Prime Medical, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2021

2021001778 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
14/788,850 07/01/2015 Sean H. Connor CONN-009 2953
65215 7590 10/19/2021
NEUSTEL LAW OFFICES, LTD.
2534 SOUTH UNIVERSITY DRIVE
SUITE 4
FARGO, ND 58103
EXAMINER
WINSTON III, EDWARD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2021 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):
jason@neustel.com
michael@neustel.com
patents@neustel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SEAN H. CONNOR and LUKE P. LEE
____________

Appeal 2021–001778
Application 14/788,850
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Sean H. Connor and Luke P. Lee (Appellant2) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–9 and 20–29, the only claims

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed October 1, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 11,
2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 16, 2020),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 1, 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 Prime
Medical, LLC (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

2

pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented an electronic medical evaluation system.
Specification 2:13.
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 computer-implemented method, comprising:
[1] electronically providing questionnaires to employees via
employee interfaces,
the questionnaires comprising one or more questions
associated with an ability of employees of multiple
employers to perform their jobs for their multiple
employers;
[2] electronically receiving answers provided by employees via
the employee interfaces,
to the one or more questions of the questionnaires from
the employees;
[3] determining evaluations of the one or more answers as to
the ability of the employees to perform their jobs;
[4] updating and electronically storing the evaluations in a
central repository of medical information accessible to the
multiple employers;
and
[5] providing real-time updates to the multiple employers,
wherein
the real-time updates are viewable via a plurality
of electronic employer dashboards,

Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

3

the real-time updates limited to information that
the multiple employers are authorized to view,
the real-time updates notifying the multiple
employers of the evaluations without providing the
multiple employers access to the answers provided
by the employees,
wherein the evaluations are capable of being
electronically searched using the plurality of electronic
employer dashboards.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Ledley US 8,438,042 B2 May 7, 2013
Marchosky US 2002/0029157 A1 Mar. 7, 2002
Burrus US 2015/0095318 A1 Apr. 2, 2015
Jackson US 2017/0032321 A1 Feb. 2, 2017

Claims 1–9 and 20–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–9, 20, and 23–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burrus, Jackson, and Marchosky.
Claims 21, 22, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burrus, Jackson, Marchosky, and Ledley.

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

4

The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
multiple employers, real-time updates, electronically searchable records,
information limited to what is authorized for an employer to view, or a
plurality of electronic employer dashboards.

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Burrus
01. Burrus is directed to assessing the role capability of a user and
assigning a unique score based on the assessment to better identify
the organizational fit of the user. Burrus para. 1.
02. Burrus describes a deployment component that deploys to a user a
capability assessment comprising at least one question whereby
the user selects at least one answer that corresponds to the at least
one question and the at least one answer conveys information to
determine the role capability of the user to perform an
organizational role; an input component that receives a set of
answer data associated with the at least one answer whereby the
set of answer data correlates to the capability of the user to
perform a role within an organization; an assignment component
configured to assign a data value to a subset of answer data based
on at least one statistic whereby the data value corresponds to at
least one organizational development level; a matching component
configured to match the data value to at least one organizational
developmental level based on at least one role characteristic in
accordance with at least one role characteristic matrix; a scoring
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

5

component configured to determine a user fit score corresponding
to the user whereby the user fit score is based at least on the
matched data in association with a fit model; and a translation
component configured to translate the user fit score into a
semantic representation for presentation at a user interface.
Burrus para. 6.
03. Burrus describes using data queries or other data retrieval
protocols. Burrus para. 103.
Jackson
04. Jackson is directed to a web-based system and portal for
recruiting for professional service industries. Jackson para. 2.
05. Jackson describes the employer network allowing users that are
employers to communicate and to access the present invention.
Jackson para. 15.
06. Jackson describes comparing the employment qualifications for
each jobseeker account to the employment requirements order to
identify pre-qualified accounts amongst the jobseeker accounts in
real time. Jackson para. 18.
07. Jackson describes notifying or alerting the respective accounts of
the results generated by the comparison. Jackson para 19.
Marchosky
08. Marchosky is directed to managing medical and biographical
records and providing medical diagnoses. Marchosky para. 3.

09. Marchosky describes patients authorizing or denying access to
their medical and biographical records or limiting access to only
portions of their medical record to specific health care
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

6

professional’s thereby controlling privacy of the patient and
confidentiality of the patient's medical and biographical
information. Marchosky para. 20.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–9 and 20–29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a method 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
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

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 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

7

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 method
claim 1 recites providing questionnaire data, receiving answer data,
determining evaluations data, and providing update data. Providing data is
displaying data. Determining evaluation data is analyzing data. Providing
update data is modifying and transmitting data. Thus, claim 1 recites
displaying, receiving, analyzing, updating, and transmitting data. None of
the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

8

steps, but instead these limitations 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
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods of
organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or
legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
managing the hiring process. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in advising one to determine evaluations of the
ability of the employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous
questionnaires responses. The advice to determine evaluations of the ability
of the employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires
responses involves determining evaluations of the one or more answers as to

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
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 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

9

the ability of the employees to perform their jobs, which is a hiring
management act, and providing real-time updates to employers, which is an
act ordinarily performed in the stream of commercial hirings. For example,
claim 1 recites “determining evaluations of the one or more answers as to the
ability of the employees to perform their jobs,” which is an activity that
would take place whenever one is managing commercial hires. Similarly,
claim 1 recites “providing real-time updates to the multiple employers,”
which is also characteristic of commercial hiring.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to determining the
ability of an employee to perform work related task based on questions and
answers from a questionnaire. Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 1 does
not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 1 result in managing
the hiring process by determining evaluations of the ability of the employees
to perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires responses absent
any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing
so.
As to the specific limitations, limitation 2 recites receiving data.
Limitations 1, 3, and 4 recite generic and conventional displaying, receiving,
analyzing, updating, and transmitting of employee medical data, which
advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations
thus recite advice for determining evaluations of the ability of the employees
to perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires responses. To
advocate determining evaluations of the ability of the employees to perform
their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires responses is conceptual
advice for results desired and not technological operations.
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

10

The Specification at 2:13 describes the invention as relating to an
electronic medical evaluation system. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence
shows that claim 1 recites managing the hiring process. This is consistent
with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing the hiring
process is a commercial interaction. The concept of managing the hiring
process by determining evaluations of the ability of the employees to
perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires responses is one idea
for assisting in the employee selection process. 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 &
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); Ericsson
Inc. v. TCL Commc'n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(controlling access to resources).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of displaying, receiving,
analyzing, updating, and transmitting 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
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

11

cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data display, reception,
analysis, update, and transmission 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 displaying, receiving,
analyzing, updating, and transmitting 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 the hiring process by determining evaluations of the ability of the
employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires
responses, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
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

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

12

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. Step 2 is a pure data gathering step.
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 4 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing,
transmitting, or displaying the results. Step 3 recites 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 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 the hiring process by determining evaluations of the ability of the
employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires
responses 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 Specification only spells out different
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

13

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 the hiring process by determining evaluations of
the ability of the employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous
questionnaires responses under different scenarios. It does 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 the hiring process by determining evaluations of the ability
of the employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous questionnaires
responses 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.
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

8 The Specification describes a server computer, cloud based computer,
virtual computer, home computer or other computer system capable of
receiving and transmitting data via IP networks and the telecommunication
networks. Spec. 29:10–14.
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

14

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 the hiring process by advising one to determine evaluations of the
ability of the employees to perform their jobs based on anonymous
questionnaires responses, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity 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.
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
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

15

“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 displaying, receiving, analyzing, updating, and transmitting
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 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).
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

16

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 display-reception-analysis-
update-transmission 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.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the 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.’
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

17

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 commercial and
legal interaction of managing the hiring process by advising one to
determine evaluations of the ability of the employees to perform their jobs
based on anonymous questionnaires responses, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–5 and Answer 3–5 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the claims “are
directed to complex computer systems, involving interconnected computer
systems and separate computer systems” and are statutory articles of
manufacture. Reply Br. 1. Placing an invention in a computer context does
not confer eligibility. “The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly
made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a
particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any
less abstract.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also, the questions of whether the claims fall into a
statutory form is merely one step in the analysis. See Step 1 above.
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

18

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 contains
“numerous limitations that could never be performed in the human mind.”
Reply Br. 1. Claim 1 recites displaying, receiving, analyzing, updating, and
transmitting data. All of these operation may be performed by the human
mind with paper and pencil. Automating these steps and placing them in a
computer network context does not confer eligibility. See Affinity Labs
above.

Claims 1–9, 20, and 23–28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burrus, Jackson, and Marchosky
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 2–5 and Answer 3–5 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the art fails to
describe “multiple employers, real-time updates, electronically searchable
records, information limited to what is authorized for an employer to view,
or a plurality of electronic employer dashboards.” Reply Br. 4. Jackson
describes the employer network allowing users that are employers to
communicate and to access. Thus, this describes multiple employers’
access. Jackson describes comparing the employment qualifications for
each jobseeker account to the employment requirements in order to identify
pre-qualified accounts amongst the jobseeker accounts in real time and
sending notifications of the results. Thus, this describes real-time updates of
pre-qualified accounts amongst the jobseeker accounts for employers use.
Burrus describes using data queries or other data retrieval protocols. Thus,
this describes electronically searchable records. Marchosky describes
Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

19

patients authorizing or denying access to their medical and biographical
records or limiting access to only portions of their medical record to specific
health care professional’s thereby controlling privacy of the patient and
confidentiality of the patient's medical and biographical information. Thus,
this describes information limited to what is authorized for a user to view.
Burrus describes users being employers. Burrus describes presentation at a
user interface and multiple users. Thus, Burrus describes a plurality of
electronic employer dashboards, or interfaces.

Claims 21, 22, and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Burrus, Jackson, Marchosky, and Ledley
This is not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–9 and 20–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1–9, 20, and 23–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Burrus, Jackson, and Marchosky is proper.
The rejection of claims 21, 22, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burrus, Jackson, Marchosky, and Ledley is proper.

Appeal 2021-001778
Application 14/788,850

20

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–9 and 20–29 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 20–29 101 Eligibility 1–9, 20–29
1–9, 20,
23–28
103 Burrus,
Jackson,
Marchosky
1–9, 20,
23–28

21, 22, 29 103 Burrus,
Jackson,
Marchosky,
Ledley
21, 22, 29
Overall Outcome 1–9, 20–29

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).

AFFIRMED