Qian, Yuechen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 25, 2019

13641901 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/641,901 02/06/2013 Yuechen Qian
24737 7590 12/12/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010P00519WOUS 6767
EXAMINER
JAMI,HARES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUECHEN QIAN, SEVENSTER MERLIJN,
and GISELLE REBECCA ISNER
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-21. Claims 3, 4, and 15
are indicated as containing allowable subject matter, and claim 10 was
cancelled. See Final Act 14; Appeal Br. 20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
1 We use the word "Appellant" to refer to "applicant" as defined in 3 7
C.F .R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
February 2, 2018 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed June 14, 2018
("Appeal Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed August 27, 2018
("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed October 22, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention enables viewing structured and unstructured
reports simultaneously. When a structured report, such as a report that uses
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) descriptors, is
opened, the system searches for other reports related to those descriptors.
The system then displays both structured and unstructured reports
simultaneously, highlighting the words and sentences derived from the
descriptors. See generally Spec. 4-5, 8-11, 20; Fig. 1. Claims 1 and 20 are
illustrative:
1. A method for viewing a medical report describing
radiological images, comprising the acts of:
opening a structured medical report describing one or
more radiological images using descriptors selected from a
predefined list of descriptors, wherein the descriptors of the
structured medical report describe a first lesion and at least one
descriptor includes an imaging modality of the one or more
radiological images that include the described first lesion; and
in response to the opening act, performing the further
acts of:
searching by a processor for an unstructured further
report of a prior study related to the descriptors of the structured
medical report for a same patient,
wherein the search matches keywords translated
with an ontology from the descriptors of the structured
medical report and an interpretation of one or more
interpretations obtained from free text of the unstructured
further report,
wherein the free text of the unstructured further
report includes sentences and words in the sentences,
wherein the interpretation of the one or more
interpretations includes a plurality of attributes obtained
from the free text and describe a second lesion,
wherein one attribute of the plurality of attributes
includes an imaging modality of the image that includes
2
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
the described second lesion in the unstructured further
report,
wherein the matching of the search comprises
matching the imaging modality of the one attribute of the
described second lesion obtained from the free text of the
unstructured report with the imaging modality of the
keyword translated from the at least one descriptor of the
structured report; and
highlighting in the free text of the unstructured further
report of a prior study displayed on a display device at least one
selected from a group comprising of the words in the sentences
and the sentences of the one or more interpretations matched
with keywords derived from the used descriptors of the
structured medical report.
20. A report viewer comprising:
an ontology engine including one or more processors
configured to receive descriptors from a structured medical
report of a patient used to describe a first lesion in one or more
radiological images, and select and translate used descriptors
from the received descriptors according to a predefined set of
descriptors into keywords;
a report analyzer including the one or more processors
configured to analyze free text of an unstructured further report
of a prior study of a same patient to obtain a plurality of
interpretations of the free text and the unstructured further
report includes a plurality of imaging modalities, each
interpretation includes a plurality of attributes and each
interpretation includes an attribute associated with one imaging
modality of the plurality of imaging modalities of the
unstructured further report and each interpretation including
one or more attributes of the plurality of attributes that describe
a lesion and each interpretation obtained using a different
portion of the free text of the unstructured further report; and
a reasoning and matching engine including the one or
more processors configured to match the translated keywords of
the structure medical report of the patient describing the first
lesion with attributes of the plurality of attributes of one
obtained interpretation of the plurality of interpretations of the
3
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
unstructured further report of the prior study of the same patient
that describe a same lesion to highlight on a display device the
different portion of the free text obtained for the one obtained
interpretation and matched in the unstructured further report of
the prior study of the same patient, wherein the match
comprises at least the attribute associated with the one imaging
modality of the plurality of imaging modalities of the
unstructured further report.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. Ans. 3-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kanada (US 7,844,089 B2; issued Nov. 30, 2010), Esham
(US 2006/0242143 Al; published Oct. 26, 2006), Reiner (US 2010/0145720
Al; published June 10, 2010), and Bacon (US 2010/0306218 Al; published
Dec. 2, 2010). Ans. 7-10.
THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner determines that claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-21 are
directed to an abstract idea, namely obtaining data of a structured report, and
comparing the data with an unstructured report's text. See Ans. 3-5. The
Examiner adds that these claims do not include elements that add
significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely recite generic computer
structure that performs generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional. Ans. 5-6.
Appellant argues that the claims are eligible because, among other
things, they are directed to a smart report viewer for viewing reports using a
predetermined set of radiological descriptors used in medical imaging
4
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
systems, where the claims not only recite specifically defined elements in
combination, but also require a processor, thus improving the technical field
of report viewers. Appeal Br. 6-10. Appellant adds that, contrary to the
Examiner's determination, certain claimed functions are not well-
understood, routine, or conventional, nor has the Examiner provided
evidence in that regard. See Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-5.
ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-
14, and 16-21 as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on
whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether recited
elements-considered individually and as an ordered combination-
transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of that
abstract idea.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
5
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
(15 How.) 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). That
said, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
6
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks
omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional
features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
7
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-14, and 16--21: Alice/Mayo Step One
Representative independent claim 1 recites a method for viewing a
medical report describing radiological images, comprising the acts of
opening a structured medical report describing one or more
radiological images using descriptors selected from a predefined list of
descriptors, wherein the descriptors of the structured medical report
describe a first lesion and at least one descriptor includes an imaging
modality of the one or more radiological images that include the described
first lesion; and
in response to the opening act, performing the further acts of
searching by a processor for an unstructured further report of a prior
study related to the descriptors of the structured medical report for a same
patient,
8
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
wherein the search matches keywords translated with an ontology
from the descriptors of the structured medical report and an interpretation
of one or more interpretations obtained from free text of the unstructured
further report,
wherein the free text of the unstructured further report includes
sentences and words in the sentences,
wherein the interpretation of the one or more interpretations includes
a plurality of attributes obtained from the free text and describe a second
lesion,
wherein one attribute of the plurality of attributes includes an imaging
modality of the image that includes the described second lesion in the
unstructured further report,
wherein the matching of the search comprises matching the imaging
modality of the one attribute of the described second lesion obtained from
the free text of the unstructured report with the imaging modality of the
keyword translated from the at least one descriptor of the structured report;
and
highlighting in the free text of the unstructured further report of a
prior study displayed on a display device at least one selected from a group
comprising of the words in the sentences and the sentences of the one or
more interpretations matched with keywords derived from the
used descriptors of the structured medical report. 3
As the disclosure explains, Appellant's invention enables viewing
reports using a predetermined set of descriptors, such as Breast Imaging
3 Unless otherwise indicated, we italicize or quote the recited limitations'
text for emphasis and clarity.
9
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) descriptors, used in medical imaging
systems to document breast cancer studies in a structured manner using a
standardized vocabulary. Spec. 1. As shown in the report of Appellant's
Figure 1, BIRADS is used to annotate images including various sections that
include BIRADS descriptors along with key radiological images. See Spec.
2-3.
Physicians, however, need to review prior studies or reports, and
compare them with current studies or reports. Spec. 2. Thus, physicians
need to read and use (1) legacy unstructured free-text reports, and (2)
structured BIRADS findings simultaneously. Spec. 3. To this end, the
present invention not only enables viewing a structured report, but also
searches for other reports related to the structured report's descriptors, and
displays both structured and unstructured reports simultaneously,
highlighting the words and sentences derived from the descriptors. Spec. 4.
Turning to claim 1, we first note that the claim recites a method and,
therefore, falls within the process category of§ 101. But despite falling
within this statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is
directed to a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217. To this end, we must determine whether the claim (1) recites a
judicial exception, and (2) fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. If both elements are
satisfied, the claim is directed to a judicial exception under the first step of
the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
In the rejection, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea, namely obtaining structured report data, and comparing the
data with an unstructured report's text. Ans. 4. To determine whether a
10
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim's specific limitations
that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified
limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely, (a)
mathematical concepts4; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity5;
or ( c) mental processes. 6
Here, apart from the recited "processor" that searches for the recited
unstructured report, 7 all of claim 1 's recited limitations fit squarely within at
least one of the above categories of the USPTO's guidelines. When read as
a whole, the recited limitations are directed to searching for unstructured
report data related to structured report data, and indicating their
commonalities.
First, "opening a structured medical report ... " organizes human
activity at least to the extent that it is an essential precursor to reading the
document's content-a preliminary step analogous to opening a book to read
4 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
6 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
7 The processor of claim 1 is recited only in connection with searching an
unstructured report, but is not recited as performing the other two method
steps, namely (1) opening a structured medical report, and (2) highlighting
words or sentences in the unstructured report.
11
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
its pages. In this sense, then, the cited limitations in the "opening" clause
pertain to following associated rules or instructions or managing personal
behavior at least with respect to a reader accessing the report's content by
first opening the report. Cf In re Eberra, 730 F. App'x 916, 917-18 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (holding ineligible recited process for providing a
television network including opening a physical location for a television
program that required nothing more than finding a location). Therefore, the
recited "opening" limitation falls squarely within the certain methods of
organizing human activity category of the USPTO's guidelines and,
therefore, recites an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing
exemplary methods of organizing human activity, including managing
personal behavior and following rules or instructions).
Second, the recited "in response to the opening act, ... [ 1] searching
... for an unstructured further report of a prior study related to the
descriptors of the structured medical report for a same patient ... ," and [2]
"highlighting ... " could be done entirely mentally by merely ( 1) reading a
structured medical report and noting its descriptors; (2) translating the
descriptors into associated keywords; (3) comparing those keywords to
attributes, including an imaging modality, derived from interpreting an
unstructured report's text; (4) looking for common imaging modalities in
both documents; ( 5) noting the associated words and sentences in the
documents matching the derived keywords; and ( 6) organizing the results of
that search by highlighting the associated words or sentences in the
unstructured report either mentally or by writing this information down-
processes that involve mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
12
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
2011) (noting that limitation reciting obtaining information about
transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit card
transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of
Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database); see also id.
(noting that a recited step that utilized a map of credit card numbers to
determine the validity of a credit card transaction could be performed
entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to identify a likely
instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous transactions using
different credit cards all originated from the same IP address); Univ. of Fla.
Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1365-69 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (holding ineligible claim reciting method of integrating physiologic
treatment data that (1) converted physiologic data received from at least two
bedside machines into machine-independent data; (2) performed at least one
programmatic action involving that data; and (3) presented results from that
action upon a bedside graphical user interface as directed to the abstract idea
of collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data); In re Meyer,
688 F.2d 789, 795-96 (CCPA 1982) (holding ineligible claims that merely
partly replaced a neurologist's thinking process with a computer); Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting
that reciting collecting, organizing, and displaying two sets of information
on a generic display device is abstract absent a specific improvement to the
way computers or other technologies operate); Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat 'l Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345-
49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding ineligible claims reciting ( 1) receiving output
representing diverse types of hard copy documents from an automated
digitizing unit; (2) recognizing specific information from the extracted data;
13
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
and (3) storing information from those documents into memory); TL!
Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig. v. AV Auto., L.L.C., 823 F.3d 607, 610-14
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting recording and
administering digital images including (1) recording images using a digital
pick-up unit in a telephone unit; (2) storing the recorded images; (3)
transmitting data including the images and classification information to a
server; ( 4) extracting the received classification information; and ( 5) storing
the images in the server considering that information); In re Salwan, 681 F.
App'x 938, 939-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding ineligible claims
reciting, among other things, receiving medical records information and
transmitting reports where the claimed invention's objective was to enable
electronic communication of tasks that were otherwise done manually using
paper, phone, and facsimile machine). Accordingly, the recited "searching"
and "highlighting" steps fall squarely within the mental processes category
of the USPTO's guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including
observation and evaluation).
Therefore, apart from the recited "processor"-an element that is
recited only in connection with the searching step-all of claim 1 's
limitations fall squarely within the certain methods of organizing human
activity and mental processes categories of the USPTO's guidelines and,
therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing
exemplary mental processes including observation and evaluation).
Here, the recited "processor" is the only recited element beyond the
abstract idea, but this additional element, considered individually and in
combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
14
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
when reading claim 1 as a whole. On this record, we are not persuaded that
the claimed invention improves the computer or its components'
functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices
function, at least in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfzsh,
LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), despite
Appellant's arguments to the contrary (Reply Br. 2). The claimed self-
referential table in Enfzsh was a specific type of data structure designed to
improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Enfzsh,
822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed
invention uses such a data structure to improve a computer's functionality or
efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions, there is no
persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention.
To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention is rooted
in technology because it is ostensibly directed to a technical solution (see
Appeal Br. 8-10), we disagree. Even assuming, without deciding, that the
claimed invention can search for unstructured report data related to
structured report data, and indicate their commonalities faster than doing so
manually, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic
computer components-not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be
performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.") (alteration in original)); see
also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 711 F. App'x 1012,
1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) ("Though the claims purport to
15
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have
held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary
capabilities of a general-purpose computer do not materially alter the patent
eligibility of the claimed subject matter.") (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). Like the claims in Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is
not on an improvement in computer processors as tools, but on certain
independently abstract ideas that use generic computing components as
tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095.
That the recited method is for viewing a medical report describing
radiological images does not, without more, integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application, for merely generally linking the use of an abstract idea
to a particular technological environment or field of use does not render the
claimed invention any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accord Flook, 437
U.S. at 584, 588-90, 596-97 (holding ineligible method for updating an
alarm limit on a process variable, despite the process involving the catalytic
chemical conversion of hydrocarbons). See also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Nor is this invention analogous to that which the court held eligible in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) despite Appellant's arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 8-10;
Reply Br. 2). There, the claimed process used a combined order of specific
rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied to create
a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315.
Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters using
particular information and techniques-an improvement over manual
16
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract
idea. Id. at 1316.
But unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the
physical display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed
invention here merely uses generic computing components to search for
unstructured report data related to structured report data, and indicate their
commonalities. This generic computer implementation is not only directed
to certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but
also does not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(distinguishing McRO).
Appellant's reliance on BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Appeal Br. 8-9) is
likewise unavailing. There, the court held eligible claims directed to a
technology-based solution to filter Internet content that overcame existing
problems with other Internet filtering systems by making a known filtering
solution-namely a "one-size-fits-all" filter at an Internet Service Provider
(ISP)-more dynamic and efficient via individualized filtering at the ISP.
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351. Notably, this customizable filtering solution
improved the computer system's performance and, therefore, was patent-
eligible. See id. But unlike the filtering system improvements in BASCOM
that added significantly more to the abstract idea in that case, the claimed
invention here uses generic computing components to implement an abstract
idea as noted previously.
We also find unavailing Appellant's contention that the claimed
invention does not preempt related technologies. Appeal Br. 9. Where, as
17
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
here, the claims cover a patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are
fully addressed and made moot" by an analysis under the Alice/Mayo
framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In conclusion, although the recited functions may be beneficial by
searching for unstructured report data related to structured report data, and
indicating their commonalities, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract
idea is still an abstract idea. See id. at 1379-80.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Claim 1: Alice/Mayo Step Two
Turning to Alice/Mayo step two, claim l's additional recited element,
namely the recited "processor," does not provide an inventive concept such
that this additional element amounts to significantly more than the abstract
idea when reading claim 1 as a whole. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As noted above, the claimed invention merely
uses generic computing components to implement the recited abstract idea.
To the extent Appellant contends that the recited limitations, including
those detailed above in connection with Alice step one, add significantly
more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under
Alice/Mayo step two (see Appeal Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-5), these limitations
are not additional elements beyond the abstract idea, but rather are directed
to the abstract idea as noted previously. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme
Court in Alice "only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the
18
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-
understood, routine and conventional") ( emphasis added); see also
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (instructing that additional recited elements
should be evaluated in Alice/Mayo step two to determine whether they (1)
add specific limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry ( citing MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)).
Rather, the recited "processor" is the only additional recited element
whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See Spec. 22 (noting that the processor in Figure 10 may be a
general-use integrated circuit or general-purpose processor); see also
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (noting that using generic computing
components like a microprocessor or user interface does not transform an
otherwise abstract idea into eligible subject matter). Accord Ans. 5, 18-19
( concluding that the recited additional elements merely provide conventional
computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the
abstract idea, and that the additional elements merely recite generic
computer structure whose generic computer functions are well-understood,
routine, and conventional).
Our emphasis underscores that the Examiner's rejection was
apparently premised on the notion that the computer implementation of the
recited abstract idea was well-understood, routine, and conventional. See id.
As noted above, this record is replete with evidence that such a computer
implementation, namely a processor, was well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Therefore, Appellant's contention that there is no evidence
19
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
that claimed elements other than the processor that are quoted on pages 9
and 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief are well-
understood, routine, and conventional is unavailing, for there is ample
evidence on this record that the sole additional element-the processor-
was well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Appellant's contention, then, that the Examiner allegedly did not
comply with the evidentiary requirements under the April 2018 USPTO
memorandum mandating these requirements for ineligibility rejections after
Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Reply Br. 3-
5) is unavailing. To be sure, the Examiner must show-with supporting
facts-that certain claim elements are well-understood, routine, and
conventional where such a finding is made. See Berkheimer, 881 F .3d at
1369 (noting that whether something is well-understood, routine, and
conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention is a factual
determination). In light of this factual determination, the US PTO issued a
memorandum requiring that Examiners support a finding that an additional
element of a claim is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Robert W.
Bahr, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.), USPTO, Apr. 19, 2018 ("Berkheimer Memo."), at 2-3 (noting that the
Berkheimer decision clarifies the inquiry whether an additional element ( or
combination of additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity).
As noted previously, the recited "processor" is the only additional
recited element whose generic computing functionality is well-understood,
routine, and conventional. Therefore, to the extent that Appellant contends
20
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
that the Examiner failed to provide evidence that all quoted recited elements
are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Appeal Br. 9-1 O; Reply
Br. 2-4), such an argument is not commensurate with the more limited scope
of the Examiner's finding in this regard. In particular, Appellant's
arguments are not commensurate with the Examiner's finding that the
elements other than the abstract idea, specifically the computer-based
elements which include the processor of claim 1, are the additional elements
whose generic computing functionality is well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See Ans. 5, 15 (noting that the claims use a "processor" or a
computer to perform the recited features that solely uses a computer as a
tool), 18-19.
As noted previously, there is ample evidence of this generic
computing functionality in not only the case law cited previously, but also
Appellant's own Specification. See, e.g., FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096
(noting that using generic computing components like a microprocessor or
user interface does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into eligible
subject matter); Spec. 21-22 ( describing generic computer components used
to implement the invention). Therefore, the additional recited element does
not add significantly more than the abstract idea to render the claim patent-
eligible.
In conclusion, the additional recited element of claim I-considered
individually and as an ordered combination-does not add significantly
more than the abstract idea to provide an inventive concept under
Alice/Mayo step two. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56.
21
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2, 5-9, 11-14, and 16-21 not argued separately with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Regarding independent claim 20, the Examiner finds that Kanada
discloses a report viewer comprising, among other things, a report analyzer
configured to analyze free text of an unstructured report of a prior study of a
patient to obtain plural interpretations, namely analyses, of the free text. See
Ans. 7-8, 20. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Kanada' s report
analyzer does not search and analyze an unstructured report of the same
patient, the Examiner cites Reiner as teaching this feature. Ans. 9, 20-21.
The Examiner also acknowledges that (1) Kanada's unstructured report lacks
plural imaging modalities, and (2) Kanada does not highlight the recited
portion of the unstructured report's free text, but cites Esham and Bacon for
teaching these respective features in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Ans. 8-10.
Appellant argues that Kanada does not analyze an unstructured
report's free text of a prior study of a same patient to obtain plural
interpretations as claimed, but rather matches keywords. Appeal Br. 20-21;
Reply Br. 5-7. Appellant adds that the Examiner's reliance on Reiner is
misplaced because Reiner not only lacks attributes of a free text
interpretation that includes an imaging modality, but Reiner' s acknowledged
unsuitability of unstructured or free text is said to teach away from the
proposed combination. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues other recited
limitations summarized below.
22
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
ISSUES
I. Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kanada,
Esham, Reiner, and Bacon collectively would have taught or suggested:
( 1) a report analyzer configured to analyze free text of the recited
unstructured report of a prior study of a patient to obtain plural
interpretations of the free text, where the interpretations include the recited
attributes as recited in claim 20 ( the "report analyzer limitation")?
(2) the attribute differentiation recited in claim 21?
II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination of the cited references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether
Reiner teaches away from the proposed combination.
ANALYSIS
Claim 20
We begin by noting that the Examiner's reliance on the secondary
references to Esham and Bacon is undisputed in connection with the
obviousness rejection of claim 20. Rather, as noted above, this dispute turns
solely on the Examiner's reliance on Kanada and Reiner for teaching the
report analyzer limitation, and their combinability. Therefore, we confine
our discussion to these references.
As noted previously, the Examiner relies on Kanada for teaching
many features of the recited report analyzer, including its ability to analyze
free text of an unstructured report of a prior study to obtain interpretations or
23
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
analyses of that text, albeit for different patients-not the same patient. See
Ans. 9, 20-21 (acknowledging this distinction). The Examiner, however,
cites Reiner to cure that deficiency. See id.
Our emphasis on "analyses" above underscores that the Examiner
construes the term "interpretations" as including Kanada' s analyses of
different patients' reports. On this record, we see no error in this
interpretation.
First, the Specification does not define the term "interpretation,"
unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their
meaning. See Spec. 6 ( defining various terms). The Specification does,
however, note that the report analyzer 310 in Figure 3 converts an
unstructured radiology report into a collection of interpretations 320, where
each interpretation has attributes that describe various aspects of a lesion,
such as its laterality, locality, depth, shape, etc. Spec. 11-12. For example,
an interpretation of the text "Bilateral breast ultrasound was performed. At
the 10 o'clock position of the right breast, two contiguous cysts are present
measuring in aggregate 1.1cm by 4.0mm" may include interpretations
"(modality, US)" and "(laterality, right)" that match associated BIRADS
descriptors. See Spec. 12.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited
interpretations, the term is not so limited. Under its plain meaning, the term
"interpretation" is defined, in pertinent part, as " [a] result of interpreting,"
and the term "interpret" is defined, in pertinent part, as "[t]o explain the
meaning of' or, alternatively, "[t]o conceive the significance of; construe."
THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 915 ( 4th
ed. 2006).
24
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
Given this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's construing
the term "interpretations" as including Kanada's analyses of different
patients' reports. As shown in Kanada's Figure 1, the image interpretation
support system includes an image interpretation report creating apparatus 1
that is detailed in Figure 3. See Kanada, col. 3, 1. 57 - col. 4, 1. 36; col. 5, 11.
23-37. As shown in Figure 3, Kanada's image interpretation report creating
apparatus includes an image interpretation report input unit 14 connected to,
among other things, an image interpretation report search key generating
unit 15 that generates search keys for searching image interpretation report
database 4a for cases based on information specified displayed in findings
on display unit 100. Kanada, col. 7, 11. 18-27.
To this end, Kanada's image interpretation report input unit displays
an image interpretation report creation screen, such as that shown in
Kanada's Figure 5. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, Kanada's image
interpretation report creation screen includes various information in
connection with the examination of a patient ("Fuji Taro"), including an area
32 where a doctor can enter an associated finding. Kanada, col. 6, 11. 28-64.
One such finding is shown in Kanada's Figure 10 that includes the text
"multiple, low absorbent phyma having a diameter of 3 cm is observed in
liver." Kanada, col. 9, 11. 55-66.
After the doctor clicks the case search button 3 7, the image
interpretation report search key generating unit (1) extracts a keyword from
the doctor's finding; (2) analyzes it by replacing the words with general
words, etc.; and (3) collates the result with search condition setting data.
Kanada, col. 9, 11. 45-60. In the above example with the quoted text from
the finding in Kanada's Figure 10, the search keys "phyma in liver" and
25
Appeal2019-000426
Application 13/641,901
"diameter 2 cm to 4 cm" are generated, and used to search the interpretation
report database 4a, ultimately generating a list of cases sorted by similarity
as shown in Figure 14 reproduced below. Kanada, col. 9, 1. 60 - col. 10, 1.
30; col. 10, 1. 64 - col. 11, 1. 34.
-kkkk-
IMAGE INTERPRETATION REPORT CREATION
rMM:NAolOt< NUMBE.R l234Sfi lXAM!NATION KltiD, CT ,cufOO, A13DOMrn 31 3f -30 3? PA'TIENT NAME Fqii "f!iYll- Sil;X: MAl£ AGt 51
OAV O:F iMAGING: APR[L l. 2008
COMMENT: 000
34 ( CASE: SEARCH ) Bl.000 TE.ST ,RESUL i f'.'INtHNtl.: DAY Of" BLOOD SAMPI.E
N'-Tf.:R OPHtA"fl:ON (ff CANCER Of LARGE :Nl\::'.H:i'~l::. C0LIJ2:CT10ff MAACH Jl ?,00$ I§] lN SIUPlf: CC, M1JLllPt.~ l..OW ABSQRBE.N.T PH'fMA HAVI111-0-A OlA.METER OF Ti;:S"T HC~ TEST RE.SULT (1 IMAGE ~ i C>! IS -0<3SERIIEt> IN l.lVER. VAlUE lN CONTRAST CT, ~N:~-~HA~~o CONTRAST EFFE-CT ~s OBSERVED ON TH£. TUMOR MARKER A D_J5 mg/lltff NTERPRETATION PEH.fPHS.RY. ff CAN SE THOUG~T l O Bf:. UVf;'R MF! A:~I A-S?~;>. REPORT GAl.l8lAOtJtR PAtlel'trAS, S?lE:(t( A.t~O «lONt::YS A..~ ~AL TUMOR MARK£R 6 0.3E! mg/titer DRESERVATION
l YMPI-IAOENOPATHY IS RECOGNIZED. . : 3k . I (..l!ACNOSIS [---33 . .
41 AO 5,1 5f
CASE UST \ CASE: DISPlA Y \
ISlMILARITY f'AlfE1H
I
RA.NKlNG NAM,' SEX AGE
... tXAt~iNA110N NUMBER 103456 EXAM:INA. noN KJ~D CT ~--·11 § ,~54 ~A'TlEN:T N,',.ME: Sbw;.-.il'I khito SEX MALE AG:E:51 I ~h-12,.,.,hl,"lk,hirl"l, ~A.LE SI ... DA'{ OF :MA.GING: AIJG:VST 1. 20%
2 -w:l.l't'i JW MAL.£ 50 ... c;();..»..i,).:ts.u o~~o
3 rf" a,r,axii, Ha11a,k( foMAL£ 51 ... i="INOINCi" 5ft
4 Saw Shiro MAL.c 53 ... Aftt=R l:P:ff