Richard Vdovjak et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2021

2020003258 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2021)

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