CERNER INNOVATION, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2020

14302836 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
14/302,836 06/12/2014 HUGH H. RYAN 27098.208451 7856
46169 7590 10/21/2020
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(CERNER CORPORATION)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
NG, JONATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2020 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):
BPARKERSON@SHB.COM
shbdocketing@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HUGH H. RYAN, PAMELA M. BAKER,
and JACLYNNE L. AAGESEN

Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 11–22, and 25–28 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to
reject the claims. We have jurisdiction for this appeal 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 Cerner
Innovations, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 11–
22, and 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 2.
Appellant appeals from this determination.
There are three independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 13, and 19.
Claim 1 is selected as representative. Claim 1 is copied below, with
annotated numbering in brackets to refer to specific limitations in the claim:
1. Non-transitory computer-readable media including computer
executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed
by a computing device having a processor and memory,
perform a method for providing a personalized care plan that is
customizable based on a current healthcare role associated with
a user and that is shared among a plurality of healthcare
providers associated with a plurality of healthcare venues, the
method comprising:
[1] receiving healthcare data associated with a patient,
the healthcare data received from the plurality of healthcare
providers associated with the plurality of healthcare venues;
[2] determining that a first location of the user at a first
time comprises a particular unit of a plurality of units within a
healthcare venue;
[3] based on the first location of the user at the first time
comprising the particular unit, determining a first healthcare
role associated with the user with respect to the patient at the
first time at the first location, the first healthcare role
corresponding to a relationship between the user and the patient
at the first time at the first location, [3a] wherein the first
healthcare role is different from a second healthcare role
associated with the user with respect to the patient at a second
time at a second location, and [3b] wherein healthcare roles
associated with the user vary among a plurality of patients;
[4] based on [4a] the first healthcare role associated with
the user and [4b] on logic for determining data that is relevant
to treatment of the patient by the user, extracting a first set of
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

3
the healthcare data that is relevant to treatment of the patient by
the user at the first time at the first location, [4c] wherein the
first set of the healthcare data is different from a second set of
healthcare data that is relevant to treatment of the patient by the
user at the second time at the second location, [4d] wherein
each of the first set of the healthcare data and the second set of
healthcare data include at least one item of data, and [4e]
wherein the logic is developed based on analyzing patterns in
activities by a plurality of users associated with a plurality of
healthcare roles;
[5] populating the first set of the healthcare data as a set
of care plan items in the personalized care plan for the patient;
[6] presenting the personalized care plan to the user; and
[7] receiving from the user a modification of at least one
care plan item in the set of care plan items and, [7a] based on
the modification, refining the logic for determining data that is
relevant to treatment of the patient by the user.

CLAIM 1
Claim 1 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable media for
performing a method “for providing a personalized care plan that is
customizable based on a current healthcare role associated with a user.”
In the first step [1] of the claim, healthcare data associated with a
patient is received from different healthcare providers at different healthcare
venues. A venue can be a doctor’s office, hospital, walk-in clinic, etc. Spec.
¶¶ 32, 42. The healthcare providers, according to the Specification, can be
“care managers, treating physicians, specialists (e.g., surgeons, radiologists,
cardiologists, and oncologists), emergency medical technicians, physicians’
assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, nurses’ aides, pharmacists, dieticians,
microbiologists, laboratory experts, laboratory technologists, genetic
counselors, researchers, veterinarians, students, and the like.” Spec. ¶ 31.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

4
The “user” of the system can be a primary care physician, a patient’s care
manager, a specialist, a nurse, etc. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 10, 38.
The location of the user in a healthcare venue is determined in the
second step [2] of the claim. The claim does not recite how the location is
determined. However, the Specification provides an example of making the
determination using a user badge with RFID capabilities. Spec. ¶ 38.
Based on the location, the “healthcare role associated with the user
with respect to the patient at the first time at the first location” is determined
in step [3]. As recited in the claim, the healthcare role corresponds to “a
relationship between the user and the patient.” For example, as explained in
the Specification, the healthcare role can be a nurse having a nursing role in
a critical care unit or a diagnostic imaging unit (Spec. ¶ 38), a physician
having a primary care, radiology, or cardiology role, or a nurse having a care
manager role (Spec. ¶¶ 31, 42, 53).
Step [4] of the claim comprises “extracting . . . healthcare data that is
relevant to treatment of the patient by the user.” The Specification explains:
For instance, a radiologist treating a patient may be interested in
healthcare data relating to both past and present radiology
records. By contrast, the patient’s primary care physician might
not find old radiology records particularly relevant to the
physician’s treatment of the patient, and may instead be
interested in healthcare data corresponding to patient symptoms
reported over a certain period of time, past and present
medications prescribed for the patient, reactions to such
medications, general allergy information, and the like.
Spec. ¶ 17.
The extraction of the data is based on [4a] the healthcare role
associated with the user and [4b] logic for determining data that is relevant
to treatment of the patient by the user. The claim requires that [4e] “the logic
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

5
is developed based on analyzing patterns in activities by a plurality of users
associated with a plurality of healthcare roles.” The claim does not describe
how the “logic” is implemented.
The healthcare data is populated “as a set of care plan items in the
personalized care plan for the patient” in step [5], presented to the user in
step [6]. The Specification discloses:
The care plan items displayed in the care plan 320 are
customized for Dr. Larry Thomas [the “user”] to provide
information that is particularly relevant in his treatment of Janet
Smith. As described above, this customization may be based
on, among other things, a healthcare role associated with Dr.
Larry Thomas. The activity category 322 includes care plan
items that provide a high-level overview of the exercise and diet
activities associated with the patient. The labs and
measurements category 324 provides the labs and
measurements currently being monitored for Janet Smith, as
well as the target ranges for each lab or measurement. The care
plan items in the medication therapy category 326 display the
name, dose, and frequency associated with a particular
medication therapy. The education category 328 includes care
plan items that provide a high-level overview of the patient
education that is relevant to Janet Smith.
Spec. ¶ 55.
The last step [7] of the claim is “receiving from the user a
modification of at least one care plan item in the set of care plan items” and
[7a] “based on the modification, refining the logic for determining data that
is relevant to treatment of the patient by the user.”
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
However, not every discovery is eligible for patent protection. Diamond v.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

6
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “Excluded from such patent protection are
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Id. The Supreme
Court articulated a two-step analysis to determine whether a claim falls
within an excluded category of invention. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012).
In the first step, it is determined “whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If
it is determined that the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, then the
second step of the two-part analysis is applied in which it is asked “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us?” Id. (alteration in original). The Court
explained that this step involves
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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (citing from Mayo, 566
U.S. at 75–77).
Alice, relying on the analysis in Mayo of a claim directed to a law of
nature, stated that in the second part of the analysis, “the elements of each
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” must be
considered “to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217.
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

7
(“Eligibility Guidance”). This guidance provides additional direction on how
to implement the two-part analysis of Mayo and Alice.
Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, looks at the specific
limitations in the claim to determine whether the claim recites a judicial
exception to patent eligibility. In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are
examined to identify whether there are additional elements in the claims that
integrate the exception in a practical application, namely, is there a
“meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed.
Reg. 54 (Prong Two).
If the claim recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a
practical application, then as in the Mayo/Alice framework, Step 2B of the
Eligibility Guidance instructs us to determine whether there is a claimed
“inventive concept” to ensure that the claims define an invention that is
significantly more than the ineligible concept itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
With these guiding principles in mind, we proceed to determine
whether the claimed subject matter in this appeal is eligible for patent
protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DISCUSSION
Claim 1 is directed to “[n]on-transitory computer-readable media
including computer executable instructions embodied thereon.” The “media”
is a “manufacture,” one of the broad statutory categories of patent-eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The media comprises instructions for
performing a method of a computer device. Independent claim 13 is directed
to a method which comprises similar steps to those in claim 1. Methods are
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

8
“processes,” which is another of the statutory categories of patent-eligible
subject matter listed in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, because the claims fall into
statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter, following the first step
of the Mayo/Alice analysis, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong One, of the
Eligibility Guidance.

Step 2A, Prong One
In Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, the specific
limitations in the claim are examined to determine whether the claim recites
a judicial exception to patent eligibility, namely whether the claim recites an
abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The Examiner found that the recited method of preparing a care plan
for a patient recites the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing
human activity” (Final Act. 3), a category of abstract ideas identified as
patent ineligible subject matter. See Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52
(“(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity”). The Examiner
explained the claims “are directed to managing personal behavior and
interactions between people by managing the behavior of a physician in a
hospital” and that the claims “manage interactions between a physician and a
patient by determining relevant treatment plans between the physician and
the patient.” Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and
“bear no relation to organizing human activity” (emphasis removed). Appeal
Br. 8. Instead, Appellant argues that the claims recite “a series of technical
steps for implementing and refining logic that is used to identify the most
relevant information for a particular user based on a particular context.” Id.
at 9.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

9
We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in
categorizing the claims as a method of organizing human activity. Rather,
we find that determining the relationship between the user and patient (step
[3]), extracting the data relevant to treatment of the patient by the user (step
[4]), populating and presenting a plan to the user (steps [5] and [6]), and then
receiving a user modification to the care plan (step [7]) are all steps that
constitute the method of organizing (“managing”) human activity (i.e.,
managing the relationship between the user provider and the patient).
Indeed, the stated purpose of claim 1 is “providing a personalized care
plan that is customizable based on a current healthcare role.” The
personalized care plan is for a patient of a healthcare provider or case
manager who is the user of the system. Similarly, the computer-implemented
method of claim 13 is “for providing a personalized care plan for a patient.”
The Specification explains, as an example, that a user, such as a physician,
can log into the system, and review the patient information and a care plan
for the patient.2 The Specification discloses that “[t]he care plan items
displayed in the care plan 320 are customized for Dr. Larry Thomas to
provide information that is particularly relevant in his treatment of Janet
Smith.” Spec. ¶ 55 (reproduced above). The Specification also discloses that

2 “Also within the patient information display area 316 is, in embodiments, a
menu from which a user may select a menu option corresponding to a
desired type of information about the patient. These menu options may
include an overview, Care Management (CM) tracking, documentation,
registries, provider relationships, care plan, and clinical information. CM
tracking may refer to the ability of a healthcare provider to follow and/or
track the care of a particular patient by means of the patient’s care plan (e.g.,
a physician may track a patient’s care by viewing the orders, medications,
goals, etc. included in that patient’s care plan).” Spec. ¶ 54.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

10
the care plan can be customized for the case manager (Spec. ¶ 50) who “may
serve as a liaison between a patient and the healthcare system, such as by
coordinating and facilitating a patient’s healthcare activities at home, at an
outpatient facility, at an acute care facility, at a post-acute care facility, and
at any other healthcare-related venue” (Spec. ¶ 60). It is therefore clear that
the purpose of the claims in providing the personalized care plan is to
manage the relationship between a provider and a patient by facilitating the
creation of a care plan for “optimizing patient health status” and “healthcare
quality” of a patient, i.e., organizing human activity (Spec. ¶ 60).
While it is true, as asserted by Appellant, there is no express statement
in the claims of managing interactions between a physician and a patient
(Appeal Br. 9), the “personalized care plan” is for the patient (step [5]) and
the claim produces a plan for the purpose of managing the patient’s health.
Consequently, the lack of express steps in which a patient interacts with a
healthcare provider does not undermine the determination that the claims are
a method of organizing human activity. “Logic” is employed in the claims,
but the logic is used to implement the management of the interactions
between the provider and patient in providing the care plan.
We further note that our conclusion is consistent with Example 42 of
the 2019 Eligibility Examples, which describes a method that allows users to
access a patient’s medical records and receive updated patient information.
Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, pp. 17–20 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019
Eligibility Examples”). The example was characterized in the 2019
Eligibility Examples as reciting a method of organizing human activity, i.e.,
“a method of managing interactions between people,” despite the only
patient interaction being with the patient’s medical record. Id. at 18.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

11

Appellant attempts to distinguish Example 42 of the 2019 Eligibility
Examples by arguing that the focus of the rejected claims is on extracting
relevant data. Appeal Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive. The focus of
claim 1 of Example 42 is on a standardized format of a medical record and
generating messages containing updated information about a patient’s
condition.3 Thus, the steps in that claim involve storing data and transmitting
messages about data — activity which is closely analogous to the data
extraction step of rejected claim 1. The fact that claim 1 of Example 42
recites such activity does not change the determination that the claim recites
a method of organizing human activity. Consequently, we are not persuaded
that claim 1 is distinguishable from the claims in Example 42 for purposes of
assessing Step 2A, Prong One.
Appellant argues that certain dependent claims recite features
unrelated to organizing human activity. Appeal Br. 10. Even if this is true,
the fact that not all the dependent claims recite features related to organizing
human activity does not change the determination that the independent
claims do.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner properly found that the
claims recite a method of organizing human activity, and therefore proceed
to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Eligibility Guidance.

3 “The claim recites a combination of additional elements including storing
information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated
information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a
standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated
information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users.” 2019
Eligibility Examples, Example 42, p. 18.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

12
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two of Step 2A under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance asks
whether there are additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application. As in the Mayo/Alice framework, we must look at the
claim elements individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine
whether the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a
practical application. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by
identifying whether there are additional elements individually, and in
combination, which go beyond the judicial exception. Eligibility Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 54–55. The October 2019 Update to Subject Matter Eligibility4
further explains that “the specification should be evaluated to determine if
the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the
art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.”
PEG Update 12.
Appellant contends that the improvement recited in each independent
claim is extracting and presenting relevant data to the user, which
“constitutes an improvement to the functioning of a computer, including the
graphical user interface on which the data is presented.” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant cites to the disclosure in the Specification that “the number of care
plan items that could potentially be included in a patient care plan may be
quite large” which “may be overwhelming to the user.” Spec. ¶ 16. The
Specification further discloses that of “the tremendous amount of patient
data available, only a few specific pieces of data may be relevant to the
particular healthcare provider’s treatment of the patient.” Id. ¶ 17. Appellant

4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (last accessed July 3, 2020) (“PEG Update”).

Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

13
asserts that the claims are a solution to this problem by providing a “specific
method for determining data that is relevant to a particular user based on a
particular context (e.g., based on a user location at a given time, as well as
on logic that is developed and refined), extracting that data, and then
presenting it.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant argues that the claim
additionally “provides logic for determining data that is relevant to treatment
of a patient by a particular user” which is “based on analyzing patterns in
activities by a plurality of users associated with a plurality of healthcare
roles, and the logic is refined based on a user’s modification of a care plan
item that was automatically populated in a care plan.” Id. at 13.
Appellant, in arguing that the claims provide an improvement to
patient care plans and treatment, refers to steps which correspond to steps
[4]–[7] of claim 1. We therefore must look at these steps to determine
whether they embody patent-eligible improvements to the recited method of
organizing human activity.
In step [4] of claim 1, based on the user’s healthcare role (e.g., a
physician or case manager) and [4b] “on logic for determining data that is
relevant to treatment of the patient by the user,” data is extracted. The claim
also recites that [4e] “the logic is developed based on analyzing patterns in
activities by a plurality of users associated with a plurality of healthcare
roles.” Appellant directs us to paragraphs 40 and 41 for support for this step
of the claim. Appeal Br. 4, 5. Appellant directs us to these same paragraphs
for step [5] of populating the personalized care plan for the patient and step
[7] of the claim in receiving modifications and refining the logic for
determining relevant data. Id.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

14
We have reviewed the Specification, with particular attention to
paragraphs 40 and 41, but do not find a description of how the recited logic
is used to determine and extract data relevant to the patient and then to
populate the plan with it. The Specification describes analyzing and
monitoring user patterns and trends of users, specifically mentioning using
“machine-learning capabilities,” and asserts that these steps are used to
“develop the logic” to implement the care plan, but does not describe in
specific terms how the “logic” performs these tasks. Spec. ¶ 41. The
Specification gives examples of relevant data, e.g., “if a patient is admitted
to a hospital for a serious illness, then healthcare data pertaining to
occurrences of serious illnesses in the patient’s medical history may be
deemed relevant to a particular user treating the patient at that particular
time.” Spec. ¶ 42. However, selecting out relevant information to a patient’s
treatment is what a provider normally would do in the course of reviewing a
patient’s records. The Specification does not identify how the “logic” is
implemented to automate the step of reviewing patient records and selecting
relevant data. In other words, both the Specification and claims merely recite
a desired result without describing how that result is accomplished.
As explained in Dropbox, Inc. et al. v. Synchronism Technologies,
Inc., 815 F. App’x 529, 534 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential), it has been
“consistently held that an ‘inventive concept’ exists when a claim ‘recite[s] a
specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea’ where the ‘particular
arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over [the] prior art.’”
Id. (quoting BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The patent has to describe how to solve the problem in a manner
that encompasses something more than the “principle in the
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

15
abstract.” See [ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019)] (explaining that an invention may not
be patent eligible if the “claims ‘were drafted in such a result-
oriented way that they amounted to encompassing the ‘principle
in the abstract’ no matter how implemented’” (quoting Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir.
2018))); see also Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d
1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A] result, even an innovative
result, is not itself patentable.”).
Dropbox, 815 F. App’x at 533.
Here, the claims recite the desired result of extracting data, populating
a care plan, and refining the logic to do so, without reciting a specific,
discrete implementation of such, e.g., a set of rules describing how the result
is obtained, namely the extraction of the relevant data (step [4]), the
populating of data in a care plan for the patient (step [5]), and refining the
logic for determining the relevant treatment data (step [7]). This stands in
contrast to cases like McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1307–08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the claim recited a series of
specific steps that “produce[d] lip synchronization and facial expression
control of said animated characters.” The court there found the “claimed
process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into
a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a
sequence of synchronized, animated characters.” Id. at 1315. McRO found
that the recited rules “are limiting in that they define morph weight sets as a
function of the timing of phoneme sub-sequences.” Id. at 1313. The claims
were found to be directed to a “technological improvement over the existing,
manual 3-D animation techniques.” Id. at 1316.
Appellant has not directed us to specific rules which are applied to
implement the process recited in the claims. Specifically, the claim does not
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

16
recite how relevant data is extracted using logic “based on analyzing patterns
in activities by a plurality of users associated with a plurality of healthcare
roles” (step [4]) and then how the plan is populated with the data. Thus, the
claims do not “embody a concrete solution to a problem” because they lack
“the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result
to one claiming a way of achieving it.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021–22 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Appellant argues the Specification describes the “utilization of
machine learning to develop and refine logic for determining data that is
relevant based on a particular context [which] provides an improvement to
computer functionality and/or a technological process.” Appeal Br. 13.
However, the claims do not recite that the logic is implemented using
machine-learning. “Claims, not the specification embodiments, define the
scope of the protection.” American Permahedge, Inc. v. Barcana, Inc., 105
F.3d 1441, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, to the extent that “machine-
learning” is the alleged improvement that integrates the recited judicial
exception into a practical application, there is no recitation of such an
improvement in the claims. See Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55
(explaining that to be integrated into a practical application the claim must
recite additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception). Moreover, we note the “machine-learning capabilities” referred
to in the Specification are mentioned with respect to the “customized care
plan service” that provides the personalized care plan and to “refine the logic
implemented at the customized care plan service 210” (Spec. ¶¶ 29, 41), and
not to the data extraction step [4].
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

17
Appellant also contends there is an improvement to the “graphical
user interface on which the data is presented.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant,
however, did not identify the specific improvement recited in the claim. The
claim comprises [5] populating a care plan with data; [6] “presenting the
personalized care plan to the user” and [7] receiving modifications of the
plan from the user. Appellant did not point to any specific features in the
claim of a user interface that facilitates the population of a care plan and its
presentation to the user.
The claims in this appeal are distinguishable from the claims Core
Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2018), where the court found the claim “directed to an improved user
interface for computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index.” Id. at
1362. The representative claim in Core Wireless was directed to a
computing device comprising a display screen “configured to display on the
screen a menu listing one or more applications” and “to display on the
screen an application summary that can be reached directly from the menu.”
Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1359 (emphasis removed). The court found the
claims to be patent-eligible because they “restrain[] the type of data that can
be displayed in the summary window” and specify “a particular manner by
which the summary window must be accessed.” Id. at 1362–1363. Thus,
there was a recited functionality associated with the menu. Here, there is no
detail or functionality recited in the claim associated with the care plan
presented to the user nor any recited limitation as to how the plan is
presented to the user and modified by the user.
For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellant points to paragraphs
36–49, 54, and 86 of the Specification which it contends provide an
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

18
explanation about how to implement the recited method. Reply Br. 4. These
paragraphs describe using logon credentials, badges with “RFID
capabilities” (Spec. ¶ 38) and specific menu options (Spec. ¶ 54), but none
of these elements appear in the independent claims. Appellant has not
pointed to language in the claim that would require the claims to be
construed to contain such elements. “[A] particular embodiment appearing
in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant’s argument that the claims solve the problem described in
the Specification of the “overwhelming” number of possible care plan items
and “the tremendous amount of patient data available” when “only a few
specific pieces of data may be relevant to the particular healthcare provider’s
treatment of the patient” (Spec. ¶¶ 16. 17) is unavailing. “[M]erely adding
computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process
does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2015). See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the trader faster and more efficient,
not the computer. This is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”).
Appellant separately argued claims 25 and 27. Claim 25 recites that
the healthcare roles “are determined based on user login credentials and a
known location associated with a user computing device at which the user is
logged in.” Claim 27 recites that roles are determined based on a badge
associated with the identity of the user. We agree with Appellant that these
are additional elements recited in the claim. However, we do not agree they
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

19
confer eligibility on the claims by integrating the judicial exception into a
specific application as asserted by Appellant. Appeal Br. 10, 14.
Specifically, each of the dependent claims involve gathering
information about the role of user. As explained in the Eligibility Guidance,
“a mere data gathering such as a step of obtaining information about credit
card transactions so that the information can be analyzed in order to detect
whether the transactions were fraudulent” is insignificant extra-solution
activity which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 n.31.
In sum, we have not been guided to an additional element in the
claim, beyond the abstract idea, that integrates the judicial exception in
practical application.
Step 2B
Because we determined that the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B of the Eligibility
Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making this
Step 2B determination, we must consider whether there are specific
limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). We must also consider
whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and
therefore include an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

20
2B.” Id. In this part of the analysis, we 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Appellant argues that the recited steps “are not well-understood,
routine, and conventional in the field, because the Office has withdrawn all
art-based rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has not provided evidence that
the recited elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Id. at
16.
To establish eligibility, the “inventive concept” must include an
element or elements that is not part of the judicial exception. Having found
that certain steps of the claim constitute the method of organizing human
activity, namely steps [3]–[7], we must look at whether the steps of
receiving the health care data and determining the location of the user as
recited in steps [1] and [2], in combination with steps [3]–[7], confer
eligibility.
We have already found that steps [3]–[7] are not outside the judicial
exception because they are drafted in a result-oriented way such that they
encompass the abstract principle of providing a personalized care plan, no
matter how it is implemented. Steps [1] and [2] are mere data gathering steps
of receiving healthcare data and location of the user. These steps do not
provide a technological improvement to the recited method of providing a
health care plan, but merely provide the data necessary to implement it.
Even if the approach recited in the claim of using the location of the user to
determine the role (step [3]) and using logic to extract and refine the data
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

21
used to provide the personalized care plan for the patient (steps [4] and [7])
is new, novelty and non-obviousness is not the test of eligibility under
Section 101. A claim can be new and unobvious and still be ineligible for a
patent because it is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
See Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (“The eligibility question is not whether anyone has ever used tabs to
organize information. That question is reserved for §§ 102 and 103.”). The
steps are recited with such generality, and lack of rule-defining
implementation, that they invoke preemption concerns by attempting to
monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Alice, 573
U.S. at 216.
The concept of providing a care plan to a patient is not asserted by
Appellant to be the inventive concept. While the extraction of the specific
data used to formulate the plan using a computer to employ “logic” may be
new, the claim does not recite that it is accomplished in any specific way
that might constitute a technological improvement and it is not new for a
human provider or case manager to selectively refer to certain patient data
relevant to the care plan. This is understood from reading the Specification
because it is acknowledged that a provider may find some records relevant
and others not.5 The fact that this step is implemented by logic in step [4e]
based on “analyzing patterns in activities by a plurality of users associated

5 “[T]he patient’s primary care physician might not find old radiology
records particularly relevant to the physician’s treatment of the patient, and
may instead be interested in healthcare data corresponding to patient
symptoms reported over a certain period of time, past and present
medications prescribed for the patient, reactions to such medications, general
allergy information, and the like.” Spec. ¶ 17.
Appeal 2020-003315
Application 14/302,836

22
with a plurality of healthcare roles” is not sufficient to confer patent
eligibility. Analyzing such patterns, without more, is abstract, and it does not
become inventive by combining it with other abstract steps (adding one
abstract idea to another abstract idea does not render a claim non-abstract.
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.”)) or combining it with the
steps of gathering information and presenting the plan to the user.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 7,
11–22, 25–
28
101 Subject matter
eligibility
1, 4, 6, 7,
11–22, 25–
28

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED