JITANDER DUDEE et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2020005472 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/135,835 04/22/2016 JITANDER DUDEE 111011-0007 1065
114262 7590 12/30/2020
Black, McCuskey, Souers & Arbaugh, LPA
220 Market Avenue, South, Suite 1000
Canton, OH 44702
EXAMINER
TOMASZEWSKI, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ip@bmsa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JITANDER DUDEE and VIKRAM DUDEE
____________

Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a method of and system for managing an electronic
health record and displaying a medical state of a patient (Spec. ¶ 2, Title).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies inventors Jitander Dudee and
Vikram Dudee as the real parties in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

2

Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of managing an electronic health record and
displaying a patient’s medical state to a health care provider
comprising:
receiving, at a computing device having one or more
processors, a first input corresponding to a current medical state
of the patient and including a first plurality of positives,
wherein each of the plurality of positives corresponds to a
deviation from a healthy state for a particular anatomical
portion of the patient’s body and is a numerical value;
grouping, at the computing device, at least some of the
first plurality of positives to a second plurality of positives
wherein a plurality of different medical conditions are defined
by one of more the second plurality of positives, wherein the at
least some of the first plurality of positives collectively
correlate to at least one of the plurality of different medical
conditions and the respective second plurality of positives; and
displaying, on a display controlled by the computing
device, a plurality of objects including:
a homunculus plane in perspective view wherein the
plane is divided into a grid of a plurality of cells and wherein at
least some of the plurality of cells correspond to the particular
anatomical portions of the patient’s body,
a first plurality of nodes each in perspective view,
each corresponding to one of the first plurality of
positives, and each projecting away from the homunculus
plane at the cell that corresponds to the respective
particular anatomical portion of the patient’s body,
wherein a height of each of the first plurality of nodes
from the homunculus plane corresponds to the respective
numerical value,
a first plurality of axes each interconnecting at
least two of the first plurality of nodes, and
a first planar bundling object in perspective view
and enveloping at least some of the first plurality of
nodes, the first planar bundling object being one of
transverse and parallel to the homunculus plane and at
least partially spaced from the homunculus plane.
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

3

THE REJECTION
Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, . . . 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
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. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–218 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–73 (2012))
(citations omitted).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit has
explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on whether ‘their character
as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp.
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

4

v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks
whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant
technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36.
In so doing we apply a “directed to” two prong test: 1) evaluate
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a
judicial exception, evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).
The Examiner determines that the claims recite a method of managing
a health record, which can be done in the human mind. The Examiner
determines that the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to
an abstract idea including (1) a certain method of organizing human activity,
(2) a mental process, and/or (3) a mathematical concept (Final Act. 4). The
Examiner finds that the elements, in addition to the abstract ideas, amount to
no more than a recitation of a generic computer structure that serves to
perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (Final Act. 5).
The Specification discloses that the present invention is a method of
managing an electronic health record and displaying a patient’s medical state
to a health care provider which includes receiving a first input corresponding
to a current medical state of a patient including a first plurality of positives,
updating the electronic health record of the patent by adding the first input
(Spec. ¶ 7). Each of the plurality of positives can correspond to a deviation
from a healthy state from a particular anatomical portion of the patient’s
body and is a numerical value. The method can also include comparing a
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

5

first plurality of positives with a plurality of different medical conditions
each defined by a respective second plurality of positives. The method also
includes displaying a plurality of objects (Spec. ¶ 7). The receiving,
updating, comparing, and displaying amount to transmitting, analyzing, and
displaying data.
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites “receiving . . . a first
input corresponding to a current medical state of the patient and including a
first plurality of positives,” “grouping . . . at least some of the first plurality
of positives to a second plurality of positives,” and “displaying . . . a
plurality of objects.”
We thus agree with the Examiner’s findings that claim 1 recites a
method of managing a health record. This method of managing a health
record is similar to other methods that fall within the certain methods of
organizing human activity category of abstract ideas. See, e.g., In re Meyer,
688 F.2d 789, 795 (CCPA 1982) (determining that an “invention . . .
concerned with replacing, in part, the thinking processes of a neurologist
with a computer” is directed to an abstract idea); Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) (explaining that the claims in
Meyer are examples of claims directed to managing human behavior); see
also In re Salwan, 681 F. App’x 938, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (determining that
a claimed method for transferring patient health information “describes little
more than the automation of a ‘method of organizing human activity’ with
respect to medical information”); DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media
LLC, 33 F. Supp. 3d 271, 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd, 599 F. App’x 956
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (computerized meal planning); My Health, Inc. v. ALR
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

6

Techs., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00535-RWS, 2017 WL 1129904, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
Mar. 27, 2017) (tracking compliance with treatment guidelines).
Also, we find the steps of receiving data about the medical condition
of a patient, grouping at least some of the first plurality of positives, and
displaying objects constitute “analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims
directed to certain arrangements involving contractual relations are directed
to abstract ideas). Thus, we find that the claim recites the judicial exceptions
of a method of organizing human activity and in the alternative, a mental
process. As such, claim 1 recites both of these judicial exceptions.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 merely
requires a “computing device.” The recitation of the words “computing
device” does not impose “a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such
that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. We find no indication in
the Specification, nor does Appellant direct us to any indication, that the
operations recited in independent claim 1 invoke any inventive
programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive
computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed
invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to
perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there
can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

7

make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney
argument, that attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or
functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the
claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,”
as that phrase is used in the revised Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55.
In this regard, the recitation does not effect an improvement in the
functioning of a computer device or other technology, does not recite a
particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, and does not
transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Id.
Thus, claim 1 is directed to judicial exceptions that are not integrated into a
practical application, and thus claim 1 is directed to an “abstract idea.”
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
claim 1 is directed to abstract ideas, the claim must include an “inventive
concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must be an element or
combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice
amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice,
573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–
73).
The introduction of a computer device into claim 1 does not alter the
analysis at Alice step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

8

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 “implemen[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
featur[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 (alterations in original) (citations omitted).
Instead, “the relevant question is whether claim [1] here do[es] more
than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Id. at 225. It does not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computing device at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
trading industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354; 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.”). 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
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

9

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 Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computing device of
Appellant’s claims adds nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
access/display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be
abstract. 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) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was
abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computing device itself. As we stated above, claim 1 does not effect an
improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification
spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied
using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing
would entail based on the concept of information access under different
scenarios (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 50, 54, 62, 70). In this regard, the Specification
explicitly discloses at paragraph 50 that the computing device may be a
desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, mobile phone or smart
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

10

televisions thereby disclosing that the computing device is a general purpose
computer. Thus, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than
instructions to apply the abstract idea of information access 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 226.
We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 15–45; Reply Br. 1–
5) Appellant has submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims
before us that stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our
analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which
have been made. But, for purposes of emphasis, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the displaying step provides specific improvement
over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface that is novel, non-
obvious, and inventive (Appeal Br. 18, 28). To the extent Appellant
maintains that the limitations of claim 1 necessarily amount to “significantly
more” than an abstract idea because the claimed apparatus is allegedly
patentable over the prior art, Appellant misapprehends the controlling
precedent. Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed
a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of
novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for “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 (citation omitted). A novel and
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

11

nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-
ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the subject matter of the claims is not an abstract
idea because the displaying step represents an improvement to the user
interface (Appeal Br. 25). The problem with this argument is that claim 1
does not recite an improved user interface. All that is recited in claim 1 is “a
display controlled by the computing device” with no details being recited
about the user interface display itself. Indeed, the claim language here
provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a
computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
“[T]he recited physical components merely provide a generic environment in
which to carry out the abstract idea . . . .” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In addition, Appellant has not directed our attention to a disclosure in
the Specification of an improved user interface. Appellant appears to be
relying on the data that are displayed as an improvement to the user interface
by arguing that the improvement is the displaying of patient symptoms on a
specific framework (three-dimensional nodes projecting away from a two-
dimensional homunculus plane) with interconnected bundles captured by a
displayed planar bundling object. The data that are displayed allows health
care providers to input medical states of patients into an electronic health
record, access patients’ medical records and display patient information to a
provider. However, this improvement is in how health records are managed
rather than an improvement to the claimed user interface itself.
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

12

In addition, we agree with the Examiner that the displaying step is a
recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims acquire and
display data, which are classic examples of insignificant extra-solution
activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc),
aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); MPEP § 2106.05(h)
(Field of Use and Technological Environment). “[T]he Supreme Court has
stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still
will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token
pre- or post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience, a
category of use, field of use, or technological environment.” Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Appellant points to Example 372 of the Guidance as supporting its
position that the claims are eligible because of the arranging of visual indicia
on a display. But, the Office did not determine that hypothetical claim 1 in
Example 37 is patent eligible merely because the claim recites a specific
manner of displaying icons on a graphical user interface. Instead, the Office
concluded that hypothetical claim 1 is patent eligible because the claimed
method results in an improved interface for electronic devices. No
comparable improvement to the user interface is presented here.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has not provided evidence that the
displaying step is anticipated or obvious much less that the displaying step is
well-understood, routine, and conventional (Appeal Br. 43). However, the
analysis of whether a claim element is well-understood, routine, and

2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf.
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

13

conventional applies to the elements in the claim that are in addition to the
abstract idea. The only recitation in claim 1 in addition to the abstract idea
of managing a patient health record, for example, is the recitation of a
computer device. As such, it is only the computing device that is analyzed
to determine whether it and its functions are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. The Examiner correctly determined that the computing device
was well-understood, routine, and conventional on page 5 of the Final
Action.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 16–
21 because the Appellant has not argued the separate eligibility of these
claims.
We do not agree with Appellant that it is necessary to make a
claim-by-claim analysis of each claim. Consideration of each claim
individually does not require a separate written analysis for each individual
claim. We decline to find error here in the Examiner’s decision to not
address the patent eligibility of each of claims 2–6 and 8–15 separately
inasmuch as the claims are all directed to the same abstract idea. See
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims are
directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted
patents [is] unnecessary”). In this regard, the Examiner addresses the
eligibility of these claims on page 4 on the Final Action and finds that the
dependent claims include all limitations of their respective independent
claims and are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the
independent claims but further describe the nodes, bundling objects, health
Appeal 2020-005472
Application 15/135,835

14

record elements, and/or recite field of use limitations.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2–6 and 8–15.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 101 Eligibility 1–21
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