FENWAL, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 10, 2021

2021001106 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/134,718 04/21/2016 Kathleen Mickles F-6730-REG 1320
112722 7590 08/10/2021
Becker Patent Law, LLC
5424 W. Princeton Pines Ct.
Franklin, WI 53132
EXAMINER
SASS, KIMBERLY A.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
stevebeckerlaw@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KATHLEEN MICKLES and DALE MEIXELSPERGER
____________

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Kathleen Mickles and Dale Meixelsperger (Appellant2) seek review
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–9, 11–16, and
22–25, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed June 15, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed December 2,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 2, 2020), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 21, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fenwal
Inc. (Appeal Br. 1).

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

2

The Appellant invented a blood donor history record system.
Specification para. 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed
matter and some paragraphing added).
1. A blood donation tracking system, comprising:
[1] a database storing records for a plurality of blood donors,
the database comprising records for a plurality of
donations made by the blood donors,
each record comprising an amount of a blood component
the blood donor has donated;
[2] a network interface circuit
configured to receive data over a network relating to the
donations made by the blood donors and the records
associated with those donations including donor
characteristics,
and
configured to communicate data over the network to a
remote computing device;
[3] a processing circuit coupled to the database and the network
interface circuit configured to:
[3.1] determine an amount of blood component a donor
may donate
based on records for a plurality of donations made
by the blood donor
and
based on a limit of an amount of blood component
a donor may donate in a predetermined period of
time;
[3.2.1] receive a request for the amount of the blood
component the donor may donate from the remote
computing device;
and
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

3

[3.2.2] transmit the amount of the blood component the
donor may donate to the remote computing device;
[3.3] provide an indication of the amount as a pre
collection blood component amount the donor may donate
and
further providing an indication of a post collection
blood component amount the donor may donate,
wherein the post collection blood component
amount the donor may donate represents the pre
collection blood component amount the donor may
donate minus an amount of a blood component
collection selected by a user during a scheduling
process at the remote computing device;
and
[3.4] transmit the indications to the remote computing
device.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Fletcher-
Haynes '769
US 7,072,769 B2 July 4, 2006
Ng US 2003/0004751 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Pierce US 2004/0199098 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Lastinger US 2005/0060246 A1 Mar. 17, 2005
Fletcher-
Haynes '883
US 2005/0209883 A1 Sept. 22, 2005
Fletcher US 2012/0010062 A1 Jan. 12, 2012

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

4

Claims 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fletcher-Haynes '769 and Fletcher-Haynes '883.
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11–16, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883,
Fletcher, and Ng.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher, Ng, and Pierce.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher, Ng, and Lastinger.

ISSUES
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
a number of platelet donations a donor may make.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Fletcher-Haynes '769
01. Fletcher-Haynes '769 is directed to providing information
management and/or data manipulation and/or optimization
capabilities to, in and/or with extracorporeal blood processing
systems. Fletcher-Haynes '769 1:10–14.
02. Fletcher-Haynes '769 describes blood component inventory
control by basing donor selection and/or collection procedure
selection (in terms of the type of blood component to be collected)
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

5

on blood component demand and/or existing inventory. Fletcher-
Haynes '769 3:10–15.
Fletcher-Haynes '883
03. Fletcher-Haynes '883 is directed to providing information
management, data manipulation, or optimization capabilities for
extracorporeal blood processing systems. Fletcher-Haynes '883
para. 2.
04. Fletcher-Haynes '883 describes records for a donor's total annual
donation or loss both of red blood cells and of plasma. Where a
donation comprises a donation of either red blood cells or plasma
by apheresis, the actual amount of extracted blood component is
recorded. Where a donation of whole blood is made, and the
donor's actual hematocrit is known, a portion of the donation
volume is attributed to red blood cells and another portion is
attributed to plasma, based on the actual hematocrit. Where the
actual hematocrit of the whole blood donation is not known, a
portion of the donation volume is attributed to red blood cells
based on a maximum feasible hematocrit and another portion is
attributed to plasma based on a minimum feasible hematocrit.
This provides blood loss equivalency tracking. Fletcher-Haynes
'883 para. 11.
Fletcher
05. Fletcher is directed to separating particles or components of a
biologic fluid, such as blood. Fletcher para. 3.
06. Fletcher describes characteristics of a donor, such as weight, sex,
hematocrit, or platelet count, being entered in the system and used
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

6

to predict the amount of selected blood components that the donor
may be able to donate in a reasonable period of time. The
collected components are subsequently separated into units or
“products” of appropriate sizes for administration to a patient. A
particular donor may be able to give twice or even three times this
amount of platelets, which could be divided into a “double
product” or a “triple product”. The exact amount of a donation is
usually not known, however, until after the completion of the
donation process. The apheresis machine uses information about
the donor and statistical models to estimate the number of cells
that will be collected for a certain volume of the donor's blood,
processed over a selected period of time. Fletcher para. 44.
Ng
07. Ng is directed to an automated tracking system and interface for
use in the blood collection industry. Ng para. 2.
08. Ng describes an identifier such as a bleed number is generated
and queued in a scheduling database, if the donor's vital signs are
acceptable and the donor is eligible. The scheduling database now
points to or has access to donor demographics, vital signs, and
medical history, and the donor's weight is used by the system
server to calculate a nomogram; i.e. the volume of blood or blood
component to collect. Ng para. 379.

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

7

Pierce
09. Pierce is directed to a centrifugal blood processing systems and
apparatus. Pierce para. 2.
10. Pierce describes a utility function that provides an estimation of
the donor's net fluid volume deficit as a result of the procedure,
which will be called the Post-Intravascular Volume Deficit or
Post-IVD. Another utility function provides an estimation of the
hematocrit of the donor's blood after the procedure, which will be
called the Post-Hematocrit. The utility functions can be
performed after any selected blood processing procedure, e.g.,
after a procedure that collects platelets without collecting red
blood cells, or after a procedure that collects both platelets and red
blood cells. Pierce para. 128.
Lastinger
11. Lastinger is directed to monitoring systems and methods that
monitor weight. Lastinger para. 2.
12. Lastinger describes a visual display for visually displaying
information about the load supported by the storage unit. The
visual display may include one or more visual indicators for
indicating a current status of the load supported by the storage
unit. Lastinger para. 89.

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

8

ANALYSIS
Claims 23–25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Fletcher-Haynes '769 and Fletcher-Haynes '883
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
neither reference displays a number of platelet donations a donor
may make (e.g., eight, 10 or 20 platelet donations allowed).
Instead, Fletcher-Haynes2 displays a volume of platelet donated
at one particular donation (e.g., 7.0x10 E11 platelets). The
Office responds that the present “specification says amounts may
be expressed in volume, number of donations.” While it is true
that amounts may be expressed in volume, number of donations,
or other units, the claimed embodiment expresses platelet
donations in number of donations, not in volume at one particular
donation: “determine a number of platelet donations a donor may
donate based on the records and based on a limit of a number of
platelet donations the donor may donate in a predetermined
period of time”. The prior art must teach what is claimed, not
what is described in unclaimed alternatives recited in the
specification.
The Office also responds that “under broadest reasonable
interpretation a number of platelet donations may be one platelet
donation.” FIG. 5A of Fletcher-Haynes2 shows an estimated
volume in mL of platelet collected at the end of a procedure.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not look at this
volume and conclude that this screen displays “the number of
platelet donations the donor may donate,” especially when such
number of platelet donations is defined in Claim 23 as being
“based on the [donation] records and based on a limit of a number
of platelet donations the donor may donate in a predetermined
period of time.”
Appeal Br. 7 (citations, underlining and emphasis omitted). The Examiner
fails to persuasively rebut this with “a volume of platelets is 1 donation.”
Ans. 3.
Claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

9

Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11–16, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher,
and Ng
As to claim 1, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “[a]ll
Fletcher-HaynesI does with the 12-month period here is to let the operator
view total blood loss from activities in the prior 12-month period. There is
no determination (done by a processing circuit) of a blood component a
donor may donate based on prior records and a limit.” Reply Br. 7.
Independent claim 11 has a similar limitation. The remaining claims
depend from claims 1 and 11.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fletcher-
Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher, Ng, and Pierce
Claim 3 depends from claim 1.

Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fletcher-
Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher, Ng, and Lastinger
Claim 9 depends from claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fletcher-Haynes '769 and Fletcher-Haynes '883 is
improper.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 11–16, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883,
Fletcher, and Ng is improper.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

10

The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher, Ng, and Pierce is
improper.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fletcher-Haynes '769, Fletcher-Haynes '883, Fletcher, Ng, and
Lastinger is improper.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
The following new ground of rejection is entered pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 1–9, 11–16, and 22–25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a system claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

11

elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that claim 1
recites a database, network and processor. The database is recited as storing
records and the network as communicating data. As these are each generic,
conventional functions for a database and network, they do not confer
eligibility. The processor is recited as performing a series of process steps,
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

12

and is therefore a conventional computer performing the steps of a method
claim.
The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer
components recited in the claims—such as a database, user
terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole,
into “significantly more” than a claim to the abstract idea itself.
“We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and
networks that are not even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to
pass the test of an inventive concept in the application’ of an
abstract idea.”
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (citations omitted).
As to the recited steps, these include storing and receiving data,
determining amount data, receiving request data, transmitting amount data,
and providing and transmitting indication data. Determining amount data is
mathematical analysis. Providing data is analyzing data. Thus, claim 1
recites storing, receiving, transmitting, and analyzing data. None of the
limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

13

human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Like
those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of managing blood donations.
Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in
advising one to communicate the amount of pre and post collection donation
based on data and donor selection. The advice to communicate the amount
of pre and post collection donation based on data and donor selection
involves determining an amount of blood component a donor may donate,
which is a managerial act, and transmitting the amount of the blood
component the donor may donate, which is an act ordinarily performed in
the stream of medical management. For example, claim 1 recites “determine
an amount of blood component a donor may donate,” which is an activity
that would take place whenever one is managing blood donations. Similarly,
claim 1 recites “transmit the amount of the blood component the donor may
donate,” which is also characteristic of managing blood donations.
The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a blood donation tracking
system. The steps in claim 1 result in managing blood donations by

Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

14

communicating the amount of pre and post collection donation based on data
and donor selection absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 2 and 3.2.1 recite receiving
data. Limitations 1, 3.1, 3.2.2, 3.3, and 3.4 recite generic and conventional
storing, transmitting, and analyzing of blood donation data, which advise
one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus
recite advice for communicating the amount of pre and post collection
donation based on data and donor selection. To advocate communicating
the amount of pre and post collection donation based on data and donor
selection is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological
operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
a blood donor history record system. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows
that claim 1 recites managing blood donations. This is consistent with the
Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of
organizing human activity because managing medical activity such as blood
donations is organizing such human activity. The concept of managing
blood donations by communicating the amount of pre and post collection
donation based on data and donor selection is one idea for managing the
volume of such donations. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this
might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Content Extraction &
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

15

Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of storing, receiving,
transmitting, and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of
observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data storage, reception,
transmission, and analysis and does not recite an improvement to a particular
computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation”). As such, claim 1 recites storing, receiving, transmitting, and
analyzing data, and not a technological implementation or application of that
idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
managing blood donations by communicating the amount of pre and post
collection donation based on data and donor selection, which is managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, one of
certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised
Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

16

STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the
“‘buildin[g] block[s]’” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 2 and 3.2.1 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 1
recites basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and
storing data. Step 3.4 recites insignificant post solution activity, such as
storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 3.1, 3.2.2, and 3.3
recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by
any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice.
All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

17

results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing blood donations by communicating the amount of pre and post
collection donation based on data and donor selection as performed by a
generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters
for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process
those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 23 pages of Specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing blood donations by communicating the amount of pre and post
collection donation based on data and donor selection under different
scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a
computer functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing
significantly more than an instruction to apply managing blood donations by
communicating the amount of pre and post collection donation based on data
and donor selection using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.

8 The Specification describes servers and workstations. Spec. para. 33.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

18

None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
managing blood donations by advising one to communicate the amount of
pre and post collection donation based on data and donor selection, as
distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying
that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall
within managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
people that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

19

Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for storing, receiving, transmitting, and analyzing data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

20

some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data storage-reception-
transmission-analysis is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

21

REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining dependent claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the remaining structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101 “in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of
managing blood donations by advising one to communicate the amount of
pre and post collection donation based on data and donor selection, without
significantly more.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

22

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As this is a new ground, we respond to Appellant’s arguments in the
remarks filed November 21, 2018. The Examiner withdrew the prior
eligibility rejection in the next action, making these the most recent
arguments.

As to claim 1, Appellant argued:
Claim 1 is amended to recite a processing circuit configured to
“provide an indication of a pre collection blood component the
donor may donate and a post collection blood component the
donor may donate.” . . .
When a blood donor comes to a donation facility that can
collect blood components, such as platelets, red blood cells,
plasma, etc., a technician must decide which component or
components to collect at that particular visit. One limitation on
the component that can be collected is that a donor may only
contribute predetermined amounts over a 12 month period. Other
factors in the decision may include the needs or inventory of the
facility, the availability of collection devices of different types,
donor profile information, etc. The task of the technician can be
overwhelming.
The system of Claim 1 as amended not only determines an
amount a donor may donate based on records from previous
donations, but also provides indications of pre collection blood
components the donor may donate and post collection blood
components the donor may donate. In some embodiments, the
post collection amount may be informed by an average of counts
of previous donations (e.g., Claim 22, supported at para. [0055]).
The provision of pre and post collection blood components the
donor may donate may make the scheduling and/or blood
component selection process easier on a person tasked with
scheduling blood donations. (para. [0021]). Further, the
provision of pre and post collection blood components the donor
may donate may reduce errors associated with scheduling a
donor for a donation that exceeds the donor's donation limit in a
predetermined period of time. (para. [0022]).
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

23

Remarks 8. The problem for Appellant is that the claim only recites
“provide an indication of a pre collection blood component the donor may
donate and a post collection blood component the donor may donate.” The
claim recites no implementation details, and particularly, no technological
implementation details. Providing an indication is data entry or at best
generic data analysis. The claims do not tie such data entry or analysis to
any technological source. Thus the limitation encompasses primitive user
data entry.
As to claim 11, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
claim 11 is now tied to a blood collection device and the
interaction between a server computer, a mobile computing
device, and the blood collection device, arranged in a distributed
manner to simplify the task of selecting blood components for
collection and transmitting instructions to the blood regarding
what components to collect and donor parameters to the blood
collection device.
Remarks 9. Although claim 11 recites “a blood collection device configured
to perform an apheresis function to collect blood components,” the
remainder of the claim does not recite any use for the device or its physical
output. Instead, like claim 1, the operations recited are those of data
reception, transmission, and analysis. The data analysis as such is not
recited as being upon the output from the blood collection device. The two
receiving steps of receiving data representing the number of platelet and
volume of a blood component donations do not recite how such reception
occurs or where the data originates, and so do not tie in the blood collection
device. Simply adding the blood collection device to the claim does not
confer eligibility because it is conventional to perform an apheresis function
to collect blood components.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

24

CGI’s reliance on the asserted claims being directed to “physical
real world manifestation[s] of an improved machine” is
misplaced. . . . Without more, the mere physical nature of CGI’s
claim elements (e.g., controller, interface, and wireless data
transmitter) is not enough to save the claims from abstractness,
where the claimed advance is directed to the wireless
communication of status information using off-the-shelf
technology for its intended purpose.
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2019).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are not
abstract in view of Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). Remarks 10.
As the opinion in SAP America stated,
Similarly, in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States . . . the
improvement was in a physical tracking system. The use of
mathematics to achieve an improvement no more changed the
conclusion that improved physical things and actions were the
subject of the claimed advance than it did in Diamond v. Diehr.
Here, in contrast, the focus of the claims is not a physical-realm
improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas—the
selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by
reporting or display of the results.
SAP Am., 890 F.3d at 1022 (citations omitted). As with SAP, the instant
claims select and analyze information, and then display results.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–9, 11–16, and 22–25 is reversed.
The following new ground of rejection is entered pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claims 1–9, 11–16, and 22–25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

25

In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1–9,
11–16,
22–25
101 Eligibility 1–9,
11–16,
22–25
1, 2, 4–8,
11–16, 22
103 Fletcher-Haynes
'769, Fletcher-
Haynes '883,
Fletcher, Ng
1, 2, 4–8,
11–16, 22

3 103 Fletcher-Haynes
'769, Fletcher-
Haynes '883,
Fletcher, Ng
Pierce
3
9 103 Fletcher-Haynes
'769, Fletcher-
Haynes '883,
Fletcher, Ng,
Lastinger
9
23–25 103 Fletcher-Haynes
'769, Fletcher-
Haynes '883
23–25
Overall Outcome 1–9,
11–16,
22–25
1–9,
11–16,
22–25

Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

26

Our Decision is not a final agency action.
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides:

When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection
is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new
Evidence not previously of Record is made which, in the
opinion of the examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the
claims, appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this
subpart.

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of
rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing
is sought.

Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can
be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
Appeal 2021-001106
Application 15/134,718

27

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

REVERSED
§ 41.50(b)