Dana Lewis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2020

13444650 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 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.
13/444,650 04/11/2012 Dana Lewis 18-1474 3338
154508 7590 08/03/2020
MBHB - Physio-Control/Stryker
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BURGESS, JOSEPH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANA LEWIS, RANDY L. MERRY, and RICHARD C. NOVA
____________________

Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,6501
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN A JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3–6, 10–13, 17–19, 22, 23, and 25–34.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention relates to techniques for routing patient data
from remote field devices to various destinations associated with a network

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Physio-
Control, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 2, 7–9, 14–16, 20, 21, and 24 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

2
of patient treatment centers. Spec. ¶ 2. A server maintains information or
rules for at least some of the destinations used by the server for determining
whether medical event data received from a field device is routed to the
destination. Spec. ¶ 8. In some cases, the server may make the routing
determination based on an analysis of event data, e.g., whether the event
data includes electrocardiogram (ECG) data, or indicates that the patient is
suspected to be experiencing an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Id. For
example, an event data filtering rule for at least some destinations may
specify that the destination receives all event data, only event data with a 12-
lead ECG, or only event data that indicates the patient is suspected of having
suffered AMI. Id. In some embodiments, the server selects a subset of the
destinations for receipt of the event data based on destination location
information, or based on scheduling information indicating whether a
physician is on duty. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 10.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
storing a first plurality of user-configurable profiles and a second
plurality of user-configurable profiles within a dispatch server, each of
the first plurality of user-configurable profiles describing a medical
device associated with an emergency medical service (EMS), each of
the second plurality of user-configurable profiles within a plurality of
patient treatment centers, each of the second plurality of user-
configurable profiles including one or more event data filtering rules.
receiving patient data from at least one of the plurality of medical
devices, the patient data including physiological data, computer-
assisted dispatch (CAD) data, and patient demographic data, the
patient demographic data including at least one of medical history or
insurance information of a patient, the CAD data including dispatch
information and travel information;
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

3
determining, by the dispatcher server, at least one destination
for the patient data based on an analysis of the patient data, the CAD
data and the second plurality of user-configurable profiles;
modifying the patient data to exclude at least some information
based on the event data filtering rule for the patient treatment center
associated with the determined destination, wherein the event data
filtering rule further comprises a type and a format of the modified
patient data; and
routing the modified patient data to the at least one determined
destination.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Pierce US 7,856,35B2 Dec. 21, 2010
Maus US 2001/0044732 A1 Nov. 22, 2001
Boone US 2002/0196141 A1 Dec. 26, 2002

Claims 1, 3–6, 10–13, 17–19, 22, 23, and 25–34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act.
3.
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 17–18, 22, 23 and 27–34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce and Maus. Final Act. 5.
Claims 3–6, 12, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pierce, Maus, and Boone.3

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed January 31, 2018) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed May 18, 2018) for their respective details.

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
based on Appellant’s amendment of the claims. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

4
ISSUES
1. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea?
2. Is the recited abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
3. Does the claimed invention recite an inventive concept?
4. Does the combination of Pierce and Maus teach or suggest
determining a destination for patient data?
5. Does the combination of Pierce and Maus teach or suggest
determining a destination based on an analysis of patient data, CAD data,
and user-configurable profiles?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category,
we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed
to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are
drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third
party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

5
593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978));
and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning
v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour
(Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785
(1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view
respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”).
Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking
patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the
protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at
187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

6
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to
transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

7
are 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.
See Memorandum.

ANALYSIS
Section 101 rejection
Representative claim 1 recites the following limitations. Aspects of
the claimed abstract idea are indicated in italics. Additional non-abstract
limitations are noted in bold:
1. A method comprising:
(a) storing a first plurality of user-configurable profiles
and a second plurality of user-configurable profiles within a
dispatch server, each of the first plurality of user-configurable
profiles describing a medical device associated with an
emergency medical service (EMS), each of the second
plurality of user-configurable profiles within a plurality of
patient treatment centers, each of the second plurality of user-
configurable profiles including one or more event data filtering
rules;
(b) receiving patient data from at least one of the
plurality of medical devices, the patient data including
physiological data, computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) data, and
patient demographic data, the patient demographic data
including at least one of medical history or insurance
information of a patient, the CAD data including dispatch
information and travel information;
(c) determining, by the dispatcher server, at least one
destination for the patient data based on an analysis of the
patient data, the CAD data, and the second plurality of user-
configurable profiles;
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

8
(d) modifying the patient data to exclude at least some
information based on the event data filtering rule for the patient
treatment center associated with the determined destination,
wherein the event data filtering rule further comprises a type
and a format of the modified patient data; and
(e) routing the modified patient data to the at least one
determined destination.

These limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
constitute steps to route patient data collected from EMS devices to one or
more treatment centers based on analysis of patient physiological data,
computer-aided dispatch data, and patient demographic data. Some of the
patient data is to be excluded from transmission based on an event data
filtering rule for the particular treatment center.
We determine that limitation (b) corresponds to the gathering of data
(“receiving patient data”). We determine that limitation (a), storing a first
and second user-configurable profile, constitutes insignificant extra-solution
activity: certain information (“user-configurable profiles”) is to be pre-stored
on the dispatch server so that it may be used in the future determination of
destination(s) for patient data.
The Memorandum recognizes that certain groupings of subject matter
have been found by the courts to constitute judicially excepted abstract
ideas: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and (c) mental processes. Memorandum, 84 FR at 52. If a claim,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

9
in the mind.4 We determine that the claim steps beyond those directed to
extra-solution activity (i.e., gathering, display, or storage of data) –

4 See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for “anonymous
loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by
humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”);
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of “computer” or “computer
readable medium” does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that
“can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
paper” patent eligible); id. at 1376 distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v.
Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions
that “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s
mind”). Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“‘[M]ental processes[ ] and abstract
intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of
scientific and technological work’” (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67));
Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 (same); Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65 (noting that the
claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary
numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and
hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139,
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to the mental process of “translating a
functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the
claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with
pencil and paper”); In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test
Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that concept of
“comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations”
is an “abstract mental process”); In re Brown, 645 F. App’x. 1014, 1017
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (claim limitations “encompass the mere
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

10
determining a destination for patient data based on an analysis of patient
data, CAD data, and user-configurable profiles; excluding certain data from
transmission; lastly, routing appropriate data to at least one determined
destination – constitute steps that may be performed in the mind, but for the
recitation of generic computer components.
We find the limitations at issue to be analogous to those at issue in
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., 792 F.3d
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (hereinafter “Intellectual Ventures”). The court in
Intellectual Ventures found that the claim at issue in the ‘382 patent related
to “customizing information based on (1) information known about the user
and (2) navigation data.” Id. at 1369. The court found that tailoring content
based on a viewer’s location or address is a fundamental practice long
prevalent in our system, citing the example of newspaper advertising based
on a customer’s location, and concluded that providing different newspaper
inserts based on the location of the individual is an abstract idea. The court
also found that tailoring information “based on the time of day of viewing”
is also an abstract concept long-practiced in society, citing the concept of
different television commercials airing based on the time of day of
broadcast. Id. at 1370.
The claimed invention under appeal recites “modifying the patient
data to exclude at least some information based on the event data filtering
rule for the patient treatment center associated with the determined

idea of applying different known hair styles to balance one’s head.
Identifying head shape and applying hair designs accordingly is an abstract
idea capable, as the Board notes, of being performed entirely in one’s
mind”).
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

11
destination,” analogous to tailoring the information delivered to a particular
destination, e.g., delivering different newspaper inserts to different customer
locations, in Intellectual Ventures. Id. at 1369. The invention under appeal
further recites “determining, by the dispatcher server, at least one destination
for the patient data based on an analysis of the patient data, the CAD data,
and the second plurality of user-configurable profiles,” which is analogous
to “tailoring information based on the time of day of viewing” in Intellectual
Ventures. Id. at 1370.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a mental process, one
of the categories of abstract ideas recognized in the Memorandum. 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. We thus conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea.

Integrated Into A Practical Application
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea of […] into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at
51. We consider whether there are any additional elements beyond the
abstract ideas that, individually or in combination, “integrate the [abstract
ideas] into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations
laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.” Id. at 54–55.
The Revised Guidance Memorandum provides exemplary
considerations that are indicative that an additional element may have
integrated the exception (i.e., the abstract idea recited in the claim) into a
practical application:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

12
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See Memorandum, 84 FR at 55; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).

As noted supra, the claims recite the additional elements of a dispatch
server, medical device, emergency medical service, patient treatment center.
Appellant defines a dispatch server (using simply the term “server” or
“central server” in the specification) as comprising “any number of servers,
computing devices, or data storage devices;” such devices “may be located
in a server farm” or “may be geographically distributed.” Spec. ¶ 30. We
determine that Appellant discloses a “server” as a generic component.
Appellant defines “medical devices” (“field devices 14”) as
physiological monitoring devices and data collection devices such as “an
external defibrillator, a combined defibrillator/monitor, a standalone
monitor, a 12-lead electrocardiograph, a perfusion sensor, a carbon-dioxide
(CO2) sensor, a thermometer, or the like.” Spec. ¶ 33. Appellant further
includes personal digital assistants, tablet personal computers, and other data
collection devices as field devices. Id. Appellant has not disclosed medical
devices as non-generic components.
Appellant defines “emergency medical service” as “any service or
entity associated with the treatment of those in need of urgent medical care
and/or the provision of out of hospital acute care, and may include, as
examples, ambulance services, life squads, rescue squads, first aid squads,
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

13
paramedic services, or first responders.” Spec. ¶ 33. We determine that the
disclosed emergency medical services are generically recited.
Appellant defines “patient treatment centers” as, e.g., “hospitals,
clinics, hospital networks, or practice groups.” Spec. ¶ 38. Appellant does
not attempt to disclose “treatment center” as anything other than a generic
component.
Appellant contends that analyzing the patient data, CAD data, and
second plurality of user-configurable profiles requires the mathematically
calculated destination characteristics to be translated into a determination of
the most relevant destination for the patient data, “which is more than
merely collection (sic) and transmitting data.” Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant
further argues that excluding some information based on the event data
filtering rule for the patient treatment center associated with the determined
destination effects a proper and accurate treatment outcome for the patient
by accelerating treatment. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant’s Specification discloses
that “embodiments that store user-configurable rules or other information for
a plurality of destinations, and route event data to a selected subset of the
destinations based on stored information, may ensure that the destinations
receive relevant or desired data, and do not unnecessarily receive event data
. . . . [S]ome embodiments may facilitate delivery of event data to the most
relevant destinations in terms of location, availability, and type of treatment
offered based on location or scheduling information retrieved for the
destinations.” Spec. ¶ 18. “Embodiments that deliver relevant event data
from a field device to a plurality of relevant treatment facility destinations
may improve the timeliness of delivery of a critical therapy to the patient at
a treatment facility, e.g., improve the door-to-balloon time for
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

14
catheterization of ST-Elevated Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients.
Spec. ¶ 19.
We are not persuaded that the additional limitations serve to integrate
the abstract idea into a (patent-eligible) practical application. Taking as true
Appellant’s assertion that performing the claimed abstract idea on a
computer will improve the timeliness of delivery of patient data, and as a
result improve the timeliness of delivery of therapy to patients, we
nonetheless agree with the Examiner that performing calculations more
efficiently on a computer does not materially affect the patent eligibility of
subject matter. Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d
1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Examiner determined that the claims under
appeal are unlike the claims in Enfish, where the court concluded that the
invention was directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality.
Ans. 7. We determine that the claims under appeal are directed to adapting
the abstract idea of (a) deciding which treatment center(s) should receive
patient data (information) and (b) precisely what types of information should
be provided to those treatment center(s), to performance by a computer.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the focus of the claims is not on an
improvement to the computer itself, but on “certain independently abstract
ideas that use computers as tools.” Id.; Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We conclude that the claims do not recite additional elements that
integrate the recited abstract idea of deciding to route patient data collected
from EMS devices to one or more treatment centers based on analysis of
patient physiological data, computer-aided dispatch data, and patient
demographic data, and excluding certain of that data from transmission
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

15
based on an event data filtering rule for a particular treatment center, into a
practical application under the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court
and the Federal Circuit.

Inventive Concept
Last, we consider whether claims 1, 3–6, 10–13, 17–19, 22, 23, and
25–34 express an inventive concept, i.e., whether any additional claim
elements “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This
requires us to evaluate whether the additional claim elements add “a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, and conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[] well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 50, 56.
“The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a dispatch server, medical device, emergency medical service, patient
treatment center. We determine supra that Appellant does not disclose any
of these additional elements as being anything other than well-understood,
routine, and conventional.
Regarding the use of the recited generic computer components
identified – i.e., “dispatch server” -- the Supreme Court has held that “the
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

16
mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. Our
reviewing court provides additional guidance: See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at
1096 (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user
interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter.”); OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter
alia, sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a
computerized system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and
presenting offers to potential customers found to merely recite “‘well-
understood, routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by requiring
conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps” (alteration
in original)). We determine from Appellant’s bare disclosure of these
elements that the claimed dispatch server should be considered a generic
computer component. As such, they cannot transform the recited patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appellant has presented no argument contesting the Examiner’s
characterization of any additional claim element as well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Appellant has not contended that the Examiner lacked
factual support for any finding that a claim element is well-understood,
routine, and conventional. As a result, we determine that none of the claim
elements, additional to those limitations we determined to constitute a
mental process, recite a limitation or combination of limitations that are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of user
authentication.

Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

17
Subject Matter Eligibility - Conclusion
We conclude that the claims recite a process of image-based password
authentication, which we determine to constitute a mental process, one of the
categories of invention found by the courts to constitute an abstract idea.
We further conclude that the claims do not integrate the identified
abstract idea into a practical application.
We further conclude that the claimed invention does not recite
additional claim elements that transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1, 3–6, 10–13, 17–19, 22, 23, and 25–34.

§ 103 Rejection of claims 1, 10, 11, 13, 17–19, 22, 23, and 27–34 over
Pierce and Maus
The Examiner finds that Pierce teaches determining, by the dispatcher
server, at least one destination for patient data based on an analysis of the
patient data and the second plurality of user-configurable profiles. Final Act.
6; Pierce Fig. 9, col. 18. The Examiner concedes that Pierce does not teach
patient data including computer-assisted dispatch (CAD) data, the CAD data
including dispatch information and travel information; and does not teach
determining, by the dispatcher server, at least one destination for the patient
based on said CAD data. Final Act. 6. The Examiner then finds that Maus
teaches the claimed CAD data, and determining at least one destination for
the patient based on said CAD data. Ans. 6; Maus ¶¶ 11, 32, 33, 42, 43.
Appellant alleges that the system of Pierce fails to determine at least
one destination for the patient data based on an analysis of the patient data
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

18
and the second plurality of user-configurable profiles. Appeal Br. 13.
According to Appellant, the ECG data of Pierce acquired from an ECG-
performing device is transferred to addressee(s) based on the destination
location selected from an operator and by appending the destination location
to the ECG data. Appeal Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Pierce teaches that the software on portable
transmission device 302 analyzes the ECG snapshot data. Pierce col. 15:43-
48. Pierce further teaches that destination location data is appended to the
ECG snapshot data prior to its transmission from electrocardiogram device
301 to portable transmission device 302. Id. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Pierce teaches determining, by the dispatcher server, at least
one destination for the patient data, based on analysis of patient data and a
second plurality of user-configurable profiles.
Appellant further argues that Maus fails to teach determining at least
one destination for patient data based on analysis of patient data and CAD
data. Appellant contends that Maus first identifies a single medical facility to
route the data based on the proximity and “waits for a certain time to
determine the medical facility/hospital’s readiness to make a decision if the
data should be rerouted to another facility.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues
that the determination of the destination for routing the data of Maus is not
finalized, but rather temporarily set until the confirmation of the
destination’s readiness is confirmed. Appeal Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Maus teaches transmitting patient data including
estimated time of arrival of an ambulance based on the distance from the
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

19
medical facility. Ans. 9; Maus ¶¶ 11, 32, 33. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Maus teaches determining a medical facility to transmit patient
data based on proximity and hospital readiness. We find that these teachings
of Maus correspond to the claimed computer aided dispatch data “including
dispatch information and travel information.” Ans. 9; Maus ¶¶ 42, 43. We do
not agree with Appellant that Maus “temporarily” sets a destination for
routing patient data. Maus teaches identifying a medical facility at flowchart
step 325, and transmitting generated reports to the identified medical facility
at flowchart step 330. Maus ¶ 42. That Maus allows the identified facility
the option of responding that it is not ready to receive the patient, e.g.
because of a power outage, does not negate Maus’s teaching of identifying
an appropriate medical facility and transmitting generated reports to that
facility.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pierce and Maus
teaches all the limitations of the invention recited in claims 1, 10, 11, 13,
17–19, 22, 23, and 27–34. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

Rejection of claims 3–6, 12, 25, and 26 under § 103
With respect to dependent claims 3–6, 12, 25, and 26, rejected as
unpatentable over Pierce, Maus, and Boone, Appellant argues only that
Boone does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Pierce and Maus. Appeal Br.
15. Since we determine that the combination of Pierce and Maus teaches all
the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 23, from which these claims
depend, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 3–6, 12, 25, and
26, for the same reasons.
Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

20
CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
2. The recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application.
3. The claimed invention does not recite an inventive concept.
4. The combination of Pierce and Maus teaches determining a
destination for patient data.
5. The combination of Pierce and Maus teaches determining a
destination based on an analysis of patient data, CAD data, and user-
configurable profiles.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 10–
13, 17–19,
22, 23, and
25–34
101 Patent Eligible
Subject Matter
1, 3–6, 10–
13, 17–19,
22, 23, and
25–34

1, 10, 11, 13,
17, 18, 22,
23, and 27–
34
103 Pierce and Maus 1, 10, 11, 13,
17, 18, 22,
23, and 27–
34

3–6, 12, 25,
and 26
103 Pierce, Maus, and
Boone
3–6, 12, 25,
and 26

Overall
Outcome

1, 3–6, 10–
13, 17–19,
22, 23, and
25–34

Appeal 2018-008793
Application 13/444,650

21
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–6, 10–13, 17–19, 22,
23, and 25–34 is affirmed.
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