Sands, Jeffrey J. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 7, 2020

2019001266 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/397,265 02/15/2012 Jeffrey J. Sands 106114-0071 4390
25779 7590 05/07/2020
Davis Malm & D''Agostine, P.C.
Intellectual Property Law Group
One Boston Place
Boston, MA 02108
EXAMINER
SEREBOFF, NEAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2020 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):
docketing@davismalm.com
dpowsner@davismalm.com
rsampson@davismalm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY J. SANDS, JOSE DIAZ-BUXO,
CHRISTIAN SCHLAEPER, and MARTIN CRNKOVICH
____________

Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and JAMIE T. WISZ,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WISZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of claims 25,
26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–52. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification describes:
apparatus and methods for delivery of health care that collect
subjective and objective measures of patient health and
treatment, analyzing them (e.g., correlating them with one
another, with prior such information and/or with norms) and
reporting them to aid in on-going patient diagnosis and
treatment (both on acute and chronic bases), as well as to aid
physicians, nurses and other caregivers in decision support,
monitoring treatment compliance, facilitating regulatory
compliance, billing, and so forth.
Spec. 3.
Claims 25, 32, 39, and 46 are independent claims. Claim 25 is
illustrative and set forth below (annotated with bracketed numbers for
reference to the limitations in the claim):
25. A distributed dialysis care delivery system comprising:
[1] a plurality of dialysis care delivery devices disposed at a
plurality of treatment centers,
each dialysis care delivery device comprising
[2] a processor and a storage device;

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 Fresenius
Medical Care Holdings, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

3
[3] a dialysis treatment apparatus
[4] including sensors that sense
(a) physiometric characteristics of the
patient in connection with treatment by the
dialysis treatment apparatus, and
(b) operating conditions of any of the
dialysis care delivery device and the dialysis
treatment apparatus,
wherein the sensors include any one or more
of blood pressure sensors, temperature
sensors, pulse sensors, electrochemical
sensors, fluid flow sensors, fluid temperature
sensors, fluid level sensors, power sensors,
maintenance status sensors,
[5] wherein the processor receives
information on the physiometric
characteristics of the patient and the operating
conditions from the sensors and stores the
information into the storage device, and
[6] a network interface, wherein the processor coupled
with the network interface transmits the
physiometric characteristics and operating
conditions through the network interface to a
remote digital data processing system; and
[7] the remote digital data processing system comprising
[8] an analysis module that compares received
information on physiometric characteristics and
operating conditions received from the plurality of
dialysis care delivery devices with any of
(a) one another,
(b) prior information received from the dialysis
care delivery devices and/or from patient
records,
(c) one or more predetermined values on the
[physiometric] characteristics and the
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

4
operating conditions, to monitor treatment of
patients and operating conditions of the
medical treatment apparatus and to identify
discrepancies in dialysis treatment at a said
treatment center, and
[9] a reporting module that generates a report and
signals an alert on determining that a said
treatment center is not doing as expected.
Appeal Br. i–ii (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 25, 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–
52 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter.
The Examiner rejected claims 25, 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–
52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bello.2
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 25, 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–52 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
I. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. Section 101
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

2 Bello et al., US 2005/0055242 A1, published Mar. 10, 2005 (“Bello”).
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

5
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.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine whether the claim recites an abstract idea. 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
that recite abstract ideas, but are nonetheless 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))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

6
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.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of

3 The Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019. USPTO, October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”)
(available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df).
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

7
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice,
or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) 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)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is 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 (“Step 2B”).
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
II. ANALYSIS
Applying the Revised Guidance to the facts on this record, we find
that claims 25, 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–52 are directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.

4 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

8
Claim 25 is directed to a dialysis care delivery system. The system
comprises a plurality of dialysis care delivery devices, which are machines.
Following the first step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, we find that the claim is
directed to machines, and therefore falls into one of the broad statutory
categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We thus
proceed to Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any
judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised
Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the
courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of
organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3)
mental processes.
The Examiner finds that claim 25 includes steps that “describe the
concept of receiving data, processing data, and outputting the results,” which
are abstract ideas. Non-Final Act.5 3–4.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 25 recites judicial exceptions.
More specifically, claim 25, reproduced above, recites a dialysis care
delivery system wherein each dialysis treatment apparatus comprises “a
processor and a storage device” that: [5] “receives information on the
physiometric characteristics and the operating conditions…and stores the
information into the storage device.” App. Br. i. The system also comprises
a “remote digital data processing system” that comprises [8] “an analysis

5 Non-Final Office Action mailed January 26, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”).
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

9
module that compares received information on physiometric characteristics
and operating conditions,” and [9] “a reporting module that generates a
report and signals an alert on determining that said treatment center is not
doing as expected.” Id. at ii. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
limitations [5], [8], and [9] recite mental processes.
For instance, a claim recites a mental process when the claim
encompasses acts people can perform using their minds or pen and paper.
See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–
73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (determining that a claim whose “steps can be performed
in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” is directed to an
unpatentable mental process). This is true even if the claim recites that a
generic computer component performs the acts. See, e.g., Versata Dev. Grp.,
Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have
examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the
underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper
or in a person’s mind.”); see also 2019 Eligibility Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at
52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.”).
These limitations encompass acts people can perform using their
minds or with pen and paper because people can perform the “receiving”
step by simply obtaining information from the sensors. People can “store”
information by merely remembering the data or writing it down on paper.
People can perform the “comparing” and “determining” steps in their mind
and can “generate” a report using a pen and paper.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

10
Here, the claims recite a dialysis care delivery system configured to
perform steps for receiving, storing, comparing, and reporting information,
which people could perform in their minds or with the use of pen and paper.
Accordingly, we conclude that the steps of claim 25 recite the judicial
exception of mental processes.
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, we next
consider whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. “[I]ntegration into a practical application” requires that the
claim recite an additional element or a combination of elements, that when
considered individually or in combination, “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.” Guidance at 54.
We begin by observing that claim 25 does not require that anything be
done with the information generated by the claimed system. The final
component of the system is “a reporting module that generates a report and
signals an alert on determining that a said treatment center is not doing as
expected.” This component simply provides information to the user. In this
regard, the claims here are unlike those in Vanda that required the
administration of a treatment in response to a diagnostic determination. See
Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 1133–36
(Fed. Cir. 2018). Indeed, we conclude claim 25 is more similar to those held
ineligible in Mayo because it merely tells the user “to gather data from
which they may draw an inference.” See 566 U.S. at 79–80.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

11
Appellant asserts that the claims:
recite a distributed dialysis care delivery system that includes
specific technical elements that, when considered as a whole,
interoperate to identify discrepancies in dialysis treatment at a
particular treatment center based on an analysis of information
collected across multiple treatment centers and to signal an
alert on determining that such treatment center is not doing as
expected. As such, the claims are directed to an
unconventional technical solution to the technical problem of
treatment center performance monitoring and thereby
facilitates consistent delivery of dialysis treatment across
multiple treatment centers through such monitoring.
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further asserts that the claims are similar to those
found patent eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) because they are “rooted in computer technology in
order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of dialysis
treatment center performance monitoring.” Id. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that the claims are:
directed to a distributed dialysis delivery care system that
improves the way in which treatment center performance
monitoring is performed, e.g., using a remote digital data
processing system that identifies discrepancies in dialysis
treatment at a particular treatment center based on an analysis
of information collected across multiple treatment centers.
Id. at 16.
First, the claim does not require that the processing system identify
discrepancies at a particular treatment center based on analysis of
information collected across multiple treatment centers. Instead, the claim
requires that the analysis module compares information on physiometric
characteristics and operating conditions “with any of”: “(a) one another,”
“(b) prior information received from the dialysis care delivery devices
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

12
and/or from patient records,” or “(c) one or more predetermined values on
the [physiometric] characteristics and the operating conditions.” Therefore,
if the received information is compared to elements (b) or (c), then an
analysis of information collected across multiple treatment centers does not
necessarily need to occur.
Furthermore, even if such an analysis is required, we are not
persuaded that this fact pattern is similar to that in DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). DDR Holdings
determined that the claims addressed the problem of retaining website
visitors who, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet
hyperlink protocol, would be transported instantly away from a host’s
website after clicking on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink.
DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The Federal Circuit, thus, held that the
claims were directed to patent-eligible subject matter because they claim a
solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. The
instant claim 25 does not identify a specific problem in the realm of
computer networks, or indeed, in computer technology at all. Instead, claim
25 applies computer technology to the mental processes ordinarily used in
receiving, storing, comparing, and reporting information regarding patient
physiometric characteristics.
Appellant further asserts that the claims are directed to patent eligible
subject matter because they recite limitations having a descriptive nature
similar or parallel to the claims that were found to be patent eligible in
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. V. Openet Telecom, Inc. 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

13
2016). Appeal Br. 16. Appellant asserts that, as in Amdocs, the pending
claims:
are tied to a distributed network architecture of various
components, namely “a remote digital data processing
system” and “a plurality of dialysis care delivery devices
disposed at a plurality of treatment centers,” with each
dialysis care delivery device including “a processor and a
storage device,” “a dialysis treatment apparatus including
sensors ... ,” and “a network interface.”
Id. at 18. Appellant also asserts that:
the claims recite specific technical elements that, when
considered as a whole, interoperate to identify discrepancies
in dialysis treatment at a particular treatment center based on
an analysis of information collected across multiple treatment
centers and to signal an alert on determining that such
treatment center is not doing as expected. As such, the claims
recite an unconventional technical solution to the technical
problem of treatment center performance monitoring and
thereby facilitates consistent delivery of dialysis treatment
across multiple treatment centers through such monitoring.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In Amdocs, the
court found that the “claim entails an unconventional technological solution
(enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem
(massive record flows which previously required massive databases).” 841
F.3d at 1300. The court further found that “the claim’s enhancing limitation
necessarily requires that these generic components operate in an
unconventional manner to achieve an improvement in computer
functionality.” Id. at 1300–1301.
Unlike in Amdocs, Appellant did not establish that the current claims
recite an improvement to the technology. Appellant asserts that the claims
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

14
recite an unconventional technical solution to the technical problem of
treatment center performance monitoring; however, this is not a technology
problem akin to the problem in Amdocs of “network bottlenecks” and
“massive record information flow[ing] to one location, making it very
difficult to keep up with massive record flows from the network devices and
requiring huge databases.” 841 F.3d at 1292. Rather, the problem identified
by Appellant relates to the gathering, storing, and comparing of different
types of information.
Furthermore, the additional elements of the claim do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 25 includes the
additional elements of [1] “a plurality of dialysis care delivery devices,”
[2] “a processor and a storage device,” [3] “a dialysis treatment apparatus,”
[4] “sensors,” [6] “a network interface,” and a [7] “remote digital processing
system.” We agree with the Examiner that there is nothing non-generic
about any of these recited devices and that the claim simply recites “a
collection of known devices combined in known ways in order to gather
data.” Ans. 9.
Therefore, other than the limitations directed to the abstract idea,
discussed above, the invention is claimed at a very high level of generality
without integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application because
Appellant did not establish that they provide an additional element, outside
the abstract idea, that improves the technology or technical field.
Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that the judicial exceptions in
Appellant’s claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

15
C. Guidance Step 2B
Having determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application, we next evaluate the additional elements individually
and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept,
such as a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not well-
understood, routine, conventional in the field, or simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 84 Fed. Reg. 51.
The additional limitations recite a dialysis care delivery device that
includes sensors to sense physiometric characteristics of a patient and
operating conditions of the dialysis care delivery device. The dialysis care
delivery device includes a processor that receives this data and then forwards
that information. A remote digital processing system then processes the
received data. We agree with the Examiner that the “dialysis care delivery
device and the digital processing system are recited at a high level of
generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions
routinely used in computer applications.” Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant did not direct us to anything in the Specification indicating
that any steps or components recited in the claims are not generic or
conventional. For example, the Specification describes that the dialysis
machine can be “of the type known in the art or otherwise” and the
“[p]rocessor 14 comprises a microprocessor or other processing unit of [the]
type commercially available or otherwise known in the art.” Spec. 9. The
Specification also describes that the sensors “are of the type commercially
available in the marketplace or otherwise known in the art,” the digital
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

16
processing system “comprises a computer system of the type commonly
available in the hospital, dialysis center or other central location,” and that
the “treatment is administered in the conventional manner known in the art.”
Id. at 10–11.
The use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions
that are “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]” previously
known in the industry is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26. We find that
Appellant did not provide adequate evidence that the claims require anything
other than the use of conventional and well-understood techniques and
equipment to gather, store, analyze, and report data according to the recited
judicial exception.
Accordingly, the preponderance of evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter. The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed. Appellant argues that the rejection of claims 26, 28–33, 35–40,
42–47, and 49–52 should be reversed for all of the reasons given for claim
25. Appeal Br. 19–20. Therefore, the rejection of these claims is also
affirmed for the reasons stated above.
Rejection of claims 25, 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bello
The Examiner finds that Bello teaches a distributed care delivery
system comprising all the limitations of claim 25. Non-Final Act. 6–8. The
Examiner concedes that “Bello does not explicitly teach a distributed
dialysis care delivery system” comprising the recited limitations; however,
the Examiner asserts that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

17
skill in the art at the time of the invention to add ‘dialysis’ to Bello because
‘dialysis’ is a nonfunctional description of a treatment.” Id. at 8–10.
According to the Examiner, “[s]ubstituting a specific treatment type, such as
dialysis, for a general treatment is a mere substitution of the treatment
description.” Id. at 10. The Examiner further finds that:
The prior art differs from the claim by the substitution of
some components. The substituted components were known.
The technical ability existed to substitute the components as
claimed and the result of the substitution is predictable.
Id.
The Examiner also cites to Bello, which states:
While the present disclosure has focused on the use of
infusion pumps 120 within the system 210, it is understood
that other medical devices may be used within the system 210
without departing from the scope of the present invention. For
example, various types of medical devices include, but are not
limited to, infusion pumps, ventilators, dialysis machines, etc.
Id. (citing Bello ¶ 410) (emphasis added).
Appellant asserts that “Bello fails to disclose or suggest a distributed
dialysis care system having features recited in claim 25.” Appeal Br. 21.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that “Bello may disclose that for a given
patient, a central computer 108 or 7130 can ‘correlate infusion pump data
with vital signs, arrhythmias and/or other hemodynamic parameters and
data’ and ‘allows for infusion pump alarm and/or alert notification and
management thereof.’” Reply 12 (citing Bello Figs. 71–75, ¶¶ 656–658).
However, according to Appellant:
Bello fails to provide any teaching or suggestion of any
system or device that is capable of identifying discrepancies
in dialysis treatment at a particular treatment center based on
a comparison of information collected across multiple
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

18
treatment centers and signaling an alert on determining that a
treatment center is not doing as expected.
Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As shown by the
Examiner, Bello teaches that “[i]n a typical arrangement, several remote
locations, such as treatment location 106, are in communication with a
central location.” Bello ¶ 409. Therefore, Bello discloses “a plurality of
care delivery devices disposed at a plurality of treatment centers.” Bello
further discloses an analysis module that compares information received
from the plurality of care delivery devices with, for example, “prior
information received from the care delivery devices and/or from patient
records” (see Bello Fig. 39, ¶ 425) or compares the information with “one or
more predetermined values on the physiometric characteristics and operating
conditions.” See Bello ¶ 656. Bello also discloses the use of a “infusion
pump alarm and/or alert notification.” Id.
Appellant asserts that Bello does not compare information collected
across multiple treatment centers; however, as discussed above, claim 25
does not require such a comparison. Instead, the claim requires that the
analysis module compares information on physiometric characteristics and
operating conditions “with any of”: “(a) one another,” “(b) prior information
received from the dialysis care delivery devices and/or from patient
records,” or “(c) one or more predetermined values on the [physiometric]
characteristics and the operating conditions.” Therefore, Bello’s disclosure
of comparing the received information with stored biometric information or
to a “pre-defined list of high and low dose and/or concentration limits” is
sufficient to teach elements (b) and (c); thereby rendering obvious claim 25.
Bello ¶¶ 425, 656.
Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

19
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Bello is affirmed. Appellant argues that the rejection of
claims 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and 49–52 should be reversed for all of the
reasons given for claim 25. Appeal Br. 24–25. Therefore, the rejection of
these claims is also affirmed for the reasons stated above.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons described herein and those already of record, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25, 26, 28–33, 35–40, 42–47, and
49–52.

Appeal 2019-001266
Application 13/397,265

20
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25, 26, 28–
33, 35–40,
42–47, 49–
52
101 Eligibility 25, 26, 28–
33, 35–40,
42–47, 49–
52

25, 26, 28–
33, 35–40,
42–47, 49–
52
103(a) Bello 25, 26, 28–
33, 35–40,
42–47, 49–
52

Overall
Outcome
25, 26, 28–
33, 35–40,
42–47, 49–
52

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