Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 30, 2020

2020001929 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/548,690 11/20/2014 Qi An 279.L47US1 6570
45458 7590 11/30/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/BSC
PO BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
DEJONG, ERIC S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
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 QI AN, PRAMODSINGH HIRASINGH THAKUR,
VIKTORIA A. AVERINA, JULIE A. THOMPSON, and
ROBERT J. SWEENEY
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690
Technology Center 1600
Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
TAWEN CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6–16, 18, 20, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cardiac
Pacemakers, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Congestive heart failure (CHF), which is “the loss of pumping power
of the heart” that “result[s] in the inability to deliver enough blood to meet
the demands of peripheral tissues,” is “a major health problem.” Spec. ¶ 3.
The Specification states that “[f]requent monitoring of CHF patients and
timely detection of events indicative of heart failure (HF) decompensation
status can help prevent worsening of HF in CHF patients, hence reducing
cost associated with HF hospitalization.” Id. ¶ 5.
“Ambulatory medical devices,” which “can include physiologic
sensors . . . configured to sense electrical activity and mechanical function of
the heart,” “can be used for monitoring HF patient and detecting HF
decompensation events.” Spec. ¶ 6. In particular, the Specification states
that “[t]he diagnostic features obtained from the physiologic sensor signals
can be used in detecting a patient’s physiologic changes associates with
worsening of HF status.” Id. ¶ 8. According to the Specification, however,
there remains a considerable need of methods to improve the
quality and usability of the physiologic sensor signals, as well
as systems and methods for using such improved physiologic
sensor signals to detect events indicative or correlative of
worsening of HF, or to identify CHF patients with elevated risk
of developing future HF events with improved accuracy and
reliability.
Id.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an ambulatory medical device, a system
comprising such a device, or a method for operating such a device to detect a
physiologic event. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system, comprising:
an ambulatory medical device, comprising:
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

3
a physiologic signal analyzer circuit, including:
a physiologic signal receiver circuit configured to receive
one or more physiologic signals; and
a signal trend generator configured to calculate a signal
feature from the one or more physiologic signals and to
generate a signal trend of the signal feature;
a signal transformation circuit configured to dynamically
generate first and second weight factors using at least one
characteristic measure of the signal trend, to weight a first
portion of the signal trend using the first weight factor, and to
weight a second portion of the signal trend using the second
weight factor, the second portion of the signal trend different
from the first portion of the signal trend; and
a target physiologic event detector circuit configured to
detect a worsening heart failure (WHF) event, via comparator
circuit, using a comparison of the first and second weighted
portions of the signal trend.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6–16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter,
without significantly more. Final Act. 3.

OPINION
A. Issue
As for claim 1, the Examiner asserts that the system comprises
components configured to perform a “series of data analysis steps that
amount to a series of purely mathematical and algorithmic analysis of data,
per se.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also asserts that “‘generat[ing]’ . . . a ‘signal
trend’” and “‘detecting’ a physiological event” respectively “encompasses
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

4
the abstract analysis of signal data in order to recognize features within
signal data” and “involves only the recognition of signal trends in signal
data,” and are therefore abstract ideas. Id.
The Examiner further asserts that
[t]he claims do recite receiving physiological signals. However,
this step only involves receiving data, per se. The claims further
recite transforming portions of a signal. However, this is not a
physical operation rather it involves only the analysis of data,
per se. The “detected event” does not require anything other
than the observation and recognition of “trends” in the data
itself. No other result is produced by practicing the claimed
invention. The claims do recite “configured” circuits for
carrying out the process. This, however, only relies on a general
purpose computer so simply “apply” the above described
abstract data analysis procedure. This fails to provide
something significantly more than the judicial exceptions set
forth in the instant claims.
Id.
Appellant contends that “claim 1 as a whole is not directed to
mathematical data analysis, but . . . to detecting a medical condition of
worsening heart failure (WHF).” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that,
“even if the claims are directed to [an] alleged abstract idea under Step 2A
[of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Revised
Guidance”)], Prong One . . . , the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a
practical application.” Id. at 10. Appellant further contends that “[t]he
claimed systems and methods of detecting WHF is not well-understood,
routine, or conventional activity in the field” and that, “[t]herefore, the
claims at issue are patent eligible under Step 2B [of the Revised Guidance].”
Id. at 12.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

5
Appellant does not separately argue the claims. Accordingly, we
focus our analysis on claim 1 as representative. The issue with respect to
this rejection is whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, without
significantly more.
B. Analysis
We analyze this case under the framework set forth by the Supreme
Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66 (2012), and applied by our reviewing court in Ariosa Diagnostics,
Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Ariosa court
explained:
In Mayo . . . , 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, we determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept. . . . If the answer is yes, then we next consider the
elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered
combination” to determine whether additional elements
“transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible
application. . . . The Supreme Court has described the second
step 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.”
Id. at 1375.

Whether Claim 8 Is Directed to Patent-Ineligible Concept
We begin with the first step of the Mayo test, namely whether a claim
is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept.
On January 7, 2019, the Director of the USPTO issued the “2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (“Revised Guidance”),
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

6
which provides further details regarding how the Patent Office analyzes
patent-eligibility questions under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan.
7, 2019). Under the Revised Guidance, the first step of the Mayo test (i.e.,
Step 2A of the Revised Guidance) is “a two-pronged inquiry.” Id. at 54. In
prong one, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, such
as laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Id.
The Revised Guidance explains that
the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of
subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s)
(that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior
or relationships or interactions between people (including
social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion).
84 Fed. Reg. 52 (footnotes omitted). If the claim recites a judicial exception,
the claim is further analyzed under prong two, which requires “evaluat[ion
of] whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception
into a practical application of that exception.” Id. at 54. The Revised
Guidance explains that, “[i]f the recited exception is integrated into a
practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two
of . . . Step 2A [of the Revised Guidance].” Id.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

7
Prong One of Step 2A of Revised Guidance
With respect to the first prong of Step 2A of the Revised Guidance,
we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites patent-ineligible subject
matter. In particular, mathematical concepts such as mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical
calculations are abstract ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Claim 1 recites
• “a signal trend generator configured to calculate a signal feature
from the one or more physiologic signals and generate a signal
trend of the signal feature”;
• “a signal transformation circuit configured to dynamically generate
first and second weight factors using at least one characteristic
measure of the signal trend, to weight a first portion of the signal
trend using the first weight factor, and to weight a second portion
of the signal trend using the second weight factor, the second
portion of the signal trend different from the first portion of the
signal trend”; and
• “a comparison of the first and second weighted portions of the
signal trend.”
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). We agree with the
Examiner that these computations describe mathematical relationships
and/or constitute mathematical calculations. Ans. 4.
Moreover, mental processes, i.e., concepts that may be performed in
the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion,
also fall within the realm of abstract ideas. 84 Fed. Reg. 52. The
computations recited in claim 1 may be performed in the human mind and
are thus abstract ideas for that reason as well.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

8
Finally, claim 1 recites a “circuit configured to detect a worsening
heart failure (WHF) event . . . using a comparison of the first and second
weighted portion of the signal trend.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that this limitation, which
relates to an evaluation of data (i.e., comparing the first and second weighted
portion of the signal trend) to arrive at a judgement (i.e., detecting a
worsening heart failure event), also recites an abstract idea because it may be
performed in the human mind. Ans. 4.

Prong Two of Step 2A of Revised Guidance
With respect to the second prong of Step 2A of the Revised Guidance,
we find that claim 1 does not recite additional elements, individually or in
combination, that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical
application of the exceptions. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
More specifically, the additional elements of claim 1 that are not
either mathematical concepts or mental processes include (1) “an ambulatory
medical device,” (2) “a physiologic signal analyzer circuit,” (3) “a
physiological signal receiver circuit configured to receive one or more
physiologic signals,” (4) “a signal trend generator,” (5) “a signal
transformation circuit,” (6) “a target physiologic event detector circuit,” and
(7) a “comparator circuit.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
However, “receiv[ing] one or more physiologic signals” merely
gathers the data to be used in the mathematical calculations and/or mental
process. Thus, it is an “insignificant extra-solution activity” that does not
suffice to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. 84
Fed. Reg. at 55; see also In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794 (CCPA 1982) (a
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

9
claimed step that tests for a response is “nothing more than a data gathering
step,” which “cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory”); In re
Richman, 563 F.2d 1026, 1030 (CCPA 1977) (holding that antecedent steps
that “merely determine values for the variables used in the mathematical
formulae used in making the calculations . . . do not suffice to render the
claimed methods, considered as a whole, statutory subject matter”).
Similarly, the physical components in claim 1—i.e., the ambulatory
medical device and various recited circuits—are generic circuitry used to
perform mathematical calculations and/or steps that would otherwise be
mental processes, or, in the case of the physiological signal receiver circuit,
to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed above.
“[M]erely us[ing] a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” does not
integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55;
see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014) (explaining
that “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”).
Appellant contends that “claim 1 as a whole is not directed to
mathematical data analysis, but . . . to detecting a medical condition of
worsening heart failure (WHF),” which is “NOT ‘purely mathematical and
algorithmic analysis of data, per se.’” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Appellant
contends that “detecting a WHF event using a device-based medical system
requires more than just ‘observation and recognition’” and “transforms the
physiologic data to a ‘different thing’, namely a diagnostic of medical
condition (WHF).” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2 (contending that
“detect[ing] a . . . WHF[] event” is not an abstract idea because “[a]
comparison of the first and second weighted portions of the signal trend and
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

10
detecting a WHF event using said comparison are not merely ‘observation
and recognition’ of signal trends”). Similarly, Appellant contends in its
Reply Brief that “detecting a WHF event is explicitly recited as a limitation
of claim 1, rather than an intended use of manipulated data” and that “[a]
WHF detection decision is a practical medical decision, rather than just a
piece of information/data produced from another piece of information/data.”
Reply Br. 3–4.
We are not persuaded. Although “detect[ing] a worsening heart
failure (WHF) event” may not be a mathematical concept, we agree with the
Examiner that such detection merely requires “observation and recognition
of ‘trends’ in the data itself,” i.e., an evaluation of data and a judgment or
determination that the data indicates a worsening heart failure event. Ans. 4.
Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the
limitation falls within the “mental process” category of abstract ideas, as
discussed above.2 84 Fed. Reg. 52 (mental processes, such as “observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion,” are abstract ideas).
To support its argument that detecting a WHF event “requires more
than just ‘observation and recognition’” of data trends, Appellant cites to
paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Specification for descriptions of detecting a
WHF event using a transformed signal trend. Appeal Br. 9. These
paragraphs, however, confirm that “detect[ing] a worsening heart failure

2 Appellant’s reliance on Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2016), is inapposite. While we agree that the fact a claim requires
the use of a mathematical equation does not necessarily render the claim
patent-ineligible, Appeal Br. 8–9, in this case claim 1 as a whole is directed
to abstract ideas for reasons discussed herein.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

11
event” falls within the mental process category of abstract ideas. For
instance, the Specification provides, as an example of detecting a
physiological event, that “first and second representative values can be
computed from the respective first and second transformed signal trends, and
a HF event is deemed detected when a relative difference between the first
and second representative values exceeds a specified threshold.” Spec. ¶ 39.
Determining whether the relative difference between two values exceeds a
specified threshold is a process that can be performed in the human mind.
Neither are we persuaded that the detection of a WHF event is
different in kind than other types of information or data, or that this
limitation results in a “transformation” of physiological signals sufficient to
render the claim non-abstract. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 2, 3–4. As the
Examiner points out (Ans. 4), courts have been clear that “[w]ithout
additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to
manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not
patent eligible.” Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appellant suggests that claim 1 is “fundamentally different” from
Digitech, because “[t]he Digitech claims . . . recite merely data manipulation
. . . without claim limitation of specific application of the resultant combined
data.” Reply Br. 4. In contrast, Appellant contends, “[c]laim 1 . . . is
directed to a specific and actual application of the mathematically
generated data,” namely the detection of a WHF event. Id.
We are not persuaded. Claim 1 recites “a . . . circuit configured to
detect a worsening heart failure (WHF) event,” but does not require any step
to be taken based on such a detection. Thus, as in Digitech, claim 1 at most
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

12
employs mathematical algorithms (e.g., weighting portions of a signal trend)
to manipulate existing information (i.e., physiologic signals) to generate
additional information (i.e., a determination of whether a WHF event exists).
In this regard, we note that Digitech also cites Flook for the
proposition that, “[i]f a claim is directed essentially to a method of
calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a
specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at
1351 (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)) (emphasis added).
In particular, in Flook the Supreme Court found that a method for “updating
the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved
in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons”
to be patent ineligible, despite the fact that the claims comprise the steps of
“[d]etermining an updated alarm limit’ and “[a]djusting said alarm limit to
said updated alarm limit value.” Flook, 437 U.S. at 596–97. Likewise, in In
re Richman, 563 F.2d 1026 (CCPA 1977), the predecessor of our reviewing
court held that “methods of calculating an airborne radar boresight
correction angle or a velocity component for the airport carrying the radar,
utilizing mathematical formulae, . . . are not statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. s 101.” Id. at 1030. As with the claims in Flook and Richman,
the fact that claim 1 performs mathematical calculations for a specific
purpose (i.e., the detection of a WHF event) does not render the claim
patent-eligible.
In a similar vein, Appellant contends that, even if the claims recite
abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One of the Revised Guidance, “the
element of ‘detecting a WHF event’ amounts to an ‘additional non-abstract
element’” which by itself or in combination with other recited elements
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

13
“integrates the alleged abstract elements (e.g., generating a signal trend,
dynamically generating first and second weight factors, and weighting first
and second portions of the signal trends using the weight factors) into a
practical application.” Appeal Br. 10.
In particular, Appellant first contends that the claimed subject matter
“advantageously use[s] the claimed signal weighting” to “improve reliability
and accuracy of detecting WHF events, and thus improve WHF detection
performance (e.g., sensitivity and specificity)” and to “provide[] a more
robust WHF detection technique, which can decrease the number of other
sensors required to detect WHF with the same sensitivity and specificity.”
Id. at 10–11; see also Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant contends that, thus, “the
claimed invention may improve not only HF patient outcome, but also the
functionality of specific and modern medical systems and devices.” Appeal
Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, the limitations regarding
weighting a first and second portion of the signal trend using a first and
second weight factor, which Appellant contends to provide the
improvement, is an abstract idea. To the extent such signal weighting in fact
improves the detection of worsening heart failure events and/or heart failure
patient outcome, the Supreme Court has explained that it is the
implementation of the abstract idea, not merely the abstract idea itself, that
must provide the improvement in order for the claim to be patent-
eligible. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594–95 (holding that a claim that provides a
“new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit values” is
not patent-eligible where the only novel feature was the mathematical
formula (i.e., abstract idea)). Appellant has cited no persuasive evidence
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

14
that the alleged improvement to the detection of WHF events, heart failure
patient outcomes, and/or the “functionality of specific and modern medical
systems and devices” result from anything other than the abstract
mathematical concepts themselves.
Appellant further contends that the claims integrate any alleged
abstract ideas into a practical application “at least because the claims at issue
recite elements that use the alleged abstract idea in conjunction with a
particular machine that is integral to the claim,” i.e., “an ambulatory medical
device that includes a physiologic signal analyzer circuit, a signal
transformation circuit, and a target physiologic event detector circuit.”
Appeal Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. Claim 1 cites only a generic ambulatory
medical device with generic circuitry to receive physiologic signals and
perform mathematical calculations and/or mental processes. However,
“[u]se of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the
execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-
of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide
significantly more.” MPEP § 2106.05(b) (citing CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that
“mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim
statutory”’) (alterations in original)). Likewise, the Revised Guidance
explains that an example in which a judicial exception has not been
integrated into a practical application is when “[a]n additional element . . .
merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.” 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55. See also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

15
Cir. 2014) (stating that “[t]he Court in Alice made clear that a claim directed
to an abstract idea does not move into section 101 eligibility territory by
‘merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation”’) (alteration in
original).
Finally, Appellant contends that the claims integrate any alleged
abstract ideas into a practical application because “the claims at issue apply
the alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the
use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment,
such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the exception.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that “the
[claimed] mathematical concepts and . . . operations . . . are used in a
particular application of detecting WHF event, while the alleged abstract
idea of mathematical calculations can find vast applications beyond
detecting WHF event.” Id. at 11–12; see also id. at 10 (contending that
“[t]he mathematics involved in certain steps . . . would not, in any way,
wholly pre-empt a mathematical formula or a mathematical relationship,
such that a patent on the claimed subject matter would not in effect be a
patent on the mathematical formula or calculation”). Appeal Br. 9–10.
We are not persuaded. “While preemption may signal patent
ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not
demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. In Ariosa, for
instance, our reviewing court held various dependent claims to be invalid as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, even though these claims are
limited to specific techniques of amplifying and detecting nucleic
acid. See id. at 1374, 1378 (finding invalid dependent claims requiring
amplification of nucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction or detection of
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

16
nucleic acid via a sequence specific probe because they are “focused on the
use of the natural phenomenon in combination with well-understood,
routine, and conventional activity”).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to a
patent-ineligible judicial exception.

Whether Claim 1 Amounts to “Significantly More”
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible law
of nature, we next consider whether claim 1 recites “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.’” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1375 (citation omitted). We agree
with the Examiner that it does not. Ans. 4.
More specifically, as discussed above, the additional elements of
claim 1 that are not abstract ideas include (1) “an ambulatory medical
device,” (2) “a physiologic signal analyzer circuit,” (3) “a physiological
signal receiver circuit configured to receive one or more physiologic
signals,” (4) “a signal trend generator,” (5) “a signal transformation circuit,”
(6) “a target physiologic event detector circuit,” and (7) “a comparator
circuit.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds, and Appellant has not persuasively disputed, that
these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional,
whether alone or in combination. Ans. 4, 7. For instance, the Specification
states, generically, that “[e]xamples of . . . ambulatory medical devices can
include implantable medical devices (IMD), subcutaneous medical devices,
wearable medical devices or other external medical devices.” Spec. ¶ 6.
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

17
Similarly, with respect to “a physiologic signal receiver circuit configured to
receive one or more physiologic signals,” the Specification broadly states
that “[t]he ambulatory or implantable medical devices can include
physiologic sensors which can be configured to sense electrical activity and
mechanical function of the heart, or physical or physiological variables
associated with the signs or symptoms associated with a new or worsening
of an existing disease.” Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 23–24 (describing “an electronic
circuit that can sense a physiological signal” and stating that “arrangements
and uses of . . . leads and electrodes” depend on “the need of the patient and
the capability of the implantable device”).
The other circuit limitations likewise require no more than “a generic
computer [configured] to perform generic computer functions” and are thus
also well-understood, routine, and conventional. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24
(explaining that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform
a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). The
Specification states, for example, that portions of the implantable medical
device (IMD) (i.e., “ambulatory medical device” as recited in claim 1) “can
be implemented using a general-purpose circuit that can be programmed or
otherwise configured to perform one or more particular functions,” and that
“[s]uch a general-purpose circuit can include a microprocessor or a portion
thereof, a microcontroller or a portion thereof, or a programmable logic
circuit, or a portion thereof.” Spec. ¶ 28. In turn, these circuits are
configured to perform mathematical calculations or analyze data (e.g.,
calculating signal feature, generating signal trend, generating weight factors,
applying the weight factors, and evaluating data based on a comparison),
which are generic functions conventionally performed by a computer. See,
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

18
e.g., In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 612
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing “storing, receiving, and extracting data” as
“generic computer functions”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (noting the basic
calculation function of a generic computer).
Finally, considered as an ordered combination, the components of
claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when they are considered
separately. Viewed as a whole, claim 1 simply recites the mathematical
calculations and/or mental processes used to detect a worsening heart failure
event based on physiological signals, as performed by generic computer
components and conventional medical devices.
Appellant contends that “[t]he claimed system and methods of
detecting WHF is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in
the field,” for example because “[n]one of the art of record teaches or
suggests the concept of detecting a WHF event using a comparison of
respectively weighted signal trend portions using the weight factors as
recited in the claims at issue,” which is “an inventive concept sufficient to
transform the alleged abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
Appeal Br. 12.
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, “detecting a WHF event
using a comparison of respectively weighted signal trend portions” is an
abstract idea. The fact that Appellant’s claim may be novel and nonobvious
does not make the claim eligible for a patent under § 101 where the novelty
or inventive concept is grounded in an abstract idea. See, e.g., Flook, 437
U.S. at 591–92; see also SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he advance lies entirely in the realm of
abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract
Appeal 2020-001929
Application 14/548,690

19
application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for
patenting.”); Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569
U.S. 576, 577 (2013) (“[G]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant
discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.”); 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.”).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not
contain significantly more than the judicial exceptions to which it is
directed, and affirm the rejection of claim 1 on that basis.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–16,
18, 20, 21
101 Eligibility 1–3, 6–16, 18,
20, 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