Lev A. Koyrakh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

15412097 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 2020)

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.
15/412,097 01/23/2017 Lev A. Koyrakh 0G-0455USC6/82410.0707 5766
55962 7590 07/02/2020
Wiley
Patent Administration
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, ROCHELLE DEANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
ASJM_Patents@abbott.com
ptodocket@wiley.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEV A. KOYRAKH, JEFFREY A. SCHWEITZER,
DANIEL R. STARKS, and CARLOS CARBONERA

Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
Technology Center 3700
Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–16. Claim 1 has been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to a method and system for
detecting the movement of a reference point utilized in a non-ionizing
localization system, such as is often employed in navigating a medical
device through a patient.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 2 and 13 are independent.
Claim 2 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
2. A method of detecting dislodgement of a navigational reference
catheter from an initial reference location within a non-ionizing localization
field, the method comprising:
detecting a perceived dislodgement of the navigational reference
catheter from the initial reference location based upon a magnitude of a
perceived distance moved by the navigational reference catheter from the
initial reference location;
confirming that the perceived dislodgement of the navigational
reference catheter from the initial reference location is an actual
dislodgement of the navigational reference catheter from the initial reference
location based upon a direction of the perceived dislodgement of the
navigational reference catheter from the initial reference location; and

1 The subject application, 15/412,097, is a continuation of application
12/972,253, now U.S. Patent 9,585,586 B2, issued Mar. 7, 2017, in which
the Board issued a decision on appeal. See Ex parte Koyrakh, Appeal No.
2014-007443, dated Aug. 12, 2016.
2 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 St. Jude Medical,
Atrial Fibrillation Division, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 2, filed Jan.
18, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
3
generating a signal indicating the actual dislodgement of the
navigational reference catheter.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).3
REJECTIONS
Claims 2–16 are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting over
claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent 9,585,586.4
Claims 2–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as patent-ineligible.
Claims 2, 3, and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Hauck (US 2008/0161681 A1, published July 3, 2008).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hauck and Koh (US 2010/0152801 A1, published June 17, 2010).
ANALYSIS
1. Patent Eligibility
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and

3 Claims Appendix (“Claims App.”).
4 Appellant does not appeal the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of
claims 2–16 over claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent 9,585,586. See Appeal Br. 7
n.1; see also Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 2–4, dated Oct. 23, 2017;
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 2–4, dated Apr. 6, 2018. Accordingly, this
rejection is not before us for review. We summarily affirm rejections not
contested. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Affirming the
Board’s affirmance of an uncontested rejection, holding that the appellant
had waived the right to contest the rejection by not presenting arguments on
appeal to the Board); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(“the applicant can waive appeal of a ground of rejection”).

Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
4
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 2
falls within the literal scope of this provision because it recites a process.
The Supreme Court, however, has long recognized an implicit
exception to this section: “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)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of
these excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The
framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is “directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then
examine “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.” Id. (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive concept,” “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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, to decide whether a claim is
“directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim (1) recites an
abstract idea grouping listed in the guidance and (2) fails to integrate the
recited abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 51 (Jan. 7, 2019)
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
5
(“2019 Eligibility Guidance”).5 Concepts that have been determined to be
abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible, include certain methods of
organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice,
573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010));
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). 2019
Eligibility Guidance at 52.
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, as noted above, we then
determine whether the claim recites an inventive concept. The guidance
explains that, when making this determination, we should consider whether
the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry.” 2019 Eligibility Guidance at 56.
Examiner’s § 101 Rejection
The Examiner determines that claims 2–16 are patent-ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 4–5. As Appellant argues claims 2–16 as a
single group in its appeal (Appeal Br. 8–12), we select claim 2 as
representative, and claims 3–16 stand or fall with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner determines that claim 2 of the subject invention is
directed to “detecting a dislodgement of a catheter using coordinate data,”
which includes an abstract idea because it recites the “mental activity” of
“analyzing position and orientation data” of the catheter. Final Act. 4–5; see

5 An update to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
issued in October 2019 (“October 2019 Update,” available at https://
www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
6
also Ans. 10 (“The data analysis of detecting a perceived dislodgement . . .
and confirming the perceived dislodgement . . . are similar to . . .
manipulating and/or relating data, organizing information through
correlations, calculating parameters; and/or collecting and comparing known
data”); see also id. at 12 (“The claims of the present invention do not require
specific hardware as the navigational reference catheter is a generic and
conventional structure in the art which is utilized only as a reference to
acquire and analyze data” and “the specific criteria which is analyzed is
limited to determinations of magnitude, distance and direction which are all
well-known and conventional mathematical correlations for which an
individual could determine the ‘dislodgement’ as a mental activity.”).
The Examiner further determines claim 2 does not recite additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner characterizes the “generating a signal” step as
insignificant post-solution activity. Ans. 9. The Examiner also characterizes
the additional claim element “navigational reference catheter within a non-
ionizing localization field” as a generic and conventional structure, used for
“data gathering,” which merely links the abstract idea to a particular
environment, i.e., medical analysis. Ans. 9, 12 (“[T]he navigational
reference catheter is a generic and conventional structure in the art which is
utilized only as a reference to acquire and analyze data.”); Final Act. 4.
Guidance Step 2A: Is the claim “directed to” a judicial exception?
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
Step 2A of the guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, we
evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, such as an abstract
idea. 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. The guidance
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
7
synthesizes the key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas into
three primary subject-matter groupings: mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (including observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Id. at 52. For the reasons discussed
below, claim 2 recites an abstract idea that falls in the guidance’s subject-
matter grouping of mental processes. Id.
Claim 2 recites a process with three steps (1)–(3):
(1) detecting a perceived dislodgement of the navigational reference
catheter from the initial reference location based upon a magnitude of a
perceived distance moved by the navigational reference catheter from the
initial reference location;
(2) confirming that the perceived dislodgement of the navigational
reference catheter from the initial reference location is an actual
dislodgement of the navigational reference catheter from the initial reference
location based upon a direction of the perceived dislodgement of the
navigational reference catheter from the initial reference location; and
(3) generating a signal indicating the actual dislodgement of the
navigational reference catheter.
Step (1), detecting a perceived dislodgement based upon a magnitude,
and step (2), confirming an actual dislodgement based upon a direction, both
recite mental processes that observe and evaluate/analyze data as explained
below.
Step (1) of “detecting a perceived dislodgement of the navigational
reference catheter from the initial reference location based upon a magnitude
of a perceived distance moved by the navigational reference catheter from
the initial reference location” is nothing more than mentally
observing/evaluating that an object, in this case a catheter, has moved a
distance and may have dislodged.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
8
Similarly, step (2) of “confirming that the perceived dislodgement . . .
is an actual dislodgement of the navigational reference catheter from the
initial reference location based upon a direction of the perceived
dislodgement of the navigational reference catheter from the initial reference
location” also includes mere observation/evaluation that the catheter has
moved in a direction and actually dislodged.
Thus, steps (1) and (2) of claim 2 recite mental processes. We discuss
step (3) of claim 2 below. Our above analysis of steps (1) and (2) of claim 2
is consistent with the Examiner’s findings that claim 2 involves the mental
processes of collecting data and data analysis. Ans. 10. Appellant does not
argue that the detecting and confirming cannot be done mentally. See
Appeal Br. 9–12.
Based on the forgoing, claim 2 fits squarely into the 2019 Eligibility
Guidance’s subject-matter grouping of mental processes and therefore
recites an abstract idea. We now proceed to Prong 2 to determine whether
the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
If a claim recites a judicial exception, then, in Prong 2, we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
See 2019 Eligibility Guidance at 54–55. This evaluation requires an
additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
9
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 exception. See id. at 54. If the
recited judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the
claim is directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–
(h).
We note the guidance indicates that in the context of Prong 2 of Step
2A, an exemplary consideration indicative that an additional element (or
combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical
application is that an additional element reflects an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field. See 2019 Eligibility Guidance at 55.
Here, claim 2 recites the additional elements “a navigational reference
catheter in a non-ionization field,” and step (3) “generating a signal
indicating the actual dislodgement of the navigational reference catheter.”
As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner, and Appellant does
not argue, that generating a signal as recited in step (3) is merely
insignificant post-solution activity. Ans. 9.
We now turn our focus to Appellant’s arguments related to the
additional element of “a navigational reference catheter in a non-ionization
field.”
Appellant contends that the claims focus on an improvement to the
catheter navigation system functionality “related to detecting if and when a
reference catheter has dislodged from its initial reference location.” Appeal
Br. 10 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
10
Reply Brief 4–5.6 Appellant further argues that the Examiner oversimplifies
the claims, which recite specific hardware (a navigational reference catheter
within a non-ionizing localization field) to achieve specific results. Appeal
Br. 9 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellant explains that the recited hardware is not a mere
tool in the claims, but that the claims focus on an improvement in the
hardware itself. Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 5 (a specific improvement in
the capabilities of an electroanatomical mapping system).
We are not persuaded that claim 2 recites technological
improvements. Rather, claimed steps (1) and (2) are mental steps in the
particular field of use/technological environment, i.e., navigational reference
catheters in non-ionizing localization fields. We are also not persuaded that
the Examiner oversimplifies the claims, because no claimed hardware is
recited, i.e., (the catheter) is merely a tool used “as a reference to acquire
and analyze data,” and the claims do not recite any technical improvements
to the catheter hardware itself. Ans. 12. Unlike the claims in Enfish and
McRO, claim 2 does not recite any improvements in computer capabilities,
specific rules or algorithms for a computer to achieve an improved
technological result, or any other improvements to existing techniques in the
field. Instead of claiming improvements, claim 2 broadly claims detecting
and confirming catheter movement (i.e., by analyzing distance and
direction), which can be done mentally during observation of a surgeon
utilizing a catheter.
With the exception of generating the signal, which falls under
insignificant post-solution activity as explained above, claim 2 can be

6 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 3, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
11
performed entirely in the human mind. As such, Appellant has not
explained how claim 2 constitutes a technological improvement sufficient to
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appellant also argues that the claims are directed towards a concept
inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from concepts found to
be abstract. Id. at 11 (citing 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (Dec. 16, 2014)). We disagree,
however, because claim 2 does not require a computer, as it reads on a
person simply obtaining distance and a direction information about a moving
catheter and evaluating that information to generate a signal.7 Moreover,
courts have held similar concepts involving collecting and analyzing data, in
a way that can be performed mentally, or is analogous to human mental
work, fall within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds . . . without
more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Appellant also argues that the claims as a whole do not seek to tie up
the judicial exception such that others cannot practice it, because the claims
require specific hardware and the analysis of specific criteria. Appeal Br.
11. Appellant states the claims are neither merely attempting to limit an
abstract idea to a particular technological environment nor “a drafting effort
designed to monopolize.” Id.

7 Unlike independent claim 2, independent claim 13 requires a computer
processor. However, claim 13 merely invokes a computer in its
conventional capacity as a tool for receiving and generating signals and
analyzing data. Claim 13 does not recite any improvements to the
underlying computer technology.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
12
We are not persuaded. To the extent that Appellant argues
preemption, this is unpersuasive because the Federal Circuit has made clear
that “the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility” of a claim. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[Q]uestions on preemption are
inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis” according to Mayo and Alice,
which we applied here. Id. Furthermore, as discussed above, the claim 2’s
recitation “navigational reference catheter” only limits the claims to a
specific technological environment, and claim 2 does not require “analysis
of specific criteria” in a way that distinguishes the claimed steps from basic
mental processes. As written, claim 2 ties up the judicial exception in that it
could read on a surgeon watching a catheter move in the body and saying
“the catheter moved.”
Analogizing to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Appellant further argues that the claimed method
solves a specific problem, in this case arising in electroanatomical mapping.
Appeal Br. 11 (also citing Messaging Gateway Sols., LLC v. Amdocs, Inc.,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49408 (D. Del. Apr. 15, 2015), Cal. Inst. of Tech. v.
Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 974, 990 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014),
and BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
We are not persuaded. Although the Specification describes
electroanatomical mapping (see generally Spec. ¶¶3–6, 30–79), the
particular problem the claim addresses does not arise specifically in the
realm of electroanatomical mapping. Ans. 10. In the present appeal, the
claim solves the problem of confirming that a catheter moved relative a
structure in the body, such as the heart. Catheter movement is a problem not
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
13
limited to electroanatomical mapping but a problem for any medical
procedure using a catheter. Notably, claim 2 does not recite any electronics,
“mapping,” or any other reference to the hardware needed for
electroanatomical mapping other than the reference navigation catheter. As
pointed out by the Examiner, the reference navigation catheter is claimed
broadly, i.e., no claimed hardware is recited, such that it reads on any
conventional catheter known in the medical art. In addition, the
Specification does not limit the invention to electroanatomical mapping.
Spec. ¶31.
Appellant does not persuade us that any additional element or
combination of additional elements recited in any of the claims improve
computer functionality, technology and/or a technical field to the claimed
invention, or otherwise integrates the abstract idea into a “practical
application,” as that phrase is used in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance. We
conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite mental
processes, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited in
the claim are insignificant post-solution activity, do no more than generally
link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and use
computers as tools to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional
elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining
that the claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Guidance Step 2B: “Does the claim provide an inventive concept?”
Having determined that claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea, we turn
to Step 2B. We evaluate whether claim 2 provides an inventive concept
(i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the
exception itself). The Examiner determined the claims do not recite an
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
14
inventive concept, because the additional elements in the claims do not
amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. Final Act. 4–5. We
agree.
Under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, we look to whether claim 2
recites any additional elements, individually or in combination, that are not
“well-understood, routine, or conventional.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). We
are unable to identify any such additional elements.
Claim 2’s only additional elements are the “navigational reference
catheter” and step (3) generating a signal. According to the Examiner, the
additional elements/steps are also routine and conventional without any
improvements. Final Act. 5. The Examiner states that “[t]he navigational
reference catheter is described at a high level of generality and is no more
than a generic reference catheter which is conventional in the technological
field.” Ans. 10; id. at 12. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s conclusion
is not supported by evidence. Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Turning to the Specification, it does not provide technical details
regarding the navigational reference catheter, but rather states in its
“Background Art” section:
It is well known to generate heart chamber geometry . . . . Often,
a mapping catheter tip is placed within the heart chamber . . . . It
is desirable for the three-dimensional coordinate system relative
to which the geometry points are measured to have a stable
reference point or origin. This stable reference point or origin is
referred to herein as a “navigational reference” for the
localization system. While any stable position will suffice, it is
desirable for many reasons to utilize a navigational reference that
is proximate to the mapping catheter. Thus, a catheter-mounted
reference localization element is often inserted into the heart and
positioned in a fixed location . . . . It is known, however, that the
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
15
navigational reference may become dislodged. For example, the
mapping catheter may collide or become entangled with the
catheter carrying the navigational reference (referred to herein as
the “reference catheter”), or the practitioner moving the mapping
catheter may inadvertently jostle the reference catheter. The
navigational reference may also be dislodged by patient
movement. Other factors, such as patient hydration and
respiration, may make it appear as if the navigational reference
has become dislodged when, in fact, it has not become dislodged.
Spec. ¶¶ 3–5
Thus, the Specification only describes the navigational reference
catheter at a high level of generality and confirms that the claimed steps can
be performed by generic components.
Similarly, the Specification describes the manner of generating a
signal at a high level of generality and without technical detail. According
to the Specification, the generating a signal step includes a signal generator
25 coupled to a computer 20 generating “a suitable signal (e.g., an audible
signal, a visible signal, or a combination thereof).” Spec. ¶¶ 41, 64.
Thus, the Specification is intrinsic evidence that the claimed
“navigational reference catheter” and the generating a signal step (3) are
well-understood, routine, or conventional, and therefore, they do not amount
to significantly more than an abstract idea. Rather, claim 2 simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional components previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the claimed abstract idea.
We fail to see how combining the additional elements (navigational
reference catheter with the generating a signal step) would make the
combination unconventional.
Regarding Appellant’s argument that the Examiner fails to consider
the claims “as a whole,” arguing that the combination is unconventional, we
are not persuaded. Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
16
As discussed above, the Examiner addresses each individual element
of claim 2 and analyzes the claim as a whole. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 9–10, 12.
Further, as shown above, the combination of additional elements are
conventional.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
determining the additional elements in claim 2, including in combination, do
not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Final
Act. 45. Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing to the abstract idea that is not already present when the limitations
are considered separately. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The ordered
combination of limitations amounts to nothing more than certain mental
processes implemented with generic components that operate “in a
conventional way.” See Ans. 10, 12; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in determining claim 2
does not provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion – Patent Eligibility
For the reasons set forth above, after applying the 2019 Eligibility
Guidance, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–16 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
2. Anticipation by Hauck
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claims 3
and 11–13 separate from those presented for independent claim 2. See
Appeal Br. 12–13. We select claim 2 as the representative claim, and claims
3 and 11–13 stand or fall with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that Hauck does not disclose claim 2’s step of
“confirming that the perceived dislodgement of the navigational reference
catheter from the initial reference location is an actual dislodgement of the
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
17
navigational reference catheter from the initial reference location based upon
a direction of the perceived dislodgement of the navigational reference from
the initial reference location” (emphasis added), and the similarly recited
step in claim 13. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that Hauck at most
confirms actual dislodgement based upon magnitude of the perceived
distance moved. Id.
We are not persuaded. As correctly pointed out by the Examiner
(Ans. 13), Hauck confirms actual dislodgement using a displacement vector,
which includes both magnitude and direction. Thus, according to the
broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, Hauck
confirms actual dislodgement “based upon a direction of the perceived
dislodgement.” As the Examiner further correctly points out, the claim does
not provide specifics as to how the direction information is used/analyzed to
confirm actual dislodgement, only that the confirmation is “based upon” that
information. Final Act. 11. As such, we are not persuaded that Hauck’s
method of employing the displacement vector does not read on claim 2’s
recitation, under its broadest reasonable construction.8
In summary, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 as anticipated by Hauck.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. We further

8 Regarding Appellant’s argument with respect to Ex parte Koyrakh, Appeal
No. 2014-007443 (see Appeal Br. 13), we do not find our result here
inconsistent with that case, which involved different claim language
(“analyzing a direction . . . to determine whether there has been a
dislodgement”) and different prior art (Koh US 2010/0152801, published
June 17, 2010) applied in an obviousness rejection, resulting in a different
analysis in that Decision.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
18
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 11–13, which fall with
claim 2.
3. Obviousness over Hauck and Koh
Appellant does not offer arguments in favor of dependent claim 4
separate from those presented for independent claim 2. Appeal Br. 14. As
we find no deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 as anticipated
by Hauck, we likewise sustain the Examiner rejection of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Hauck and Koh.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–16 Nonstatutory
Double Patenting9
2–16
2–16 101 Eligibility 2–16

2, 3, 11–13 102(b) Hauck 2, 3, 11–13

4 103(a) Hauck, Koh 4

Overall
Outcome
2–16

9 As indicated above in footnote 4, the nonstatutory double patenting
rejection is summarily affirmed.
Appeal 2018-005517
Application 15/412,097
19
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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