Abhilash Patangay et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2020005807 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 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.
13/331,288 12/20/2011 Abhilash Patangay 279.I98US1 9849
45458 7590 04/14/2021
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC
PO BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
JANG, CHRISTIAN YONGKYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ABHILASH PATANGAY,
PRAMODSINGH HIRASINGH THAKUR,
and YI ZHANG
__________________

Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, JAMES P. CALVE, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–8 and 11–21.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. as the real party in interest. See Appeal
Br. 2.
2 Claim 9 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Claims 2 and 10 are
objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim but are indicated to be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. See Final Act. 2, 7.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 14, and 16 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processor circuit configured to:
receive an indication of cardiac filling pressure of a
subject;
receive an indication of thoracic fluid status of the
subject;
receive an indication of cardiac output of the subject;
classify the indication of cardiac filling pressure into one
of at least first and second cardiac filling pressure states by
comparing the indication of cardiac filling pressure to at least
one pressure threshold;
classify the indication of thoracic fluid status into one of
at least first and second thoracic fluid status states by
comparing the indication of thoracic fluid status to at least one
fluid status threshold;
classify the indication of cardiac output into one of at
least first and second cardiac output states by comparing the
indication of cardiac output to at least one cardiac output
threshold;
generate a multi-dimensional heart failure
decompensation status indication classifying the subject as
having one of a plurality of discrete types of heart failure events
and indicating a need for therapy, the multi-dimensional heart
failure decompensation status indication including, in separate
dimensions, the classified cardiac filling pressure state, the
classified thoracic fluid status state, and the classified cardiac
output state; and
generate a multi-dimensional heart failure
decompensation status alert based on the multi-dimensional
heart failure decompensation status indication, the
multidimensional heart failure decompensation status alert
displayed as a representation of a collection of at least two
categorical descriptors among the classified indication of
cardiac filling pressure, the classified indication of thoracic
fluid status, and the classified indication of cardiac output.

Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

3
REJECTION3
Claims 1, 3–8, and 11–21 are rejected under the judicial exception to
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 12–17. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner determines that steps of receiving
and classifying indications of cardiac filling pressure, thoracic fluid status,
and cardiac output by comparison to a threshold are performable in the mind
as mental processes but for recitation of generic computer components, and
that the step of displaying a multi-dimensional alert is just extra-solution
activity. Final Act. 2–3, 6; Ans. 3, 5.
The Examiner determines that the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application because generating a multi-dimensional heart-
failure decompensation status indication and a multi-dimensional status alert
recite insignificant post-solution activity that merely outputs the result of the
abstract idea, generally links the exception to a particular field of use, and
does not use a particular apparatus to perform such activity. Id. at 3–4. The
Examiner determines that the processor circuit is recited at a high level of
generality that amounts to no more than instructions to apply the judicial
exception using a generic computer component. Id. at 4. The Examiner also
determines that insignificant post-solution activity and a generic computer
component are not significantly more than the judicial exception and do not,
individually or as a whole, provide an inventive concept. Id. at 4–5.

3 The Examiner withdrew rejections of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and
§ 112(b). See Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

4
Principles of Law
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106.05(a)–
(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) (“MPEP”)).4 Id. at 52–55.

4 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim either (3) adds a limitation beyond a judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)) or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites an apparatus, which is a statutory category of
invention, namely, a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites limitations that are
performable as mental processes. Final Act. 2–3; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. The focus of claim 1 is collecting physiological indications of a
subject and comparing that data to thresholds to classify the state(s) of the
subject. Spec. 10:17–13:13, 14:16–16:21, Figs. 3, 4. Without more in terms
of technical details or innovations, the claimed functions can be performed
as mental processes. See CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 816 F. App’x
471, 476–77 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Even assuming that measuring the atrial
fibrillation burden is a new metric as CardioNet claims, it is at most a
mathematical computation performed on a general-purpose computing
device, which could otherwise be ‘performed by a human, mentally or with
pen and paper.’”) (citation omitted); Braemar Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp.,
816 F. App’x 465, 470 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The measure of merit, then, is no
more than a mental process, capable of performance in the human mind or
with pen and paper, and is therefore itself an abstract idea.”).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

6
The first limitations receive indications of cardiac filling pressure,
thoracic fluid status, and cardiac output of a subject. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims
App.). The Specification indicates that processor circuit 301 is configured to
receive physiological indications including cardiac filling pressure, thoracic
fluid status, and cardiac output by selectively connecting to sensors to detect
the indications. Spec. 10:17–12:8, Fig. 3. Various generic sensors 360–362
can be used to detect cardiac output, cardiac filling pressure, and thoracic
fluid status. Id. at 10:17–12:8, 14:16–16:21. The Specification’s description
of generic sensors and circuits used to obtain indications, without any details
of that process, confirms the abstract scope of claim 1.
Without more, this data collection recites mental processes. See Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But
merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis,
and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the
information-based category of abstract ideas.”); see also Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31 (mere data gathering to obtain information recites
insignificant extra-solution activity).
In Electric Power, the method received a plurality of data streams in
real time from a variety of sources connected to an electric power grid and
non-grid data sources. It detected and analyzed events in real-time based on
limits, sensitivities, and rates of change of the measurements. It displayed
results of the analysis and diagnosis of events via concurrent visualization of
the measurements from the data streams to derive a composite indicator of
reliability as an indication of power grid vulnerability and dynamic stability.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–52 (claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,401,710).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

7
Here, claim 1 analogously receives measurements of physiological
conditions to determine a subject’s stability/vulnerability to heart failure.
See Spec. 1:30–2:7.
The next limitations classify the indications of cardiac filling pressure,
thoracic fluid status, and cardiac output by comparing them to thresholds for
pressure, fluid status, or cardiac output. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
Electric Power held such comparisons of detected measurements to
limits, sensitivities, and rates of change to involve mental processes. Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; id. at 1354 (“In a similar vein, we have treated
analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category.”).
The Specification describes the classification process at a high level of
generality. Processor circuit 301 detects abnormal patterns in physiological
indications by comparing each indication to a respective threshold value to
classify the physiological indication into first or second states that indicate
the severity (or not) of heart failure. Spec. 12:18–29, 17:24–19:10, Figs 4, 5.
Cardiac output can be classified as “cold” for decreased cardiac output
when a peripheral temperature measured on a subject decreases a specified
amount (i.e., a threshold) compared to the subject’s core temperature, or
when a heartbeat parameter falls below a specified threshold value. Id. at
15:1–3, 17:29–18:4. Cardiac output is classified as “warm” for normal
cardiac output when the indication is within a specified normal range. Id. at
14:27–15:1, 18:4–6. Indications of cardiac filling pressure and thoracic fluid
status are classified by making similar comparisons of measurements to
threshold values and threshold ranges. Id. at 14:16–16:21, 17:24–19:10.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

8
When recited so generally, without technical details, classifications by
mere comparison recite mental processes. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367–69 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tracking
transactions to see if they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., a threshold)
can be done using a pencil and paper and a simple notification device in real
time as expenditures are made); Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen
IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting and comparing data
are mental steps); Braemar Mfg., 816 F. App’x at 470 (categorizing events
matches characteristics to predefined categories, and the measure of merit
matches event categories to predetermined grades of severity, which can be
performed in the human mind as basic data processing without improving
computer functionality); CardioNet, 816 F. App’x at 476–77 (measuring an
atrial fibrillation burden can be performed mentally or with pen and paper).
As the court explained in Braemar Manufacturing:
Here, the purported improvement is the abstract idea of
classification and filtering of data, not an improvement in the
functioning of computer capabilities. On their face, the claims
are directed to collecting (“receiving a cardiac biological
signal”), classifying (“classifying the events”), and filtering
data into groups based on identifying characteristics
(“determining a measure of merit,” “comparing the measure of
merit”), and transmitting the data for review. Claims that
“merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter data” are ineligible
for patent under § 101.
Braemar Mfg., 816 F. App’x at 470 (citation omitted); CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (comparing
a collected list of credit card numbers to transactions to identify different
cards and user names used from the same IP address to detect fraud can be
performed entirely in the human mind including the logical reasoning).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

9
The final limitations generate a multi-dimensional heart failure
decompensation status to classify a subject in separate dimensions of cardiac
filling pressure, thoracic fluid status, and cardiac output state, and an alert
with at least two classified indications. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).
These limitations recite extra-solution activity. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d
at 1354 (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular
tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1096–97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (compiling and combining disparate information
sources to generate a full picture of a user’s activity, identity, and frequency
of activity did not make the claims patent eligible where the claims did not
recite a technological advance for accessing or combining the information
sources); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The essential advance is . . . only in the content of
this particular application, and that is nothing but a functionally described
display of information. That description does not cross out of the abstract
idea category. . . . There is no further specification of a particular
technology for getting the defined content displayed.”); CardioNet, 816 F.
App’x at 475 (“But merely displaying data by conventional methods as part
of a series of abstract steps is itself an abstract concept. . . . [D]isplaying
data, including displaying two data series on the same time axis, is not the
sort of ‘improvement[] to existing technological processes and computer
technology’ capable of establishing the eligibility of computer-implemented
method claims.”); see also Ans. 5; Final Act. 6.
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

10
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
improve a computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in
conjunction with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Id. at 55.
Nor does it include additional elements that transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful
way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. Id.
Appellant argues that generating a multi-dimensional heart failure
decompensation status indication classifying the subject as having one or a
plurality of discrete types of heart failure events and indicating a need for
therapy, and generating a multi-dimensional heart failure decompensation
status indication by classifying the subject into one of a plurality of discrete
heart failure event types improves technology of device-based heart failure
detection, classification, and management. Appeal Br. 14–15. We disagree.
These features of the abstract idea do not provide additional elements
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (additional elements are claim features, limitations,
and/or steps recited in a claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (a claim that recites an abstract idea must include
additional features to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea); see
also Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
(“[M]erely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim––even if the idea is
novel and non-obvious––is not enough to save it from ineligibility.”).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

11
Even if we treat these limitations as additional elements, they do not
improve computer or display technologies. Multi-dimensional alerts created
by classifying a subject merely include, for example, classifying the subject
as: “hemodynamically stable,” “dry,” and “warm;” or as “hemodynamically
unstable,” “dry,” and “warm;” or as “hemodynamically stable,” “wet,” and
“warm;” or as “hemodynamically unstable,” “wet,” and “warm;” or as
“hemodynamically stable,” “dry,” and “cold;” or as “hemodynamically
unstable,” “dry,” and “cold;” or as “hemodynamically stable,” “wet,” and
“cold;” or as “hemodynamically unstable,” “wet,” and “cold.” Spec. 20:2–8.
The Specification does not describe innovative display technology to
present this data. It states only that “second device 335 can include a display
such as for communicating information about the multi-dimensional heart
failure decompensation status indication to a user.” Spec. 14:3–5.
At best, claim 1 merely combines abstract concepts without improving
computers or other technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855
F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to
another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim
non-abstract.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of
abstraction.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
idea.”); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the
claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no
plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An
advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.”); see also Reply Br. 2–4.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

12
The only additional element recited in claim 1 is a “processor circuit.”
The Specification describes this component generically. A processor circuit
301 is configured to receive physiological indications such as cardiac filling
pressure, thoracic fluid status, and cardiac output, and perform instructions
to obtain and classify the physiological indications and generate a multi-
dimensional heart failure decompensation status alert in first and second
states. See Spec. 10:18–26, Fig. 3. The processor circuit is claimed as a tool
used to implement the abstract idea without improving computers or other
technology and without providing a machine that is integral to the claim.
Indicating a need for therapy (see Appeal Br. 14–15) is extra-solution
activity as discussed under Prong One. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
It outputs information as such without technical innovations or any practical
application. See id. at 1353 (“Information as such is an intangible.”).
CardioNet made similar arguments that the display of heart rate data
and an atrial fibrillation burden metric (i.e., indication classification) was an
improvement over prior art cardiac monitoring systems because the graph of
this information could be used for asymptomatic AF detection, drug therapy,
pre/post ablation monitoring, and congestive heart failure decompensation.
CardioNet, 816 F. App’x at 475–76. The court held that CardioNet’s unified
display may be very useful to physicians in treating patients but usefulness
alone does not negate abstractness where the claim merely displayed two
data series using existing technology. Id. at 476; see In re Bd. of Trustees of
Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 989 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (claims
to making determinations of diagnosis, drug treatment, and prognosis based
on a claimed haplotype phase calculation applied the algorithm without any
transformations that would make the claims a patent eligible application).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

13
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
illustrates why claim 1 here is not integrated. There, the claim recited a beat
detector to identify a beat-to-beat timing of cardiac activity, a ventricular
beat detector to identify ventricular beats in the cardiac activity, variability
determination logic to determine a variability in the beat-to-beat timing of a
collection of beats; relevance determination logic to identify a relevance of
the variability in beat-to-beat timing to atrial fibrillation and/or atrial flutter,
and an event generator to generate an event when the variability in the beat-
to-beat timing is relevant to the atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. CardioNet,
955 F.3d at 1365. The specification indicated “by analyzing the beat-to-beat
timing for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter while also taking into account the
variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by premature ventricular beats,
the device can more accurately distinguish atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter
from other types of arrhythmias and has ‘improved positive predictability’ of
atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.” Id. at 1366 (quoting U.S. Patent No.
7,941,207, 3:6–16). When the device analyzed a MIT-BIH arrhythmia
database, the sensitivity to these two arrhythmias was in excess of 90%, and
a positive prediction in excess of 96% was obtained with few false negatives
and few false positives. Id. (citing U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207, 3:21–26).
Here, claim 1 does not recite configurations of sensors or circuits. A
generic processor circuit receives and classifies “an indication” of cardiac
conditions without any technical details of that process to indicate hardware
or software improvements. The Specification indicates that differentiating
between cardiogenic heart failure events and non-cardiogenic heart failure
events can be useful in treating cardiogenic events without describing any
innovative, technical details. Spec. 2:1–6:25, 14:16–20:10.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

14
Even if a proposed solution is to use impedance and heart sounds to
classify heart failure events and generate more useful alerts (Spec. 2:5–7),
claim 1 does not require sensors or indications derived from heart sounds
and impedance. The Specification indicates a wide range of sensors can be
used to measure the claimed physiological indications. Id. at 7:18–29, 11:2–
12:8, 14:16–16:21. For example, an indication of the cardiac output of the
subject can be measured by one or more of a core temperature, a peripheral
temperature, a systolic time interval, a pre-ejection period, a pulmonary
artery pressure, a S1 heart sound amplitude, and intracardiac impedance. Id.
at 11:11–22. Heart sound and impedance sensors are just two types of many
sensors that can be used to obtain an indication of cardiac output. Similar
broad descriptions of generic sensors used to obtain indications of thoracic
fluid status and cardiac filling pressure are provided. Id. at 11:23–12:8.
Nor does the Specification describe improved results much less any
technical innovations used to obtain improved results in the diagnosis of
heart failure. The Specification lists various indication states of the claimed
cardiac indications. Spec. 19:22–20:10. No explanation is provided as to
which, if any, of these multi-dimensional alerts is indicative of cardiogenic
heart failure and which, if any, is indicative of non-cardiogenic heart failure.
Nor do we have evidence that the claimed apparatus distinguishes between
cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic heart failure events better than any prior art
apparatus. See CardioNet, 955 F.3d at 1368–69 (claimed device detected
the occurrence of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, distinguished from other
arrhythmias, more accurately to allow for immediate and reliable treatment
with demonstrated high positive prediction and high sensitivity that avoided
false positives and false negatives and therefore was patent eligible).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

15
Another CardioNet decision determined that a monitoring system that
received physiological and heart rate data to identify different arrhythmia
states and used a unified display to display data by conventional methods via
a series of abstract steps may be useful to physicians in diagnosing and
treating cardiac events but did not improve existing technological processes.
CardioNet, 816 F. App’x at 475–76 (citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013) (“Groundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101
inquiry.”) (citation omitted)).
Here, the claimed status alert collects and combines individual status
indications into a multi-dimensional heart failure alert without any technical
details or innovation. The Specification states that individual classifications
can be provided to a caregiver, other user, or automated process as a single
dimensional alert. Spec. 14:27–16:21, Fig. 4. Automating a manual process
to collect and combine individual status indications without any technical
innovation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims that replaced pen and paper methods with data
synthesis technology of device drivers written for various bedside machines
to present data from various bedside machines in a configurable fashion in a
single interface was a quintessential “do it on a computer” patent that did not
improve computers or other technology). Here, no hardware or software
improvements are recited for the way that the apparatus generates alerts, or
receives and classifies data, beyond the abstract idea identified above.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 does not recite any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

16
Step 2B: Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of
the Alice analysis considers if a claim adds a specific limitation beyond the
recited judicial exception that also is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the “processor circuit” is a generic computer component
that performs well-understood, routine, conventional activities. It receives,
classifies (by comparing), and generates data. It performs instructions for
obtaining a physiological indication, classifies the physiological indication,
and generates a multi-dimensional heart failure decompensation status alert
that classifies physiological indications into at least first and second states.
Spec. 10:17–26. This description confirms the processor circuit functions
are well-known enough that a more detailed description is not necessary.
“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification,
requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network,
and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired
information.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“We have repeatedly held that
such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably
inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the
application’ of an abstract idea.”).
Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

17
Nor can the inventive concept comprise features of the abstract idea as
Appellant asserts. Appeal Br. 16–17; BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290 (“[A] claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more.’ than
that ineligible concept.”).
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than what the
limitations recite individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a claim’s only
‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional
and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a
patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1169
(“[T]his court has ruled many times that ‘such invocations of computers . . .
that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an
inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea.’”) (citation omitted);
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (claims that specify what information in the
power-grid is desirable to gather, analyze, and display, including in “real
time” without performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and
displaying by anything but entirely conventional, generic technology lack an
inventive concept); see also Braemar Mfg., 816 F. App’x at 470 (the claimed
measure of merit recited no more than a mental process, and the remaining
limitations recited only routine data manipulation that can be performed by a
generic computing device with conventional techniques that do not recite an
inventive concept).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept to
transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 3–8
and 11–21 fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2020-005807
Application 13/331,288

18
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–8, 11–21 101 Eligibility 1, 3–8, 11–21
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED