590 06/01/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
COLEMAN, CHARLES P.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD E. GREGG
__________________

Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. See Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims address a problem with electrocardiogram (“ECG”) device
reports in which ECG readers edit or change an ECG interpretation without
also considering whether those changes require an update to the severity of
the ECG report. Spec. 2:11–18, 3:15–4:4. The claims recite a type ahead
module that predicts a next word, phrase, code, or category input by a user
based on alphanumeric key strokes and a context probability (claim 1), a
report review and edit module that automatically updates the severity of the
ECG report in response to edits to interpretations of the ECG report (claim
8), and automatic updates to the severity of the ECG report based on ECG
interpretation statements and a predetermined set of rules (claim 14). See
Appeal Br. 18–21 (Claims App.).
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 14 is reproduced to
illustrate this claimed subject.
14. A method by an electrocardiograph device for updating
an electrocardiogram (ECG) report of a ECG test, the method
comprising:
automatically generating, by the electrocardiograph
device, an interpretation of the ECG report including a plurality
of ECG interpretation statements and a severity of the ECG
report; and
automatically updating, by the electrocardiograph device,
the severity of an ECG report based upon the ECG
interpretation statements in view of a predetermined set of
rules.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

3
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1–20
Appellant presents arguments for independent claims 1, 8, and 14.
Appeal Br. 11–16. Claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–20 stand or fall with their
respective independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner analyzes the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and
14 and determines they recite a method of organizing human behavior and
mental processes. Specifically, the Examiner determines that generating an
interpretation of the ECG report automatically and enhancing the editing of
an interpretation of ECG reports by predicting a next word, phrase, code, or
category in claim 1, generating interpretations of ECG reports, enhancing
and editing interpretations, and updating severities in claim 8, and generat-
ing interpretations and updating severities in claim 14 are mental processes.
Final Act. 3, 5; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner determines the enhancing feature
also recites a certain method of organizing human behavior. Final Act. 3, 4.
The Examiner determines that reciting a processor and memory that
perform these limitations, as in claims 1 and 8, does not add a meaningful
limitation on practicing the abstract idea. It merely links the abstract idea to
a particular technological environment without improving computers. Final
Act. 3, 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner determines that “a type ahead module” and
“a review and edit module” are recited as generic elements that perform
basic data processing using a generic computer processor to perform generic
computer functions as ordinary mental processes. Final Act. 5. For similar
reasons, the Examiner further determines that performing conventional data
processing steps of generating, enhancing, editing, updating, and predicting
does not provide an inventive concept. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4–6.
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

4
Principles of Law
Whoever 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, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.2 Id. at 52–55.

2 “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.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

5
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) amounts to an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do Claims 1, 8, and 14 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 8, and 14 recite certain
methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which are
abstract ideas. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appellant is addressing a problem in which readers of ECG reports
edit or change an ECG interpretation without also considering whether those
changes require an update to the severity of the ECG report. Spec. 2:11–18,
3:15–4:4. The ECG report collects and analyzes ECG signals from patients
and classifies the severity as “normal” or “abnormal” with variations. Id. at
1:11–24. As claimed, such data collection, analysis, and display involves
mental processes. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But merely selecting information, by content
or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit
exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract
ideas.”); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 816 F. App’x 471, 475 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (claims to collecting, analyzing, and displaying cardiac data is an
abstract idea based on Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–54 and other cases).
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

6
We agree with the Examiner that but for reciting the generic computer
components of a processor and a memory, the claimed features organize
human activity in ECG reports and can be performed as mental processes.
An ECG interpretation module that generates an automatic interpretation of
the ECG report, a type ahead module that enhances editing of interpretations
of the ECG report by predicting a next word, phrase, code, or category, and
a report review and edit module that enhances editing of the interpretation of
the ECG report to update the severity of the ECG report automatically are
recited in claims 1, 8, and 14 as features that replicate the mental steps that
doctors and other medical personnel would perform to edit and update ECG
report interpretations. See In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 795 (Fed. Cir. 1982)
(claims recited an abstract idea where they replaced, in part, the thinking
processes of a neurologist with a computer algorithm that represented a
mental process that a neurologist should follow); SmartGene, Inc. v. Adv.
Biol. Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 954–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims to
receiving patient information and generating a ranked list of available
therapeutic treatment regimens with advisory information by using a set of
expert rules replicated the steps that doctors routinely and consciously
perform and thus claimed a mental process in the abstract ideas category).
Indeed, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s determination that
the claims recite the abstract ideas identified above. See Appeal Br. 11–15.
Instead, Appellant argues that claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to enhancing
or improving upon the generation of an automatic interpretation of the ECG
report. Id. at 12–13. We address these arguments under Prong Two.
Thus, we determine that claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the abstract ideas
identified above.
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

7
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claims 1, 8, and 14 recite any additional
elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that
claims 1, 8, and 14 lack additional elements that improve a computer or
other technology or implement the abstract ideas in conjunction with a
particular machine that is integral to the claim. See id. at 55; Final Act. 3–4.
Nor do they include additional elements that transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract ideas in a meaningful
way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. Id.
The Examiner correctly determines that the “processor” is a generic
computer component that performs generic functions of storing, retrieving,
and processing information to interpret, edit, and update the ECG reports.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. The Specification describes the processor generically
as part of workstation 112 that includes one or more processors 114 and
memory for storing programs and applications. Spec. 9:16–20. Memory
116 may store an ECG editing system 152 that includes type ahead module
124 configured to interpret key strokes, and report review and edit module
128 that analyzes and adjusts ECG severity automatically. Id. at 9:21–10:3.
The processor and memory store and run applications and modules
without any technical improvement. Thus, they do not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
ideas into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding
the words “apply it”’ is not enough for patent eligibility.”) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

8
Appellant argues that “claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to enhancing
(i.e., improving) upon a generation of an automatic interpretation of the
ECG report” by performing limitations in each claim. Appeal Br. 12–13.
To support this assertion, Appellant underlines limitations in each claim
such as the type ahead module in claim 1, the report review and edit module
in claim 8, and the automatic updating in claim 14. Id. at 13–14.
This “argument” is not persuasive because the features relied upon by
Appellant for integration are features of the abstract idea identified under
Prong One. Thus, they are not additional elements that integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
n.24 (“additional elements” are features, limitations, and steps recited in the
claim beyond the identified judicial exception); Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a
claim to an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure it does
not monopolize the abstract idea and must do more than simply state an
abstract idea with the words “apply it” for a transformation).
Without more, merely reciting claim features and asserting that they
enhance the generation of automatic interpretation of ECG reports does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner’s determination that these features recite
an abstract idea without improving computers or other technology. See
Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–5. Underlining limitations does not explain why the
limitations are improvements to computers or other technology. Nor has
Appellant cited to the Specification to show that these features recite some
improvements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (appeal brief must include arguments of an
appellant explaining why the examiner erred for each ground of rejection
contested); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

9
Here, claims 1, 8, and 14 do not recite improvements to computers or
other technology. At best, they improve the abstract idea identified above.
See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding
and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can
generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”); Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim
for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”).
No technical details are recited for the type ahead module’s editing of
the ECG report interpretation. It simply predicts a next word, phrase, code,
or category in response to edits to the interpretation based on alphanumeric
key strokes and a context probability. No technical details are claimed for
the report and review module’s editing of the ECG interpretation to update
the severity of the ECG report. The modules properly are considered as part
of the abstract idea identified under Prong One. In short,
the claims here do not “ha[ve] the specificity required to
transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one
claiming a way of achieving it.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Merely claiming
“those functions in general terms, without limiting them to
technical means for performing the functions that are arguably
an advance,” does not make a claim eligible at step one.
Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1328
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted); see also Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life
Assur. Co., of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1277–78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A]
“computer” is “an automatic electronic device for performing mathematical
or logical operations.”).
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

10
Regarding the alleged improvements that enhance the automatic
interpretation of ECG reports, our reviewing court advised the following:
Here, the purported improvement is the abstract idea of
classification and filtering of data, not an improvement in the
functioning of computer capabilities. On their face, the claims
are directed to collecting (“receiving a cardiac biological
signal”), classifying (“classifying the events”), and filtering
data into groups based on identifying characteristics
(“determining a measure of merit,” “comparing the measure of
merit”), and transmitting the data for review. Claims that
“merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter data” are ineligible
for patent under § 101.
Braemar Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465, 470 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (“CardioNet argues that the claims are drawn to specific technological
improvements, but nothing in the claims requires more than generic data
manipulation.”). Here, the modules of apparatus claims 1 and 8 and the
automatic updates to ECG severity of method claim 14 collect, filter, and
classify data into severities without improving computers or technology.
Braemar advised the following regarding such alleged improvements.
[C]ategorizing events amounts to nothing more than matching
characteristics to predefined categories. Similarly, the patent
discloses two methods for determining the measure of merit.
Like event categorization, a first method operates based on a
simple lookup table, where event categories are matched to a
predetermined grade of severity. . . . A second method
determines severity by selecting and applying a particular
equation associated with the appropriate event category. Id[.]
col. 10 ll. 4–24. Both methods require only basic data
processing, and neither is the sort of improvement to computer
functionality that can make software claims non-abstract.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims are directed to the
abstract idea of collecting, classifying, and filtering data.
Id. (emphasis added); see Spec. 13:1–9, 19:21–20:6 (describing severities).
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

11
As is clear from the Specification’s description, these features recited
in claims 1, 8, and 14 do not require any specialized computer hardware or
inventive computer components such as a particular machine, invoke any
asserted inventive programming, or use other than generic computer
components to perform generic functions. See Spec. 6:3–8:15; DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer
limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
Accordingly, we determine that claims 1, 8, and 14 lack additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do Claims 1, 8, and 14 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claims 1, 8, and 14 recite any additional
elements, individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive
concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim
limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second
step of the Alice analysis considers if a claim adds a specific limitation
beyond the recited judicial exception that also is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the abstract
ideas identified under Prong One as implemented on a generic processor and
memory that perform generic functions as tools to implement the abstract
ideas. Without generic computer limitations, nothing remains in the claims
but the identified abstract ideas. See Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280.
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

12
“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is
directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v.
BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As our reviewing court held regarding similar limitations:
The claims’ invocation of computers adds no inventive concept.
The computer functionality is generic—indeed, quite limited: a
computer receives a request for a guarantee and transmits an
offer of guarantee in return. There is no further detail. That a
computer receives and sends the information over a network—
with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“In short, each step does no more than require a
generic computer to perform generic computer functions.”).
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the
limitations are considered individually. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); SAP
Am., 898 F.3d at 1170 (“[T]his court has ruled many times that ‘such
invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive
are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of
an abstract idea.’”) (citation omitted); Braemar, 816 F. App’x at 470
(holding the “measure of merit” is not an inventive concept where at most it
executes a mathematical formula or selects a value from a lookup table and
therefore is no more than a mental process capable of performance in the
human mind or with pen and paper as an abstract idea, and the remaining
limitations recite routine data manipulation that is not inventive).
Appeal 2021-000667
Application 14/899,764

13
As the court held in CardioNet regarding a similar inventive concept:
Even assuming that measuring the atrial fibrillation burden is a
new metric as CardioNet claims, it is at most a mathematical
computation performed on a general-purpose computing device,
which could otherwise be “performed by a human, mentally or
with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because the
claim limitations, considered individually or collectively,
amount only to implementations of abstract ideas using
conventional technology, we conclude that the claims do not
include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claims
into patent-eligible applications.
CardioNet, 816 F. App’x at 476–77. Here, the claims update a severity
metric on a generic processor. In addition to being part of the abstract idea,
the type ahead module, report review and edit module, and automatic update
of ECG report severity are described at high levels of generality in the
Specification so as to indicate that their features are well-known and
conventional.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14 and claims 2–7,
9–13, and 15–20, which fall with their respective independent claim.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED