KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 20212021000667 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation