NEC Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2020

14389209 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/389,209 09/29/2014 Hiroo Harada 072982-0320 1088
22428 7590 09/10/2020
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2020 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROO HARADA
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6 and 12–24. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee of
record, NEC Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a flow line data analysis device, system,
non-transitory computer readable medium and method. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A flow line analysis device comprising:
at least one memory that stores instructions, key
information which encompasses at !east one of worker
information and work items, and work information associated
with key information; and
at least one processor configured to:
generate a plurality of partial flow line data corresponding
to a track of a worker, based on image data imaged by a plurality
of cameras and then filtered, each of the plurality of cameras
having a different imaging range, extract work information
associated with a specific key information, determine flow line
work information based on the extracted work information,
select a plurality of partial flow line data including the flow line
work information from the plurality of generated partial flow line
data, and generate interlinked track based on the selected partial
flow line data, the partial flow line data stored in a first table, and
the work information and the key information stored in a second
table separate from the first table.,
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Rodgers US 7,911,348 B2 Mar. 22, 2011
Cavallaro US 2003/0171169 A1 Sep. 11, 2003
Clarke US 2006/0053043 A1 Mar. 9, 2006
Mandel US 2009/0063035 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Breazeale US 2009/0204434 A1 Aug. 13, 2009
Kushida US 2009/0207023 A1 Aug. 20, 2009

Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
3
REJECTION
1. Claims 1–6 and 12–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the
claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
2. Claims 1–4, 12–14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22–24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Breazeale in view of Rodgers,
Cavalaro and Yoshida.
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breazeale in view of Rodgers, Cavallaro, Yoshida and
Clarke.
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Breazeale, Rodgers, Cavallaro, Yoshida and Kushida.
5. Claim 15 stands rejected under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Breazeale, Rodgers, Cavallaro, and Yoshida and Alsop.
6. Claims 18 and 21 stand rejected under § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Breazeale, Rodgers, Cavallaro, Yoshida and Mandel.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 12–14, 16, 17, 19,
20 and 22–24
103(a) Breazeale, Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Yoshida
5 103(a) Breazeale, Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Clarke
6 103(a) Breazeale, Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Yoshida,
Kushida
15 103(a) Breazeale, Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Yoshida,
Alsop
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
4
18 and 21 103(a) Breazeale, Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Yoshida,
Mandel

OPINION
To the extent consistent with our analysis below, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal
is taken and (ii) the Answer. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
1. Claims 1–6, and 12–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Arguments Appellant could have
made, but chose not to make, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
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 U.S. 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. 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 Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
5
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. 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, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); 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
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“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 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
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
6
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim recites 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.
(alterations in original) (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.
Subsequent to the filing of the Appeal Brief, the USPTO published
updated guidance on the application of § 101 (“Guidance”). See USPTO’s
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Memorandum”); USPTO October 2019 Update: Subject
Matter Eligibility (Oct. 17, 2019) (“Update”), noticed at 84 Fed. Reg. 55942
(Oct. 18, 2019).
Pursuant to the Guidance “Step 2A,” the Office first looks to whether
the claim recites:
(1) Prong One: 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) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
Ed., Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018))).
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
7

Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then
(pursuant to the Guidance “Step 2B”) look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that 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, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong One
Under Step 2A of the Guidance, the Office first looks to “evaluate
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea.”
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 54.
The Examiner concludes that all the claim limitations of claim 1 recite
an abstract idea of flow line analysis considered to be a certain method of
organizing human activity. See Ans. 4. More particularly, the Examiner
finds that the flow line analysis is essentially location and work data
analysis, and the present claims recite a method for managing personal
behavior through the data analysis. Id. at 4–5. Thus, the Examiner
concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea within the category of certain
methods of organizing human activity and in particular managing personal
behavior through data analysis, thereby reciting a judicial exception. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We agree with the Examiner and we find more particularly that the
limitations of claim 1 reciting
extract work information associated with a specific key information,
determine flow line work information based on the extracted work
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
8
information,
select a plurality of partial flow line data including the flow line work
information from the plurality of generated partial flow line data, and
generate interlinked track based on the selected partial flow line data,
pertain to flow line analysis of location and work data for managing personal
behavior. See Ans. 4–5.
Because claim 1 recites a method of organizing human activity we
proceed to prong 2.
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Revised Guidance, we next determine
whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Appellant argues that the claims provide a practical application for a
flow line analysis device because of the generation of interlinked flow line
data related to an identical person by interlinking selected partial flow line
data, each related to an identical person, without requiring image recognition
of the person associated with the partial flow line data. Appeal Br. 10.
According to Appellant this is an improvement over prior systems which
required image recognition of the person associated with the partial flow line
data before interlinking of partial data. Id.
We do not agree with Appellant. The features asserted by
Appellant—such as the generation of interlinked flow line data related to an
identical person by interlinking selected partial flow line data, each related
to an identical person —are part of the abstract idea and do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application under the Guidance. See
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (holding that “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”)
(emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
9
As the argued elements are part of the abstract idea, they are not
additional elements that integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55 (“[E]valuate integration into
a practical application by: (a) Identifying whether there are any additional
elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)”).
The Examiner identifies as “additional elements” recited in claim 1
include the claimed “memory,” “processor;” and “cameras.” See Ans. 6 and
claim 1. The Examiner finds that no particular special purpose hardware is
recited in claim 1 and the cameras merely provide the source of the data.
Ans. 6.
To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional
claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer
or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply
the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)),
affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in
some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)). See Revised Guidance.
Claim 1 recites a series of generic computer components at a high
level of generality and uses the generic computer components as tools to
implement the recited abstract ideas. Using generic computer components to
implement an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24; see also Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (explaining that courts have identified merely
using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as an example of when
a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
10
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed processor, memory, and
cameras constitute generic components claimed to perform their basic
functions of storing, retrieving, processing, and capturing image data
respectively which amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea
with a computerized programmed system. See Ans. 6. We note that the
Specification paragraphs 30, 22, and 26, recite generic components and
executing generic protocols.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion
that claim 1 fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, and
we proceed to Step 2B.
Revised Guidance Step 2B: Inventive concept
Under Step 2B of the Guidance we analyze the claims to determine
whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional
elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Considerations that are evaluated with respect to Step 2B include
determining whether the claims as a whole add a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception indicates that an inventive concept may not be present.
Id.
Appellant argues that on the combination of underlined features it is
possible to generate interlinked flow line data related to an identical person
by interlinking the selected partial flow line data, each related to an identical
person, without requiring image recognition of the person associated with
the partial flow line data. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that the claimed
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
11
system is directed to a practical application and provides significantly more
than a mere abstract idea, when considered as a whole. Id.
The Examiner finds:
The claims recite a method that could be implemented on paper,
but a general purpose computer is recited as a tool for
implementation. There is a distinct difference between
improving the performance of a computer as a tool and using a
computer as a tool to implement an abstract idea. Here, the
claims merely recite a correlation of location data with more
location data that is associated with a person's identity. No
improvement to a technology or technical field is recited.
Although the Appellant compares the claims to the claims from
McRO, the McRO claims recited an improvement to lip-
syncing technology that is rooted in computer technology. The
correlation of location data and/or flow line data with work
information of a worker is not rooted in computer technology.
Ans. 7.
As we stated above, the written description indicates that the
components claimed perform their basic functions of storing, retrieving,
processing, and capturing images and are well-understood, routine, and
conventional computer components. See Spec. paras. 30, 22, and 26.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that claim 1 fails to integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application, and the additional claim
elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, we
sustain the § 101 rejection of independent claim 1. We also affirm the
rejection of claims 2–6 and 12–24 for the same reasons.
Claims 1–6 and 12–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues that claims 1 and 20 recite “at least one processor
configured to: generate a plurality of partial flow line data corresponding to
a track . . . , and generate interlinked track based on the selected partial flow
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
12
line data,” with a similar feature in independent claim 16. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant asserts that Breazeale does not disclose both the selected partial
flow line data corresponding to a track and the interlinked track based on the
selected partial flow line data of claim 1. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the discrete nature of location
data - points on a two-dimensional axis - inherently make it “partial” due to
its intrinsically imprecise nature. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that any path
could be considered “partial” because discrete points, rather than a
continuous line, is used and some level of inference is always required. Id.
The Examiner finds that Breazeale teaches interlinking the tracks by
teaching that time data may be correlated with location data, if an
appointment time is known for a patient. Id. (citing Breazeale para. 118).
The end result is an interlinked track that shows the path of a person
throughout the day. Id. (citing Breazeale para. 106). The Examiner further
finds that the camera data recited in the claims could be identical to the
location data taught by Breazeale and no apparent functional distinction
exists. Id. 7–8.
“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). We agree
with the Examiner’s findings, especially since consistent with Appellant’s
Specification, Fig. 5A of Appellant’s Specification shows discrete points in
different segments making up the partial flow line data and Fig. 5B indicates
point X at place 4-II. See Spec. Figs. 5A and 5B.
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
13
We also agree with the Examiner that Breazeale teaches generation of
data from GPS transponders (stage 1; see Breazeale para. 8) and correlates
that data with appointment data to identify where the worker moved around
(stage 2; see Breazeale para. 118).
Appellant further argues that the combination of Breazeale, Rodgers,
Cavallaro and Yoshida do not disclose the feature of claim 1 with similar
features in independent claims 16 and 20 of “generate a plurality of
partial flow line data corresponding to a track of a worker, based on image
data imaged by plurality of cameras.” Appeal Br. 15. According to
Appellant there is no motivation to combine the disclosures of Breazeale,
Rodgers and Cavallaro in the manner suggested in the Final Action,
Specifically, Breazeale acquires the position information and the ID of the
caregiver as a set, by using a GPS or a transponder. Id. Appellant asserts
that Breazeale were changed to a configuration using the cameras disclosed
in Rodgers, Cavallaro and Yoshida instead of the GPS or transponder, the
fi.mction of acquiring an ID in Breazeale would be lost Accordingly, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Breazeale
to replace its GPS or transponder with cameras because such a modification
would have rendered the Breazeale system unfit for its intended purpose of
acquiring an ID. Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Where the claimed
subject matter is no more than “the simple substitution of one known
element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece
of prior art ready for improvement,” and, the combination does no more than
yield predictable results, the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). Furthermore,
where the claimed subject matter is a combination that only unites old
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
14
elements with no change in their respective established functions, and the
combination yields predictable results, the claim is unpatentable as obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Id. In particular we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that because a camera could effectively be used to supplement a GPS
transponder with additional data, the cameras and GPS transponders merely
serve as data input tools in the prior art and claims. Ans. 8. The
transponders in Breazeale would still work appropriately, even if a camera
was used in conjunction with the transponder. Id.
Appellant additionally argues that the claims are functionally
distinguishable from the cited prior art because the claims recite two distinct
tables. See Appeal Br. 15–16.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Breazeale teaches two different tables 608 and 614.
Ans. 8. The table 608 has location data, and table 614 have time data that
may be correlated (see paras.146–147). Id. The Examiner does not find the
use of two distinct tables containing the data from the claims to functionally
alter the claims in a patentable manner, and we agree.
Appellant further argues that Breazeale does not teach, “place
information which falls within a predetermined range from the article
arrangement place.” Appeal Br. 15–16. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Breazeale teaches this feature in cited paragraph 118 by teaching
that if a stop location of a worker is sufficiently near the data for the patient
location a correlation is made. See Ans. 9 (citing para. 118).
Appellant further argues that independent claims 16 and 20 recite
“select[ing] a plurality of partial flow line data including place information
which falls within a predetermined range from the article arrangement place
from the plurality of stored partial flow line data.” Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
15
In particular Appellant argues that Breazeale does not teach any
article arrangement place, i.e., a place where an article is placed, in
paragraph [0118], much less selecting partial flow line data including
place information which falls within a predetermined range from the article
arrangement place. Id. Rather, Breazele merely discloses in paragraph 118
determining whether the location of a caregiver is near data for a patient
location. Id. According to Appellant, a patient, however, is not an article,
and thus a patient location cannot be an arrangement place. Id.
A similar argument is presented with respect to claims 18 and 21,
Appellant arguing that Mandel does not teach “a method and apparatus for
path planning and distance calculation that assigns pathways for workers in a
warehouse using coordinates” because Mandel does not suggest that
Breazeale be modified to include warehouse coordinates for an arrangement
place. Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellant, Breazeale is directed to a
system regarding tracking a health care provider and patient. Id. Appellant
asserts that Breazeale does not concern tracking workers in the context of a
warehouse environment and the combination of Mandel and Breazeale
would not suggest to one skilled in the art that Breazeale be modified to be
in a warehouse environment. Id.
Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an
invention that would otherwise have been obvious. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d
1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Int. 2005); see also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90
(BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional
descriptive material).
When descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate,
the descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from the prior art
Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
16
in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Here, substituting the label “article” with “patient” or the label
“warehouse” with “arrangement place” does not distinguish over the prior
art as these are non-functional descriptive terms. The prior art teaches
determining a predetermined range from something. The fact that the
“something” takes the label of an article as opposed to a patient is merely
descriptive does not functionally distinguish. The same principle applies
regardless of whether the place where this happens is at a hospital or at a
warehouse.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, 16, 18,
and 21. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections for claims 2–6, 12–15, 17,
and 19–24 for the same reasons as stated in the examiner’s final action and
the answer.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 12–24 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 12–24 rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

Appeal 2020-000373
Application 14/389,209
17
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 12–14,
16, 17, 19,
20 and 22–
24
103(a) Breazeale,
Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Yoshida
1–4, 12–14,
16, 17, 19,
20 and 22–
24

5 103(a) Breazeale,
Rodgers,
Cavallaro, Clarke
5
6 103(a) Breazeale,
Rodgers,
Cavallaro,
Yoshida, Kushida
6
15 103(a) Breazeale,
Rodgers,
Cavallaro,
Yoshida, Alsop
15
18 and 21 103(a) Breazeale,
Rodgers,
Cavallaro,
Yoshida, Mandel
18 and 21
Overall
Outcome
1–6 and 12–
24

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