Parkland Center for Clinical Innovation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2020004556 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
14/326,863 07/09/2014 Rubendran Amarasingham PCCI-P0012US-NP 8117
134449 7590 11/19/2020
Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
2709 Dublin Road
Plano, TX 75094
EXAMINER
MOSELEY, GREGORY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2020 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):
docketing@gchub.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUBENDRAN AMARASINGHAM, VAIDYANATHA SIVA,
MONAL SHAH, ANAND SHAH, GEORGE OLIVER,
PRASEETHA CHERIAN, JAVIER VELAZQUEZ, and PAUL MAYER III
____________

Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–34, 36, 37, 39, and 41–54.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention “generally relates to a healthcare system, and
more particularly . . . to a patient care surveillance system and method”
(Spec. ¶ 2).
Claims 1, 28, and 54 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A patient care surveillance system, comprising:
[(a)] a data store operable to receive and store clinical
and non-clinical data associated with a plurality of patients, the
clinical and non-clinical data being selected from the group
consisting of: past medical history, age, weight, height, race,
gender, marital status, education, address, housing status, allergy
and adverse medical reactions, family medical information, prior
surgical information, emergency room records, medication
administration records, culture results, clinical notes and records,
gynecological and obstetric information, mental status
examination, vaccination records, radiological imaging exams,

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed December 2, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
February 5, 2020), Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed August 30, 2019),
and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 20, 2019). Appellant
identifies Dallas County Hospital District, a political subdivision of the State
of Texas, d/b/a Parkland Health & Hospital System, as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

3
invasive visualization procedures, psychiatric treatment
information, prior histological specimens, laboratory results,
genetic information, socio-economic status, type and nature of
employment, job history, lifestyle, hospital utilization patterns,
addictive substance use, frequency of physician or health system
contact, location and frequency of habitation changes, census and
demographic data, neighborhood environments, diet, proximity
and number of family or care-giving assistants, travel history,
social media data, social workers’ notes, pharmaceutical and
supplement intake information, focused genotype testing,
medical insurance information, exercise information,
occupational chemical exposure records, predictive screening
health questionnaires, personality tests, census and demographic
data, neighborhood environment data, and participation in food,
housing, and utilities assistance registries;
[(b)] a user interface configured to receive user input of
current information related to the plurality of patients;
[(c)] a monitor configured to sense at least one parameter
associated with the plurality of patients and further configured to
generate real-time patient monitor data including sensed
locations of the plurality of patients;
[(d)] a data analysis module configured to access the data
store, preprocess the data using natural language processing, and
analyze the clinical and non-clinical data, receive and analyze the
current information and real-time patient monitor data, and
identify at least one adverse event associated with the care of the
plurality of patients, the data analysis module being configured
to apply at least one predictive model to the clinical and non-
clinical data in consideration of a plurality of weighted risk
variables and risk thresholds to identify the at least one adverse
event, and ranking the plurality of patients in response to each
patient’s risk associated with the at least one adverse event; and
[(e)] a data presentation module operable to present
information associated with the identified at least one adverse
event associated with the care of the plurality of patients
according to the ranking to a healthcare professional.
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–34, 36, 37, 39, and 41–54 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 23–25, 28, 29, 31–34, 36, 37,
39, 41, 42, 48–50, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rosenfeld et al. (US 2006/0271408 A1, published
Nov. 30, 2006) (“Rosenfeld”), Rao et al. (US 7,617,078 B2, issued Nov. 10,
2009) (“Rao”), Sharbaugh (US 2008/0106374 A1, published May 8, 2008),
and Magent et al. (US 2010/0131434 A1, published May 27, 2010)
(“Magent”).
Claims 3 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Rosenfeld, Rao, Sharbaugh, Magent, and Ryan et al.
(US 2012/0046965 A1, published Feb. 23, 2012) (“Ryan”).
Claims 17–22 and 43–47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rosenfeld, Rao, Sharbaugh, Magent, and Hume et al.
(US 2013/0047113 A1, published Feb. 21, 2013) (“Hume”).
Claims 26, 27, 51, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rosenfeld, Rao, Sharbaugh, Magent, and Ober et al.
(US 2007/0185739 A1, published Aug. 9, 2007) (“Ober”).
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 19–21).
We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group. The
remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1, see 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv),
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

5
except we also consider Appellant’s separate assertions with respect to
dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–27 (Appeal Br. 21).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claim is patent eligible if it claims a “new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., 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.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019 for use by USPTO personnel in
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

6
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the
USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that
[are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not
“directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e.,
Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following
three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic
principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental
processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that

2 The USPTO issued an update on October 17, 2019 (the “October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) clarifying the
2019 Revised Guidance in response to public comments.
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

7
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Only then,
is the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, the Examiner determined that independent claims 1, 28, and 54
recite “remote patient monitoring and notifying providers in case of an
adverse event,” i.e., a mental process, and, therefore an abstract idea (Final
Act. 4–5), and that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application (id. at 5). The Examiner also determined that claims 1, 28, and
54 do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself (id. at 5–10), and that the dependent claims
are patent ineligible for substantially similar reasons (id. at 11–12).
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal
Br. 11–18, 22–24). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’
inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the
specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the
claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

8
that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the Specification
(including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and
not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical field.
The Specification is titled “PATIENT CARE SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM AND METHOD,” and describes, in the Background section, that
“[c]onventionally, hospitals and healthcare facilities rely on voluntary
incident reporting and retrospective manual record reviews to identify and
track adverse events” (Spec. ¶ 3).3 However, the Specification describes that
these efforts have been largely unreliable, fail to capture all relevant data,
and do not present an accurate and timely picture of patient care (id.). In
addition, because of the voluntary nature of incident reporting, many adverse
events are never reported (id.).
The claimed invention is intended to provide a patient care
surveillance system and method that improves patient care by capturing and
analyzing relevant information surrounding and relating to the occurrence of
adverse events on a real-time basis (Spec. ¶ 8). Claim 1, thus, recites a
patient care surveillance system comprising: (1) a data store for receiving
and storing patient clinical and non-clinical data, i.e.,
a data store operable to receive and store clinical and non-
clinical data associated with a plurality of patients, the clinical
and non-clinical data being selected from the group consisting
of: past medical history, age, weight, height, race, gender, marital
status, education, address, housing status, allergy and adverse
medical reactions, family medical information, prior surgical

3 “An adverse event is typically defined as unintended injury to a patient
resulting from or contributing to medical care that requires additional
monitoring, treatment, or hospitalization, or that results in death” (id.).
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

9
information, emergency room records, medication
administration records, culture results, clinical notes and records,
gynecological and obstetric information, mental status
examination, vaccination records, radiological imaging exams,
invasive visualization procedures, psychiatric treatment
information, prior histological specimens, laboratory results,
genetic information, socio-economic status, type and nature of
employment, job history, lifestyle, hospital utilization patterns,
addictive substance use, frequency of physician or health system
contact, location and frequency of habitation changes, census and
demographic data, neighborhood environments, diet, proximity
and number of family or care-giving assistants, travel history,
social media data, social workers’ notes, pharmaceutical and
supplement intake information, focused genotype testing,
medical insurance information, exercise information,
occupational chemical exposure records, predictive screening
health questionnaires, personality tests, census and demographic
data, neighborhood environment data, and participation in food,
housing, and utilities assistance registries
(limitation (a)); (2) “a user interface configured to receive user input of
current information related to the plurality of patients” (limitation (b));
(3) “a monitor configured to sense at least one parameter associated with the
plurality of patients and further configured to generate real-time patient
monitor data including sensed locations of the plurality of patients”
(limitation (c)); (4) a data analysis module configured to access and analyze
the clinical and non-clinical data, receive and analyze the current
information and real-time patient monitor data, and identify at least one
adverse event associated with the care of the plurality of patients, i.e.,
a data analysis module configured to access the data store,
preprocess the data using natural language processing, and
analyze the clinical and non-clinical data, receive and analyze the
current information and real-time patient monitor data, and
identify at least one adverse event associated with the care of the
plurality of patients, the data analysis module being configured
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

10
to apply at least one predictive model to the clinical and non-
clinical data in consideration of a plurality of weighted risk
variables and risk thresholds to identify the at least one adverse
event, and ranking the plurality of patients in response to each
patient’s risk associated with the at least one adverse event
(limitation (d)); and (5) a data presentation module operable to present
information regarding the one or more adverse events to a healthcare
professional, i.e., “a data presentation module operable to present
information associated with the identified at least one adverse event
associated with the care of the plurality of patients according to the ranking
to a healthcare professional” (limitation (e)).
Appellant notes that “[t]he 2019 PEG explicitly indicated that ‘the
‘mental processes’ grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human
mind, and examples of mental processes include observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion’” (Appeal Br. 19). And Appellant argues that claim 1
is not directed to an abstract idea because the claim contains limitations that
cannot practically be performed in the human mind (id. at 19–20).
Specifically referencing limitations (b) and (c) of claim 1, Appellant
argues that “the human mind does not and cannot include ‘a user interface
configured to receive user input of current information related to the
plurality of patients’; or ‘a monitor configured to sense at least one
parameter associated with the plurality of patients and further configured
to generate real-time patient monitor data including sensed locations of
the plurality of patients’” (Appeal Br. 19–20). Appellant also contends that
the human mind, although capable of receiving and analyzing information,
“does not and cannot include ‘a data analysis module[, as recited in
limitation (d) of claim 1,] configured to access the data store, preprocess the
data using natural language processing, and analyze the clinical and non-
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

11
clinical data, receive and analyze the current information and real-time
patient monitor data, and identify at least one adverse event associated with
the care of the plurality of patients” (id.).
Claim 1 admittedly recites that the claimed system comprises certain
tangible components. Yet, we agree with the Examiner that the underlying
functions are all acts that could be performed in the human mind (Final
Act. 4–5). Indeed, we find nothing in claim language that forecloses the
claimed functions set forth in limitations (b), (c), and (d) from being
performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.
Limitation (b), for example, requires receiving user input of current
patient information — something that a person plainly could perform in his
or her mind or using pen and paper. A person also could monitor and record
patient movement, as well as changes in the patient’s vital signs, either
mentally or using pen and paper, and could receive and analyze information
(including clinical and non-clinical data, current patient information, and
real-time patient monitor data) and identify adverse patient events, again
either mentally or using pen and paper. Such a person also could report any
adverse events to a healthcare professional, either orally or via written
communication. Cf. Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp.,
681 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding ineligible a claimed method for
providing certified financial data indicating financial risk about an individual
where a computer generated a report from the financial account data
including real-time and historical transaction and balance data as directed to
the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis).
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

12
In sum, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a mental
process, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, including an
observation, evaluation, or judgment, and therefore, an abstract idea. See
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that method
steps that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen
and paper, are unpatentable mental processes). See also Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that
the Federal Circuit treats “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”); Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1308 (Fed. Circ. 2016) (“[W]ith the
exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose[s] them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.”); 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.”).
Separately addressing dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15–27,
Appellant notes that (1) dependent claims 2–4, 6, 8, and 23–27 recite further
limitations of the data analysis module; (2) claim 10 recites a user interface;
(3) claims 11, 13, and 15 recite further limitations of the monitor;
(4) claims 16–21 recite further limitations of the data presentation module;
and (5) claim 22 recites a plurality of databases (Appeal Br. 21). Appellant
summarily asserts that none of these limitations is a mental process (id.).
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

13
But, in the absence of any further explanation, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in determining that these dependent claims recite mental
processes.
Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), we next consider whether the claim
recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The only additional elements recited in claim 1, beyond the abstract
idea, are “a data store”; “a user interface”; “a monitor”; “a data analysis
module”; and “a data presentation module” —elements recited at a high
level of generality, and described in the Specification as generic computer
and/or “off the shelf” components (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 9, 13, 16–18, 82, 85,
86).4 We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct
us to any indication, that the operations recited in claim 1 invoke any
allegedly inventive programming, require any specialized computer
hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine,
or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic
computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer
limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).

4 The Examiner determined, and Appellant ostensibly agreed, that the “data
analysis module” and “data presentation module” limitations are properly
regarded as “means-plus-function” limitations and, thus, properly construed
in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to encompass the corresponding
structure disclosed in the Specification and equivalents thereof.
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

14
We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record that attributes an
improvement in technology and/or a technical field to the claimed invention
or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract
idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the 2019 Revised
Guidance.5
Appellant argues that “the claims recite additional elements that
provide for a specific manner of surveilling patients in an efficient manner in
response to an analysis of clinical and non-clinical data of the patients to
determine the risk levels of the patients for adverse events, including the use
of a predictive model” and that “[t]he result is an improved system that
enables a more efficient focus of the attention and resources to the most
at-risk patients” (Appeal Br. 21). But, we are not persuaded that enabling a
more efficient focus of attention and resources to the most at-risk patients by
surveilling patients in response to an analysis of clinical and non-clinical

5 The 2019 Revised Guidance references MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available
at https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-08.2017.) § 2106.05(a)–(c)
and (e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an
additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the
recited judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The Guidance, thus, describes that an
additional element may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical
application if, for example, the additional element (1) reflects an
improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other
technology or technical field; (2) implements the judicial exception with, or
uses the judicial exception with, a particular machine or manufacture
integral to the claim; or (3) effects a transformation or reduction of an article
to a different state or thing. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

15
data is a technological improvement, as opposed to an improvement to the
abstract idea of monitoring patients and reporting the occurrence of adverse
events. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims [i.e., claims to an asserted
advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter how
groundbreaking the advance.”).
Considered in light of the Specification, the claimed invention clearly
focuses on improving the quality of patient care by monitoring, quantifying,
and reporting the occurrence of adverse events on a real-time basis (see, e.g.,
Spec. ¶ 3 (describing that past efforts to identify and track adverse events
“have been largely unreliable, fail to capture all relevant data and do not
present an accurate and timely picture of patient care”); ¶ 8 (describing that
“[b]y capturing and analyzing relevant information surrounding and relating
to the occurrence of adverse events on a real-time basis, policies and
procedures may be implemented to improve patient care and may result in
significantly better outcomes”)), and not on any claimed means for
achieving that goal that improves technology.
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
mental process, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional elements recited
in the claim beyond the abstract idea, are no more than generic computer and
off-the-shelf components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea
(see, e.g., Spec. 20:20–22:7). As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly
generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional
featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

16
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 56. We conclude that it does not. And Appellant offers no argument to
the contrary.
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2–4, 6, 8, 10, 11,
13, 15–34, 36, 37, 39, and 41–54, which fall with claim 1.
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16,
and 23–25
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at least because Sharbaugh, on which the
Examiner relies, fails to disclose or suggest “a monitor . . . configured to
generate real-time patient monitor data including sensed locations of the
plurality of patients,” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 22).
Sharbaugh is directed to a patient room information system, and
discloses a point of care apparatus including an identification system for
automatically identifying persons or objects in a patient’s room (Sharbaugh
¶ 10). In one embodiment, an ultrasonic identification system includes tags
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

17
worn by the patient, family member and/or caregiver, or attached to
equipment, each of which emits a unique series of sounds that are detected
by a sensor located in the room (id. ¶ 11).
Sharbaugh discloses, in paragraph 33, cited by the Examiner, that one
or more identification signal readers could be positioned in the room to
allow the system to “sense the presence of a tag in the space and/or allow
triangulation through multiple sensors to assess a more specific location of a
tag in the room.” Sharbaugh describes, “[f]or example, the system could
determine when a patient gets out of the bed” (id. ¶ 33).
Appellant acknowledges that Sharbaugh “appears to disclose” using
RFID technology to sense the presence of the patient and others in a patient
room (Appeal Br. 22). But, Appellant argues that Sharbaugh does not
disclose monitoring for the “sensed locations of the plurality of patients”
because “Sharbaugh only detects where the patient is located inside the
patient’s room and nowhere else” (id.).
Responding to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner opines that
“[t]here is no language in the claims that requires the system to be able to
monitor the patient’s location outside of [his or her] room or that the
patient’s location is ‘tracked’” (Ans. 6). And the Examiner concludes that
“[t]he ability to receive information including the location of a patient at a
critical care location is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claims” (id.).
Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief or otherwise explained why the
Examiner’s position is unreasonable or unsupported.
Appellant also argues that the obviousness rejection of claim 1 cannot
be sustained because none of the cited references discloses or suggests
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

18
a data analysis module configured to access the data store,
preprocess the data using natural language processing, and
analyze the clinical and non-clinical data, receive and analyze the
current information and real-time patient monitor data, and
identify at least one adverse event associated with the care of the
plurality of patients, the data analysis module being configured
to apply at least one predictive model to the clinical and non-
clinical data in consideration of a plurality of weighted risk
variables and risk thresholds to identify the at least one adverse
event, and ranking the plurality of patients in response to each
patient’s risk associated with the at least one adverse event[,]
i.e., limitation (d), as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 24–25).
Addressing Rosenfeld, on which the Examiner relies,6 Appellant notes
that “Rosenfeld teaches a system that generates rules and decides whether
the rule should be revised based on performance measures” (Appeal
Br. 22–23 (citing Rosenfeld ¶ 32))). And Appellant summarily asserts,
without any further explanation, that “[a] rule-based system is not a
predictive model required in claim 1” (id. at 23).
In the absence of additional arguments or technical reasoning, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13,
15, 16, and 23–25, which are not argued separately.

6 The Examiner cites paragraphs 32, 67, 69, 74, 75, 79, 81, 103, and 104 of
Rosenfeld as disclosing the argued limitation (Final Act. 18–21).
Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

19
Independent Claim 28 and Dependent Claims 28, 29, 31–34, 36, 37, 39, 41,
42, 48–50, and 53
Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 28 are
substantially similar to Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, and
are similarly insufficient to establish Examiner error.
We are not persuaded on the present record that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 28, and dependent claims 28, 29,
31–34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 48–50, and 53, which are not argued separately.
Independent Claim 54 and Dependent Claims 3, 17–22, 26, 27, 30, 43–47,
51, and 52
Appellant does not provide any response to the Examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3, 17–22, 26, 27, 30, 43–47, 51, 52, and 54.
Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8,
10, 11, 13,
15–34, 36,
37, 39,
41–54
101 Eligibility 1–4, 6, 8,
10, 11, 13,
15–34, 36,
37, 39,
41–54

Appeal 2020-004556
Application 14/326,863

20
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6,
8, 10, 11,
13, 15, 16,
23–25, 28,
29, 31–34,
36, 37, 39,
41, 42,
48–50, 53,
54
103 Rosenfeld, Rao,
Sharbaugh, Magent
1, 2, 4, 6, 8,
10, 11, 13,
15, 16,
23–25, 28,
29, 31–34,
36, 37, 39,
41, 42,
48–50, 53,
54

3, 30 103 Rosenfeld, Rao,
Sharbaugh,
Magent, Ryan
3, 30
17–22,
43–47
103 Rosenfeld, Rao,
Sharbaugh,
Magent, Hume
17–22,
43–47

26, 27, 51,
52
103 Rosenfeld, Rao,
Sharbaugh,
Magent, Ober
26, 27, 51,
52

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 8,
10, 11, 13,
15–34, 36,
37, 39,
41–54

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