Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2020

14668682 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
14/668,682 03/25/2015 Ashwin Ram PARC-20141598US01 1030
35699 7590 07/14/2020
PVF -- PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
HOLCOMB, MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2020 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):
jenny@parklegal.com
sy_incoming@parklegal.com
tia@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ASHWIN RAM, LESTER D. NELSON,
GREGORY MICHAEL YOUNGBLOOD, and PETER L. PIROLLI
__________________

Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–10, 12–16, 19–21, 23, and 24, which are
all of the pending claims.1,2 Appeal Br. 1; see also Final Act. 2. 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 Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 11, 17, 18, and 22 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. (Claims App.), 42,
44, 45.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-executable method for presenting a
healthcare suggestion, comprising:
monitoring, by a computer, an electronic communication
between a user and at least one other user;
mining for any health-related issue in the communication
based on the monitoring;
extracting a first set of data from the communication
based on the mining in the communication, wherein the first set
of data is corresponding to a health-related issue associated
with the user;
proactively generating, based on the first set of data, a
question corresponding to the health-related issue in a public
forum for soliciting additional data for further mining;
mining semantically relevant chunks in one or more
responses to the question in the public forum;
extracting a second set of data based on the mining of the
semantically relevant chunks;
generating, based on the first and second sets of data, a
suggestion corresponding to the health-related issue; and
presenting the suggestion to the user in an interface
configured to receive from the user a validation of the
suggestion.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–10, 12–16, 19–21, 23, and 24 are rejected as directed to a
judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Madan (US 2014/0052474 A1, pub.
Feb. 20, 2014), Wu (US 2006/0111943 A1, pub. May 25, 2006), and
Rzhetsky (US 6,950,753 B1, iss. Sept. 27, 2005).

Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

3
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Madan, Wu, Rzhetsky, and Gilley (US 8,956,290 B2, iss.
Feb. 17, 2015).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Madan, Wu, Rzhetsky, Gilley, and Provoost (US 2006/
0041531 A1, pub. Feb. 23, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 10–22. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Examiner’s Determination
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites the abstract idea of
collecting information in user communication data, extracting data and
analyzing it to identify health issues, generating questions and receiving
responses, and displaying certain results as a suggestion. Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner determines that the claim limitations can be performed as
mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Ans. 5 (“[N]othing in the claim element precludes the step from practically
being performed in the mind.”).
The Examiner also determines that any additional elements in claim 1
do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they
merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, add
insignificant extra-solution activity, or apply the abstract idea on a computer.
Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. The Examiner determines that the claims recite generic
computer structures that performs generic computer functions to apply the
abstract idea and link it to a particular field of use. Final Act. 7; Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

4
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that the present claims are not similar to the claim in
Electric Power Group v. Alstom, because they mine specific data from user’s
communications rather than gather data measured at different sources as in
Electric Power Group. Appeal Br. 12; see Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As a result, Appellant argues that the
instant claims are not directed to merely performing collection and analysis
operations on a computer. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant also asserts that the instant claims perform data mining on a
user’s communication to identify a health-related issue and proactively post
a question in a public forum regarding the issue. Id. at 13. Appellant argues
that the system performs another round of data mining on answers provided
to the post and then, based on both phases of mining, generates a suggestion
for the health-related issue and validates the suggestion from the user. Id.
Appellant contends that the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,
enumerates abstract ideas that fall into three categories, and the claimed
features are not directed to any of these categories. Id. Appellant argues
that the claimed features are not directed to mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. Id. at 13–14.
Appellant also argues that the wellness computing platform facilitates
specialized computing systems such as wearable devices and smartwatches
that assist a user to maintain wellness, and it inherently uses an inference
system for its operation and the inference system is a practical application of
the supposed judicial exception and improvement in computer functionality
as in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id. at
15–16.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

5
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
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. This provision contains an implicit exception: “Laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
Corp. Pty. 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 elements of each claim, individually and
“as an ordered combination,” to determine if additional elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application” as an “inventive
concept” sufficient to ensure the claims in practice amount to significantly
more than a patent on the ineligible concept itself. See 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”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine whether 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 (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. rev. 08.2017 Jan. 2018) (“MPEP”)). Id. at 52–55.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

6
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a “method” which is within a statutory category of
35 U.S.C. § 101, namely, a process. Final Act. 3–4. Thus, we next consider
whether claim 1 as a whole recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity and mental processes. The Revised Guidance
enumerates this concept as (1) certain methods of organizing human activity
of managing personal behavior or interactions between people including
social activities and teaching and (2) mental processes––concepts performed
in the human mind. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The Specification describes the purpose of the present invention as
generating healthcare suggestions and providing personalized healthcare
advice and coaching by monitoring and mining a user’s communications to
others to extract health-related issues that are formulated into a “question”
that is presented on a public forum to others to obtain candidate suggestions
for a user. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 22, 34, 38.
The preamble of claim 1 recites this purpose of the claimed method as
“presenting a healthcare suggestion.” Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

7
The limitations of claim 1 recite the abstract idea identified above as
the Examiner determines. Ans. 5; see Final Act. 5–6. The first limitations
recite steps of collecting and organizing data for a health-related issue as:
monitoring, by a computer, an electronic communication
between a user and at least one other user;
mining for any health-related issue in the communication based
on the monitoring;
extracting a first set of data from the communication based on
the mining in the communication, wherein the first set of data is
corresponding to a health-related issue associated with the user;
Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.). These steps also can be performed as mental
processes. A person can observe and evaluate a user’s communications to
identify and extract health-related issues from them. For example, a user’s
search for “what should I substitute for quinoa” may yield foods related to
quinoa that are direct substitutes. See Spec. ¶ 37.
As our reviewing court held in a similar situation in Electric Power:
More particularly, a large portion of the lengthy claims is
devoted to enumerating types of information and information
sources available within the power-grid environment. 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.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (emphasis added).
Information as such is an intangible. . . . Accordingly, we have
treated collecting information, including when limited to
particular content (which does not change its character as
information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. Here, claim 1 collects and analyzes “health-
related” data, recited at a high level as an abstract idea identified above.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

8
Appellant distinguishes Electric Power by arguing that “the claimed
features don’t merely collect data, but mines specific data from a user’s
communication.” Appeal Br. 12. “Appellant . . . submits that mining for
specific information in a user’s communication and soliciting additional data
for further mining based on that specific information are more than merely
‘an abstract idea’” (id.) and “data mining is a specialized field of data arts
and involves specialized techniques for obtaining information of interest
from a dataset” (Reply Br. 9) (arguing that this definition is well-known).
This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 recites data “mining”
as a mental process performed on information as such without technological
advance. The Specification provides no guidance or definition of “mining”
to indicate that mining involves anything other than searching through data
for certain information, i.e., analyzing data abstractly as a mental process.
Mining, extracting, and classifying data, without more, is abstract. In
Content Extraction, a claim to receiving digitized documents, recognizing
(extracting) portions of the digitized documents, and storing data from said
portions recited an abstract idea. See Content Extraction and Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applying Mayo/Alice step one, we agree with the district court
that the claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract
idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a
memory. The concept of data collection, recognition, and
storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have
always performed these functions. And banks have, for some
time, reviewed checks, recognized relevant data such as the
amount, account number, and identity of account holder, and
stored that information in their records.
Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

9
Here, claim 1 mines and extracts data classified as “health-related.”
Similar claims to extracting classification information from digital data
recited an abstract idea in TLI Communications. See In re TLI Commc’ns
LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In TLI, the court held:
[T]he claims, as noted, are simply directed to the abstract idea
of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s rejection of “categorical
rules” to decide subject matter eligibility, . . . we have applied
the “abstract idea” exception to encompass inventions pertaining
to methods of organizing human activity. . . . Here, we find that,
like the claims at issue in Content Extraction which were
directed to “collecting data,” “recognizing certain data within
the collected data set,” and “storing the recognized data in
memory,” 776 F.3d at 1347, attaching classification data, such
as dates and times, to images for the purpose of storing those
images in an organized manner is a well-established “basic
concept” sufficient to fall under Alice step 1.
TLI, 823 F.3d at 613 (emphasis added); see Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d
1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The parsing and comparing of claims 1–3 and
9 are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction, 776
F.3d at 1347, and the classifying in an organized manner of TLI, 823 F.3d at
613.”).
Here, digital data is mined to extract data for health-related issues.
“Mining” is described as a search concept used to identify “health-related
issues” in user communications similar to “Google search,” crawling static
webpages, and scanning online forums. See Spec. ¶¶ 25, 26, 34–39, 43.
Essentially, user communications provide a database of issues. The
“mining” searches this database for “health-related issues.” To the extent
“mining” conveys the concept of identifying “health-related issues” based on
patterns or usage frequency in user communications, this concept is abstract.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

10
BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
examined a similar concept of indexing and retrieving data posted by users
to a wide area network as parameterized items by providing users with
summary comparison usage information corresponding to previously used
parameters and values for use in posting the data. BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at
1284. A second method of indexing an item in a database provided relative
historical usage information for a plurality of parameters previously used by
other users to guide the user in selecting a classification parameter for the
item. Id. As to the former patented method claim, the court held:
[T]he claim’s “focus” is guiding database users by presenting
summary comparison information to users before they input
data. . . . This is not a method “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising
in the realm of” wide access databases. DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It
amounts to having users consider previous item descriptions
before they describe items to achieve more consistent item
descriptions. Whether labeled as a fundamental, long-prevalent
practice or a well-established method of organizing activity,
this qualifies as an abstract idea. See also CyberSource Corp.
v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (holding that a claim whose “steps can be performed in
the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” is
directed to an “unpatentable mental process[ ]”).
Id. at 1286. The Specification of that patent described “usage” as relating
to the absolute or relative frequency or occurrence that indicates the extent
of past usage with respect to various choices. Id. at 1287 (it covers the
relative frequency at which different parameters and values were used).
The court held that the latter method of using “summary comparison
usage information” was directed to the same abstract idea of considering
historical usage information while inputting data. Id. at 1288–89.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

11
The next step takes this data and “proactively generat[es], based on
the first set of data, a question corresponding to the health-related issue in a
public forum for soliciting additional data for further mining.” Spec. ¶ 26.
The Specification indicates the system can proactively post questions
to a website forum or crowdsourcing platform such as Amazon Mechanical
Turk to elicit responses from which the system can extract data. Spec. ¶ 26.
The Specification describes “a hybrid method of text mining the web (or
other document sources) for basic propositions that the system then presents
to users (or other crowd sources) for evaluating to determine suggestions.”
Id. ¶ 37. “The system may also data mine websites with online forums to
extract solutions or other content from online discussions.” Id. ¶ 34; see
also Appeal Br. 2–3 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter).
This step thus uses information extracted from user communications
to formulate basic propositions/questions that are posted on a public forum.
Essentially, this step mimics organizational activity and mental processes a
doctor or other healthcare provider would perform after examining a patient
to obtain information about symptoms and health-related issues. The doctor
would formulate a diagnosis based on the doctor’s experience and expertise.
In SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x
950 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court held a claim to obtaining patient information
and applying it to different knowledge bases to generate a ranked listing of
available therapeutic treatment regimens and advisory information for one or
more treatment regimens recited mental processes that doctors can and do
perform in their heads. SmartGene, 555 F. App’x at 955. The claim merely
used a computing device “with basic functionality for comparing stored and
input data and rules, to do what doctors do routinely.” Id. at 954.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

12
The claimed method in SmartGene provided patient information to a
computing device comprising a first knowledge base of different therapeutic
treatment regimens for a disease or medical condition, a second knowledge
base of expert rules for evaluating and selecting a therapeutic treatment
regimen for the disease or medical condition, and a third knowledge base of
advisory information useful for treating a patient with different treatment
regimens. Id. at 951–52. The computing device used these knowledge bases
to generate a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for
the patient. Here, claim 1 uses a public forum instead of a trained medical
doctor or knowledge bases to obtain suggestions for a patient’s health issues.
The subsequent steps of “mining semantically relevant chunks in one
or more responses to the question in the public forum” and “extracting a
second set of data based on the mining of the semantically relevant chunks”
can be performed as a mental process to organize the data like the first set.
The next step of “generating, based on the first and second sets of
data, a suggestion corresponding to the health-related issue” recites the same
mental process discussed above for the step of proactively generating a
question based on information extracted from user communications. See
SmartGene, 555 F. App’x at 955. As an example of this mental process,
user discussions of substituting flaxseed oil for fish oil can cause the system
to recommend the substitution to others. See Spec. ¶ 24.
The final step of “presenting the suggestion to the user in an interface
configured to receive from the user a validation of the suggestion” recites
the same abstract idea. See SmartGene, 555 F. App’x at 955. No details are
recited for the user’s “validation.” The Specification’s description of this
feature is equally abstract and general. See Spec. ¶¶ 30–35, 54, Fig. 3.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

13
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s case law analysis. Appeal Br. 11–
12. However, the Revised Guidance “extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea
exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited
as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per
se).” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Ans. 5 (applying the
Revised Guidance to the claims).
As illustrated by the cases discussed above, steps of “monitoring,”
“mining,” “extracting,” “generating,” and “presenting” are recited at a high
level of generality as mental processes that can be performed in the human
mind. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; TLI, 823 F.3d at 613; Content
Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; see also BASCOM Global Internet Svcs., Inc.
v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]iltering
content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method
of organizing human behavior.”); Spec. ¶ 25 (collaborative filtering used).
The Specification describes these concepts generally. The system can
data mine websites and other data sources to identify health-related issues.
Spec. ¶ 25. It can proactively post questions to a website to obtain content
or ideas by soliciting input from a group of people. Id. ¶¶ 25, 26. It can data
mine user communications and interactions with others to extract healthcare
suggestions. Id. ¶ 34. It can mine user communications in online discussion
forums, social media postings, activity data, and social-networking. Id.
¶¶ 25, 34–38. The system can text mine web sources or other documents to
identify basic propositions that are presented to users or other crowdsources
for evaluation and suggestions. Id. ¶ 37. A user’s search for “what should I
substitute for quinoa” can be parsed to yield related foods. Id.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

14
Claim 1 recites steps that replicate mental processes a personal coach
or doctor would perform to create health-related content. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 22–
24. Users search the Internet and other sources to collect information about
health issues. See id. ¶ 37. They post questions on website forums to obtain
input of others on an issue. See id. ¶ 26. The claimed method performs this
mental process that coaches and others perform manually. See id. ¶¶ 22–27.
Essentially, the claimed method automates this manual process that
people undertake to research health issues. Claim 1 recites this method at a
high level of generality without any improvement to computers, networks,
Internet operations, or other technology. The Specification indicates that the
limitations recite general concepts of collecting, analyzing, and classifying
data as such, which is an abstract idea and a mental process.
The decision in Electric Power provides guidance for this situation.
There, our reviewing court held that claims to collecting data from data
streams, analyzing the data based on limits, sensitivities, and rates of change,
and displaying results of the analysis recited an abstract idea. Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353–54 (“The focus of the asserted claims . . . is on collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis. . . . [W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”).
Here, the focus of claim 1 is on the mental processes of monitoring,
mining and extracting “health-related” data, and generating a question and
suggestion, respectively. Persons can perform these steps in their mind or
with pen and paper. They can extract suggestions for back injury exercises
from a webpage that provides exercises for back injuries. See Spec. ¶ 34.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

15
If there is a particular technological advance in the way that a user’s
electronic communications are monitored by a computer or mined for any
health-related issue, claim 1 does not recite any such advance. If there is a
technological advance in the way that a first set of data is extracted from the
communications based on the mining, claim 1 does not recite any advance.
If a question is generated and posted, or responses are mined and extracted
to generate a suggestion, with advanced technology, claim 1 does not recite
that advance. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955
F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the specification must always
yield to the claim language when identifying the true focus of a claim); Two-
Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As with claim 1 of the ’187 patent, the problem is that no
inventive concept resides in the claims.”).
Appellant argues that mining for specific data in user communications
is not an abstract idea (Appeal Br. 12), but Appellant provides no description
of what that process involves. The Specification provides few details about
mining user communications for health-related information. See Spec. ¶ 25.
One definition of data mining is as follows:
Data mining, also called knowledge discovery in databases, in
computer science, the process of discovering interesting and
useful patterns and relationships in large volumes of data. The
field combines tools from statistics and artificial intelligence
(such as neural networks and machine learning) with database
management to analyze large digital collections, known as data
sets. Data mining is widely used in business (insurance,
banking, retail), science research (astronomy, medicine), and
government security (detection of criminals and terrorists).
Brittanica America, https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/data-
mining/437561” (accessed June 24, 2020) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

16
As recited in claim 1 here, the method mines “any health-related
issue” and extracts “a first set of data” based on that mining and mines any
semantically relevant chunks in responses to a question posted in the public
forum. This method is similar to building an index of a book, database, or
encyclopedia by mining words and phrases to compile an index of terms and
phrases used in the database/work and their frequency. Such an idea, when
recited at a high level of generality as in claim 1, recites an abstract idea as
illustrated by the holding in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity
Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Under step one, we agree with the district court that the
invention is drawn to the abstract idea of “creating an index and
using that index to search for and retrieve data.” J.A. 63. As the
patent itself observes, the invention relates to “locating
information in a database, and . . . using an index that includes
tags and metafiles to locate the desired information.” Id. at col.
1 ll. 24–26. This type of activity, i.e., organizing and accessing
records through the creation of an index-searchable database,
includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the
advent of computers and the Internet. For example, a hardcopy-
based classification system (such as library indexing system)
employs a similar concept as the one recited by the ’434 patent.
There, classifiers organize and cross-reference information and
resources (such as books, magazines, or the like) by certain
identifiable tags, e.g., title, author, subject. Here, tags are
similarly used to identify, organize, and locate the desired
resource.
Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1327.
Here, the Specification describes “mining semantically relevant
chunks” as a similar concept to parsing unique words, word frequency,
word ordering, root words, synonyms, and using HTML tags to generate
semantically relevant chunks with text elements. See Spec. ¶¶ 50, 51.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

17
In Intellectual Ventures I v. Erie Indemnity, the method used similar
XML tags including domain and category tags to index a database and then
used the index to search a database. Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at
1326–27. The use of such tags and metafiles to locate desired information
recited an abstract idea. Id. at 1327. Here, claim 1 is not even that detailed.
The fact that some of the electronic user communications may involve
a query or a question generated in a public forum does not alter this analysis.
See West View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, 685 F. App’x 923, 926 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (determining that the claims do not go beyond receiving or collecting
data queries, analyzing the queries, retrieving and processing information as
a response to the initial data query, and generating a visual or audio response
to the initial data query and are a familiar class of patent-ineligible claims
involving collecting and analyzing information and displaying certain results
as in Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353).
Claim 1 is analogous to the method in CyberSource, which recited a
mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2011). In CyberSource, a method for verifying the validity of a
credit card transaction could be performed by a human reading records.
First, step (a)—which requires “obtaining information about
other transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is
identified with the [ ] credit card transaction”—can be
performed by a human who simply reads records of Internet
credit card transactions from a preexisting database. . . . [A]s
discussed above, even if some physical steps are required to
obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via
a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot
alone confer patentability.
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372.
The remaining steps also recited mental processes.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

18
Second, a person may “construct[] a map of credit card
numbers” as required by step (b) by writing down a list of
credit card transactions made from a particular IP address . . . .
There is no language in claim 3 or in the ’154 patent’s
specification that requires the constructed “map” to consist of
anything more than a list of a few credit card transactions.
Finally, step (c)—which requires “utilizing the map of
credit card numbers to determine if the credit card transaction is
valid”—is so broadly worded that it encompasses literally any
method for detecting fraud based on the gathered transaction
and Internet address data. . . . This necessarily includes even
logical reasoning that can be performed entirely in the human
mind. For example, a person could literally infringe step (c) by
identifying a likely instance of fraud based on the simple
observation that numerous transactions using different credit
cards, having different user names and billing addresses, all
originated from the same IP address.
Id. at 1372–73.
Here, the steps of mining and extracting can be performed as mental
processes or by a person using pen and paper to write down health-related
issues that appear in electronic communications and responses to public
forum questions that are posted. Suggestions can be generated similarly.
Providing “a suggestion corresponding to the health-related issue” that
is customized to a user based on data sets mined from their communications
recites an abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding “the claim relates to
customizing information based on (1) information known about the user and
(2) navigation data” and location, which is an abstract idea); see also Bridge
and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 887 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (providing customized content based on a user profile is an abstract
idea); Spec. ¶¶ 22–24 (system provides customized healthcare advice).
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

19
Presenting the suggestion to the user in an interface configured to
receive a user validation of the suggestion recites extra-solution activity that
displays the results of the mental processes and organized activity with no
improvement to the display. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“And we
have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of
collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a
particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis.”); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that merely presenting the results
of abstract processes is an ancillary part of the collection and analysis).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, we determine that claim 1
recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and
mental concepts identified above.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54 (Revised Step 2A, Prong Two). We determine that claim 1
lacks any additional elements that improve a computer or other technology.
The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea in conjunction
with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. They
do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to
a particular environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 and
MPEP sections cited therein). Instead, they merely use a general computer
as a tool to implement the abstract idea.

Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

20
Merely using a public forum like the Internet (Spec. ¶ 39) does not
integrate claim 1. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“As we have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to
save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.”).
A general purpose computer does not integrate claim 1 into a practical
application. See Reply Br. 10. That a human can perform the steps recited
in claim 1 as mental processes is the holding in CyberSource and other cases
discussed above. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use
of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention
could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”). Moreover,
“[t]hat purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed
by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375; id. at 1372 (“[E]ven
if some physical steps obtain information from the database, such data-
gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability.”).
The Revised Guidance provides the following guidance:
If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic
computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the
mind.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; see also Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the
exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.”).
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

21
Appellant argues that the claimed features are integrated in a wellness
computing platform that facilitates specialized computing systems such as
wearable devices and smartwatches to assist a user in maintaining wellness.
Appeal Br. 15. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim
1, which does not recite wearable devices, smartwatches, or a specialized
computing system. Nor does claim 1 recite “an inference system for its
principal operations” as Appellant argues. Id. Claim 1 recites “monitoring,
by a computer.” Appeal Br. 39 (Claims App.).
The Specification describes an exemplary computer system 1000 that
may personalize healthcare suggestions as part of a mobile device 1001 and
may include processor 1002, memory 1004, sensors 1006, and storage
device 1008. Spec. ¶ 77, Fig. 10. Such a general purpose computer does not
integrate the abstract idea recited in claim 1 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 idea into a patent-eligible invention.”);
see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (holding that the focus of the claims
is on certain abstract ideas that use computers as tools); Bancorp Svcs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“[T]he use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible
process for no more than its most basic function––making calculations or
computations––fails to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract
ideas and mental processes.”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716–17 (holding a
general purpose computer used to execute an abstract idea is not a particular
machine and any transformation from using computers to transfer content is
merely what computers do).

Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

22
The alleged improvements to technology asserted by Appellant as a
wellness computing platform, inference system, and multiple phases of data
mining merely recite the abstract idea identified above. See Appeal Br. 15–
16. “It has been clear since Alice that 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, 899 F.3d at 1290; see id. at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing
or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”);
see also 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.”); Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But, a
claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp.,
Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding claims
that improved an abstract idea but did not recite the supposed computer
improvements were not patent eligible); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55 n.24 (“additional elements” refer to claim features and limitations beyond
the identified judicial exception).
The “interface configured to receive from the user a validation of the
suggestion” is not a special interface. Reply Br. 11. The interface receives
input from a user. The alleged advance is not a process of validation but the
data input into the interface being labelled as a “validation,” which merely
inputs a user’s mental process approving a suggestion. See Spec. ¶¶ 30, 54.
No information is transformed to a different state or thing thereby.
Decisions cited in the Appeal Brief as supporting an integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application support the contrary conclusion.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

23
The claimed method does not improve an inference system or
wellness computing platform as Appellant contends, and the holding in
Enfish illustrates why. The claims there recited a self-referential table
(“means for configuring” algorithm) that functioned differently than
conventional database structures. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. The claims
recited a technological improvement that provided increased flexibility,
faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Id.
Here, claim 1 recites a method but no database or inference system.
Paragraph 23 of the Specification is cited by Appellant for this proposition
(Appeal Br. 16), but paragraph 23 describes features that are not recited in
claim 1 including a library of program customization that is created through
automated techniques that monitor, analyze, model, and summarize user-
generated goals, activities, and conversations to create libraries of health and
wellness goals and activities. Spec. ¶ 23. Claim 1 does not recite a library
or improved data structure as was the case in Enfish. The abstract idea is not
tied to a particular machine that is integral to the claim as in Enfish.
The decision in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,
837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) also illustrates why claim 1 is not integrated
into a practical application. “The claims in McRO were directed to the
creation of something physical—namely, the display of ‘lip synchronization
and facial expressions’ of animated characters on screens for viewing by
human eyes. . . . The claimed improvement was to how the physical display
operated (to produce better quality images).” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, claim 1 recites a method
that performs mental steps identified above and displays results as extra-
solution activity. Appeal Br. 17. Nothing physical is created by the method.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

24
Performing a first and second phase of data mining recited at such a
high level of generality as an abstract idea to generate a suggestion for the
user essentially creates a profile of the user. Similar concepts recited an
abstract idea with no integration. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.
for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding a process
that takes two data sets and combines them into a single data set to make a
device profile recites an ineligible abstract process).
Nor is claim 1 here rooted in computer technology as DDR Holdings
illustrates. Appeal Br. 17–18. DDR addressed a computer- and Internet-
specific problem of websites losing visitors to third-party merchants when
visitors clicked on a third-party merchant’s advertisement on a host site.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1248 (Fed. Cir.
2014). The system there generated a new, composite web page that retained
the look and feel of the host website while displaying product information of
a third-party merchant. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1248–49. Here, claim 1
recites data mining at a high level of generality to generate a suggestion but
without improving data structures, computers, or the Internet like the hybrid
web page did in DDR Holdings. Such data gathering and processing differs
from the claims in DDR Holdings. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 n.31.
Merely customizing suggestions based on information known about a
user recites an abstract idea without more in terms of technological advances
used to perform that customization as discussed above. See Appeal Br. 18.
The Specification provides no description of the type of mining that is done
thus indicating that there is no improvement to that process as claimed.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 does not include additional
elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

25
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites elements, individually, or as
an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217–18. The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim
limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 56 (explaining that the second step of the Alice analysis considers
whether a claim adds a specific limitation beyond a judicial exception that is
not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the limitations of claim 1 recite the abstract idea that is
identified above. As an ordered combination, the limitations represent no
more than the sum of their parts. Indeed, the claimed data mining is recited
at a high enough level of generality as to involve basic filtering functions.
User communications and responses to a question are filtered to identify a
health-related issue in the first and second data sets. See BASCOM Global
Internet Svcs., 827 F.3d at 1348 (“[F]iltering content is an abstract idea
because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human
behavior.”). BASCOM’s inventive concept of a local, custom filter and a
central filter separately configured is lacking here. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at
1350; see Appeal Br. 20–21. Indeed, Appellant admits that “data mining
techniques are inherent operations of a computer system.” Appeal Br. 21.
Merely performing data mining on different data sets to extract data for
“health-related issues” does not recite an inventive concept. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 223 (holding that limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular
technological environment is not enough for patent eligibility).
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

26
Even if the steps are groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant, that is
not enough for eligibility. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (“No matter how much of an advance in the
finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of
abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract
application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–10, 12–16, 19–21, 23, and 24 as
directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, and 24
Rejected as Unpatentable over Madan, Wu, and Rzhetsky
Appellant argues the independent claims as a group. Appeal Br. 22–
30. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Madan discloses a system
that monitors an electronic communication between a user and others, mines
for health-related issues in the communication, extracts a data set from the
communication based on the mining to generate a model and data based on
the mining, proactively generates a question to solicit additional information
for further mining as surveys, mines survey responses, extracts a second set
of data based on survey responses, and presents suggestions to the user in an
interface configured to receive the user’s validation. Final Act. 9–10. The
Examiner relies on Wu to disclose generating a question in a public forum
and accessing responses to that question. Id. at 10–11. The Examiner relies
on Rzhetsky to disclose parsing semantically relevant chunks. Id. at 11.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

27
The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the
system of Madan with the teachings of Wu and Rzhetsky as known elements
that provide predictable results as taught by both references. Id. at 11–12.
Appellant first argues that Madan does not mine for health-related
issues in the electronic communication between a user and another user.
Appeal Br. 23. Appellant argues that Madan accesses a first log of use of a
native communication application and collects usage data to identify how
the patient interacts with other individuals using metadata. Id.
This argument is not persuasive because Madan mines data for health-
related issues in communications to include extracting patient response data
from surveys. Madan ¶ 17. Madan monitors and mines communications to
determine the duration of, and parties to, a communication to assess health-
related issues including symptoms and therapy adherence. Id. ¶ 34. Madan
monitors and mines patient text messages to extract message length, entry
speed, efficiency, and accuracy as well as other public/private text messages
and online social networking systems or product reviews through online
rankings or review services. Id. ¶ 44. Mining communication data collected
from a patient can supply health status and suggested action to the patient or
health care provider and can be aggregated. Id. ¶¶ 23, 48; Ans. 18. Madan
extracts features from voice and text communications to compute health
status issues such as activity score, work-life balance score, and quality-of-
life score, and can use data mining to process this data. Madan ¶¶ 49, 50.
Appellant also argues that Madan does not mine for any health-related
issues because the health condition already is associated with the patient and
the system merely determines whether the patient is adhering to a treatment
regimen for the health condition. Appeal Br. 24.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

28
This argument is not persuasive as Madan monitors and mines patient
communications to extract health-related data to determine health status and
whether a patient is at risk of a change of symptoms. Madan ¶¶ 18, 23. In
addition, Madan uses the extracted health-related data to identify changes in
patient health, quality of life, treatment efficacy, symptom relapse, and risk
of hospital readmission in order to modify or customize treatment regimes
for a patient. Id. ¶ 41; Ans. 19. Madan thus mines for new health issues.
Appellant also argues that Madan does not extract data from a user’s
communications because it generates a model and risk score for a patient
based on the patient’s behavior and a health risk model. Appeal Br. 25–26.
This arguments is not persuasive because, as discussed above, Madan
extracts data from user electronic communications in a number of different
ways. Madan extracts data from voice communications including the other
party to the communication. Madan ¶ 34. Madan extracts a variety of data
from text messages regarding message length, entry speed, efficiency, and
accuracy as well as text messages sent to contacts of a user through online
social networking systems or product reviews through online rankings or
review services. Id. ¶ 44. Madan extracts other features from voice and text
communications to determine an activity score, socialization score, work-life
balance score, and quality-of-life score, and data mines communication data
into relevant behavior features (e.g., data points). Id. ¶¶ 49, 50.
Appellant further argues that Wu electronically forwards a public post
to the user but does not create data. Appeal Br. 29. Appellant also asserts
that Wu’s forwarding operation of all posts in their entirety does not perform
an extraction operation in the replies from the public forums as claimed. Id.

Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

29
These arguments are not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Madan to teach extracting a first set of data and proactively generating a
question based on the first set of data corresponding to the health-related
issue and mining responses to the question but acknowledges that Madan
does not generate the question in a public forum. See Final Act. 9–10. Wu
uses a public forum to post a medical question while protecting the person’s
identity using a surrogate and then retrieving the replies and forwarding that
data to a user at a designated location. Wu ¶¶ 6, 104, 113, 116, Fig. 15.
The teachings of Madan and Wu render obvious the subject matter of
posting a question on a public forum and mining data in the responses. Wu
teaches such public forums allow a user to obtain suggestions from users of
those forums in addition to consulting panel of experts. Id. ¶ 113; see In re
Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.”).
Appellant also argues that Rzhetsky does not teach “mining of the
semantically relevant chunks” to the health issue as claimed. Appeal Br. 30.
Appellant contends that Rzhetsky does not check relevance but instead
determines sentence form based on its semantic structure. Id.
This argument is not persuasive because the purpose of Rzhetsky’s
parsing is to extract relational information about genes and proteins from
genomics journal articles to be accessed as text. Rzhetsky, 1:42–49. To that
end, Rzhetsky uses a GENIE module to identify and categorize each relevant
multi-word and single word phrase in sentences as elements. Id. at 9:49–52.
The GENIE module can parse sentence and phrase structure using semantic
and syntactic categories to identify terms of relevance. Id. at 10:47–57.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

30
The teachings of Wu and Rzhetsky also provide motivation to modify
Madan’s method for similar benefits and predictable results. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); see Final Act. 11–12. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Madan’s principle of operation
would be changed by using Wu’s public forum to post a question as claimed.
Appeal Br. 35–36. In this regard, Wu teaches to use a surrogate identity to
protect the privacy and identity of the person whose information and/or
question is posted in the public forum. See Wu ¶ 113, Fig. 15 (step 2509).
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Rzhetsky does not
determine relevance and therefore cannot be relevant to a health condition of
Madan. Appeal Br. 36. As discussed above, Rzhetsky’s parsing GENIE and
method is designed to identify and extract information in genomics journal
articles relevant to novel genes and proteins. Rzhetsky, 1:33–49. To that
end, the GENIE identifies and categorizes words or phrases in sentences and
uses grammar, syntactic categories, and words like phosphorylate or protein
to identify relevant data to extract. Id. at 9:5–67, 10:47–11:4.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 8 and 15,
which fall with claim 1.
Dependent Claim 4
As discussed above for claim 1, the Examiner finds that Madan
monitors user communications via website forums, instant messages,
websites, and social media communications to extract data identifying health
problems, solutions, and advice as recited in claim 4. Final Act. 9–10, 12.
Appellant argues that Madan uses only a log of use of a communication
application, e.g., metadata rather than content of a communication, without
accessing the content of the communication. Appeal Br. 32.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

31
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above for
claim 1, namely, that Madan monitors actual communications including text
messages and extracts data related to the messages and health problems and
solutions including from surveys. See Madan ¶¶ 17, 23, 34, 44, 48–50.
Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner error in this
regard. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Dependent Claims 5, 12, and 19
The Examiner relies on Wu to teach extracting a second set of data by
“monitoring responses to the question on the public forum; and identifying a
suggested solution addressing the question from the responses to the
question” as recited in claims 5, 12, and 19. Final Act. 12–13. Appellant
argues that Wu does not identify a suggestion from responses because step
2510 of Wu forwards all posts and does not require a selection from among
the posts of Wu. Appeal Br. 32. As discussed above for of claim 1, the
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Madan and Wu to teach a
public forum for posting questions and extracting data from responses. Wu
posts questions on a public form and receives responses, and Madan extracts
data from an answer to a posted question to a user on a non-public forum.
Wu ¶¶ 104–116, Fig. 15 (item 2510); Madan ¶¶ 56–60, 92. Appellant’s
argument does not address the Examiner’s reliance on these combined
teachings of Madan and Wu and therefore do not apprise us of error.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19.
Dependent Claims 7 and 14
The Examiner finds that Madan teaches to generate a program that
provides a suggestion(s) to perform actions affecting health-related issues
and include the program in a suggestion to the user. Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

32
Appellant argues that Madan does not include the supposed program
in the suggestion and the Examiner has interpreted the treatment program for
which Madan displays a notification as the claimed program. Appeal Br.
33–34. Appellant assert that Madan’s system cannot include a treatment
program in the notification associated with operation S150. Id. at 34.
We agree with the Examiner that Madan teaches to include a program
in a suggestion provided via an interface illustrated in Figure 1A of Madan.
Block S150 of Figure 1A of Madan illustrates a notification (or a suggestion
as claimed) provided on an interface with a “TREATMENT PROGRAM.”
Madan ¶ 125. Madan generates a treatment program and delivers it with a
suggestion to guide the patient through a treatment program. See id. ¶¶ 23,
33, 125–127. Claims 7 and 14 require no more in this regard.
The Specification discloses that the system may generate a program
that may be an application or executable file. Spec. ¶ 44. The system may
extract data from the web, discussion forums, and other information sources
and generate a sleeping coaching program based on the extracted data. Id.
Program delivery system 110 may access validated suggestions from storage
108 and present validated suggestions to the mobile device user. Id. ¶ 55.
However, the Specification provides no further details of how a program is
provided to a user or how it is provided by being included in a suggestion to
the user as recited in claims 7 and 14. We interpret this limitation to be
satisfied by providing a program or file to a user with a suggestion. Madan
does this as part of initial and revised health models and treatment regimes
that are provided to a user as part of different treatment programs. Madan
¶¶ 23–27, 33, 35, 125–127.
Thus, we sustain the rejections of claims 7 and 14.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

33
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16
Rejected over Madan, Wu, Rzhetsky, and Gilley
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that Madan teaches
an input that validates a suggestion and stores the validated suggestions in a
storage device as recited in claims 2, 9, and 16. Appeal Br. 30–31. In
addition, Appellant argues that Madan does not perform any validation
operations, and the interface of Madan is not equipped to do so. Id. at 31.
The Examiner correctly finds that Madan presents a suggestion to a
patient on an interface of the patient’s mobile computing device to provide
guidance (suggestions) to the patient during a treatment program to include a
reminder to perform a particular task, suggest a behavior change, reminders
to take a medication, and medication dosages. Madan ¶¶ 125–27, Fig. 1A
(S150); Final Act. 12. In response to these suggestions, the patient validates
the suggestion by indicating an intention to comply as “Roger that!” or the
patient may not validate the suggestion. Madan ¶ 127. The validation or not
is stored in the treatment adherence model as claimed. Id.
The user’s input into the interface indicates the user’s evaluation of
the suggestion. In the case of a user’s acceptance of the suggestion, the user
inputs a message such as “Roger that!” to indicate that the user validates the
suggestion presented on an interface. Id. The Specification describes a
similar process in which system 100 presents candidate suggestions to users
to evaluate. Spec. ¶ 54. Users can select a suggestion(s) thereby validating
the suggestion. Id. Appellant’s argument that Madan is not equipped with
an option to perform a validation operation does not persuade us of error in
the Examiner’s findings that Madan’s system does so. See Appeal Br. 31.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

34
Claims 3 and 10
The Examiner relies on Gilley to teach presenting a candidate
substitution for an action of the user and receiving the user’s vote on
whether the user prefers the candidate substitution via the interface 1200.
Final Act. 13–14 (citing Gilley ¶¶ 108–12, Fig. 12). The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to include this feature on Madan’s method to
bridge the corridors of experience in a person’s life and coordinate them for
maximum efficiency and enjoyment as Gilley teaches. Id. at 14–15.
Appellant argues that Gilley presents selections to customize a user’s
workout but selection of a workout regimen does not substitute an existing
regimen so the choices are not candidate substitutions. Appeal Br. 31.
The Examiner reasonably finds that Gilley teaches substitutability of
various suggested workout regimes. Gilley, 16:20–17:58, Fig. 12. Indeed,
Gilley allows users to customize suggested workout compilations and fitness
activities including those composed by a third party, and users can adjust the
parameters set by others by substituting different workout regimes. Id.
Madan also teaches the substitutability of candidate suggestions for
users. For example, if treatment efficacy falls below a threshold efficacy,
the system can prompt a care provider to modify the existing treatment
regimen or prescribe a new treatment regimen for the patient or prompt
manual modification of the treatment regimen for a subgroup. Madan ¶ 121.
Madan allows a care provider to enter a substitute suggestion for a user to
accept to modify treatment as a custom notification in lieu of a suggested
notification. Id. ¶¶ 41, 125–28. The Examiner relies on Gilley to teach a
user interface that presents candidate substitutions for use in Madan.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 3 and 10.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

35
Claims 6, 13, and 20
Rejected over Madan, Wu, Rzhetsky, Gilley, and Provoost
The Examiner relies on Gilley to teach receiving and executing a
query associated with a health issue to determine a plurality of webpages
and Provoost to teach determining that a similarity of content between the
webpages exceeds a predetermined threshold and extracting content that is
common to the plurality of webpages. Final Act. 16–17.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown that Gilley uses a
query as claimed. Appeal Br. 32–33. This argument is not persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s findings that Gilley discloses a “query” as being the
questionnaires received from third parties in Gilley as plug-in modules with
associated health issues that a user answers to generate a personal webpage.
Ans. 33; Final Act. 16; Gilley, 2:18–28, 6:52–60, Fig. 1. A user completes
an interview to create a profile to address health conditions and other areas
of their lifestyle. Gilley, 5:23–65. Moreover, Madan already queries a user
about health conditions in a survey and collects results of multiple surveys.
Madan ¶¶ 15, 55–57. Provoost teaches how to identify and extract common
content from multiple documents to determine a degree of match based on a
previously defined threshold and display of such content. Provoost ¶ 13.
Appellant’s argument that Provoost determines common content using
structured searches or queries while the claimed step compares unstructured
data of webpages (see Appeal Br. 33) is not commensurate with the scope of
the claims. The Specification describes this process as finding sentences or
phrases that are common in two webpages without regard to whether the
pages are structured or unstructured. Spec. ¶ 62, Fig. 6.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20.
Appeal 2020-000978
Application 14/668,682

36
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–16,
19–21, 23, 24
101 Eligibility 1–10, 12–16,
19–21, 23, 24

1, 4, 5, 7, 8,
12, 14, 15,
19, 21, 23, 24
103 Madan, Wu,
Rzhetsky
1, 4, 5, 7, 8,
12, 14, 15,
19, 21, 23, 24

2, 3, 9, 10, 16 103 Madan, Wu,
Rzhetsky, Gilley
2, 3, 9, 10, 16
6, 13, 20 103 Madan, Wu,
Rzhetsky, Gilley,
Provoost
6, 13, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–16,
19–21, 23, 24

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