Richard Vdovjak et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 19, 20212020003258 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/133,395 06/08/2011 Richard Vdovjak 2008P00734WOUS 3021 24737 7590 01/19/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus Avenue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER TIEDEMAN, JASON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD VDOVJAK, ANCA IOANA DANIELA BUCUR, and JOHAN GERHARD HERMAN REUZEL ____________ Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Richard Vdovjak, Anca Ioana Daniela Bucur, and Johan Gerhard Herman Reuzel (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 14–18, 20, and 21, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants invented a form of distributed patient registries for federated Picture Archiving Communication Systems (PACS). Specification, Title. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 14, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 14. A system, comprising: [1] a plurality of local image storage devices storing patient studies, each patient study being indexed by a local patient identifier and including metadata associated with the patient study; [2] a plurality of local identity storage devices storing a local identity list including 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed December 30, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 26, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 28, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 30, 2019). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 3 a global patient identifier corresponding to each of a plurality of patients having studies stored on a corresponding one of the local image storage devices and one or more of the local patient identifiers corresponding to each of the plurality of patients; [3] a plurality of local location storage devices storing a local index of the patient images stored on the local image storage devices for each of the plurality of patients, the local index including a pointer to the storage location of each study and the corresponding global patient identifier; [4] a global identity storage device, located remotely from the local identity storage devices, storing a global identity list including a global patient identifier for each patient having studies stored in the local image storage devices, wherein the global patient identifier for each patient is linked to each of the one or more local patient identifiers corresponding to the patient; and [5] a global location storage device, located remotely from the local location storage devices, storing a global index of the patient studies stored on the local image storage devices for each patient, the global index listing a storage location of each study, the corresponding global patient identifier, the metadata associated with each patient study, and a timestamp of the latest study performed at each storage location, wherein the metadata associated with each patient study includes at least one of an identification for the corresponding study, a body part examined in the study, a modality used for the study, and an examination code; [6] wherein a first local image storage device sends a query including the one of the local patient identifiers to a corresponding second local identity storage device, Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 4 wherein, if the query includes a local patient identifier not included in the local identity list, the first local image storage device redirects the query to the global identity storage device, which returns a corresponding global patient identifier, wherein, based on the timestamps, a response to the query excludes storage locations older than a threshold date, wherein, based on the metadata, the response excludes irrelevant studies, wherein the global location storage device is updated with current data from the plurality of local image storage devices at times of low network loading. Claims 14–18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. ANALYSIS STEP 13 Claim 14, as a system claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim 14 recites a number of storage devices, which are conventional computer components that perform recited process steps. Accordingly, in 3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 5 substance, claim 14 is a method claim recited as being performed by conventional computer components. Because of this, we refer to claim 14 as a method claim in the following analysis. STEP 2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as 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.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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 Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 6 to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 14 recites storing and indexing patient data, sending and redirecting a query, and returning data. Indexing data is organizing data. Redirecting a query is further data transmission. Returning data is data analysis and transmission. Thus, claim 14 recites storing, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. As determined supra, claim 14 recites these operations a being performed by storage devices, but all of these are components of a generic computer system. From this we see that claim 14 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing 4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 7 human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Like those concepts, claim 14 recites the concept of managing medical patient data. Specifically, claim 14 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to look up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier. The advice to look up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier involves storing patient data, which is patient data management act, and querying patient data, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of medical management. For example, claim 14 recites “storing patient studies,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is collecting patient data. Similarly, claim 14 recites “sends a query including the one of the local patient identifiers,” which is also characteristic of retrieving patient data. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to storing indexed data. Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 14 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 14 result in managing medical patient data by looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. 5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 8 As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–6 recite generic and conventional storing, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting of patient data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier. To advocate looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 3 describes the invention as relating to storing patient studies, each patient study being indexed by a local and global patient identifiers. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 14 recites managing medical patient data. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing patient data is a key part of managing coordination among medical providers. The concept of managing medical patient data by looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier is one idea for coordinating patient data amongst multiple practitioners. The steps recited in claim 14 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (display to help users process information more quickly); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (2016) (customizing user interface and tailoring content). Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 9 Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of storing, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 14, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data storage, organization, analysis, and transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 14 recites storing, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 14 recites managing medical patient data by looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 14 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 10 some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps 1–5 are pure data storing steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 6 recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 14 simply recites the concept of managing medical patient data by looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier as performed by a generic computer. 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 11 This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. Claim 14 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The 15 pages of specification do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing medical patient data by looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 14 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing medical patient data by looking up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial 8 The Specification describes a common system for storing such results as a Picture Archiving Communication System (“PACS”). Spec. para. 1. Apart from its software, which the Specification does not describe¸ no further details of such systems are described. Thus these are generic computers with image archiving software. Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 12 exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. At best, claim 14 recites use of a patient identifier index to coordinate retrievals among searches using various identifiers for the same actual patient. But this is no more than conceptual advice to maintain a cheat sheet of such identifiers for each patient and use it as appropriate. This is just a variation on what researchers have done perpetually in their mind when retrieving various works by a common author whose named spelling varies, such as by differing use of initials. No technological implementation details are recited for actually using the index in some technological manner. We conclude that claim 14 is directed to achieving the result of managing medical patient data by advising one to look up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 13 STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 14 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. [T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for storing, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 14 computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 14 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data storage-organization- analysis-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 15 controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. The recited collection of storage devices similarly adds nothing. Distributing storage devices is notoriously conventional as evidenced by the ubiquity of data servers. We conclude that claim 14 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 14 is representative. The remaining claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the remaining structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 16 methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of managing medical patient data by advising one to look up patient data by patient identifiers related by a master identifier, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–6 and Answer 3–8 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claimed invention is not directed to any type of "data sharing" as the Examiner claims. Instead, the data generated by the system is specific and relevant to the user. To further elaborate on the arguments made in the Appeal Brief, the databases storing the patient data are modified to store information relevant to the type database to generate appropriate results. For example, a global PLR can be modified to store a timestamp of the latest study and through the modification, the database queries can exclude hospital sites holding studies older than a certain threshold date. Thus, a global PLR storing timestamps only adds one extra field per database row and does not result in a significant increase in database size over a more basic global PLR not modified with a timestamp capability. Accordingly, the databases generated support a specific kind of data sharing that is not supported by basic databases. The concept of data storage and data sharing is not unpatentable per se. . . . Reply Br. 4. As we determine above, the claims are directed to managing patient data. This is indeed done in the context of multiple databases whose data are shared for retrieval. Whether the data is specific and relevant to the user is not pertinent for eligibility. The claims recite using a timestamp field as a filtering field. This is no more than generic data selection based on Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 17 desired criteria. Whether a particular field used as such is particularly large or small is not a technological issue. It is an economic issue as the conventional trade-off between storage cost and information value. The argument that this form of data sharing is not supported by basic databases thus says no more than that a basic database of generic data does not contain the particular data fields chosen for use as criteria in data selection. But any particular use of a database would generally incorporate fields for retrieval and selection criteria. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 4. The claims differ from those found patent eligible in Enfish, where the claims were “specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database.” 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims thus were “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate” rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims purport to accelerate the process of looking up patient data, our reviewing court has 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.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in FairWarning, 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein claims reciting “a few possible rules to analyze audit log data” were found directed an abstract idea because they asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 18 that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “different databases are modified to store studies relevant to the database and thus, allows a user to generate a response from a type of database rather than consulting multiple databases or a basic database which might be time consuming and not generate the necessary response.” Reply Br. 4–5. This argues no more than the conventional use of distributed databases. This is the computer equivalent of distributed libraries in the pre-computer world. To the extent this further argues the benefit of collecting such data mechanistically to save time and labor, this is just conceptual advice to do so. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claim as is discloses different data storage systems that perform specific tasks based on the needs of the user. . . . [T]he claims as a whole indicates how a query is directed to the appropriate storage system to generate results relevant for the user. Thus, storing index data is not the only function of the system as the Examiner asserts. Instead, the system directs a user query to the appropriate data storage which has been modified to support the output of the said query. Reply Br. 5. As we determine above, the claims are directed to managing patient data. This is indeed done in the context of multiple databases whose data are shared for retrieval. It is fundamental that each database exists for a particular purpose. It would not otherwise exist. The claims as a whole recite how a query is directed by way of conventional criteria based data selection. No particular technological implementation details are recited. While storing index data may not be the only function recited in the claims, all of the functions are forms of generic Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 19 storing, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting data. Again, no technological implementation details are recited. The argued result of directing a user query to the appropriate data storage is simply the expected functional result of the recited indexing. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner's characterization of the system as a general purpose computer performing general functions is erroneous. The Examiner's assumption of the system performing general operations indicates that the Examiner fails to consider the additional elements of the claim which discloses an efficient way of storing and retrieving patient data which is not a general function. Reply Br. 5. Appellant is only arguing the data content, not how the content technologically complements computer operation. The claims recite conventional and generic computer operations. That the data is organized in some sense efficiently is indicative of user induced rather than technological efficiency. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “claim [14] has since been amended and recites significantly more than the purported abstract idea.” Reply Br. 6. The amendments added metadata, content describing patient studies, which includes a study timestamp, linked a global identifier to individual identifiers, and added the timestamp and metadata as search criteria. This adds no more than conventional data fields that are used in conventional data searches. This is insufficient to confer eligibility. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 14–18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. Appeal 2020-003258 Application 13/133,395 20 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 14–18, 20, and 21 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 14–18, 20, 21 101 Eligibility 14–18, 20, 21 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) (2011). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation