TeleTracking Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2021

2020005185 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/393,803 12/29/2016 Joseph C. SCHUCK 569.364 6788
122546 7590 05/21/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 Broad Street
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH C. SCHUCK
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803
Technology Center 3600
Before ULRIKE W. JENKS, TAWEN CHANG, and
RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges.
TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims directed to systems and methods for
processing real-time and historical data and generating predictive graphical
user interfaces. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as TeleTracking
Technologies, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant’s Specification “[m]odern health care
facilities have highly skilled personnel, high-tech patient monitoring
systems, employee communication systems, and in some instances, patient
and equipment location tracking systems.” (Spec. ¶ 3.) However, the
Specification notes that “[h]igh efficiency . . . still evades many modern
facilities,” for example because “hospital personnel may know that a patient
needs a certain test or treatment, but the personnel may not know when the
patient should receive that test or treatment or which areas of the hospital
may be able to provide quicker and higher quality care, due to a lack of
readily available information.” (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4.) Appellant’s invention relates
“to computerized systems and methods for visual presentation of present and
future facility utilization information.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
Claims 1–20 are pending. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computerized system for generating a predictive display on
a graphical user interface, the system comprising:
at least one processor in communication with a
communications network; and
a storage medium comprising instructions that, when
executed, configure the at least one processor to perform
operations comprising:
[a] receiving real-time data and historical data associated
with utilization of a facility;
[b] receiving, from at least one networked database,
benchmark data for the facility;
[c] calculating, based on the real-time data, a first number
of individuals associated with a plurality of areas of the facility
and a second number of individuals in transit between the facility
areas;
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

3
[d] comparing the calculated first and second numbers
with the benchmark data to determine at least one utilization
level of the facility areas at a first time;
[e] displaying, on the user interface, a first group of
graphical elements representative of the facility areas, wherein
the graphical elements of the first group comprise at least one
visual attribute determined according to the utilization level of
the facility areas at the first time;
[f] receiving, via the user interface, a user selection of a
second time that is a future time relative to the first time;
[g] calculating, based on the real-time data and the
historical data, at least one predictive utilization level of the
facility areas at the second time, the at least one predictive
utilization level indicating a third number of individuals
expected to be associated with the facility areas at the second
time and a fourth number of individuals expected to be in transit
between the facility areas at the second time;
[h] calculating a difference between the at least one
predictive utilization level of the facility areas at the second time
and the at least one utilization level of the facility areas at the
first time; and
[i] adjusting the at least one visual attribute of the first
group of graphical elements according to the calculated
difference.
(Appeal Br. 26–27) (bracketing added for reference convenience).
The following ground of rejection by the Examiner is before us on
review:
Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.

Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

4
DISCUSSION
Appellant addresses the claims as a group, without differentiating the
independent claims or identifying additional limitations recited in the
dependent claims. Thus, we address the Examiner’s rejection with respect to
exemplary claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Dispute
The Examiner finds that the operations for generating the display in
claim 1 involve data analysis—observation and evaluation of individuals
arriving at or in a facility and the assets of the facility—and making
judgments or opinions, such as determining a utilization level of the facility.
(Final Action 5; Ans. 4, 6.) The Examiner explains that the claim limitations
concern “data analysis, regardless of the granularity, to provide a utilization
of a facility.” (Ans. 6.) The Examiner further notes that “this data that is
being received, analyzed and displayed for individuals to utilize a facility
could be performed manually or observed with a human eye,” rather than the
recited generic computer elements. (Id. at 8.) Thus, the Examiner concludes
that the operations for generating the display recite mental processes. (Final
Action 5; Ans. 4.)
The Examiner notes that the claim also recites additional limitations
that are not mental processes, e.g., a processor in communication with a
network, a storage medium that contains instructions, a networked database,
and a user interface. (Final Action 5; Ans. 8.) The Examiner finds that
these generically recited computer elements, considered both individually
and as a combination, simply provide for the abstract idea to be carried out
in a technological environment; they do not require that the abstract idea be
carried out with a particular machine. (Final Action 5–6; Ans. 8.) The
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

5
Examiner also finds that these elements “do not reflect an improvement in
the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field.” (Final Action 6; Ans. 8.) The Examiner concludes that
these structural elements “are used as tools to perform an existing business
process” (Ans. 8); they “do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment” (Final Action 6).
In addition, the Examiner finds that the “Applicant’s own
Specification indicates the conventionality of the claimed devices” noting
that the processor “may be one or more known processing devices, such as
microprocessors manufactured by Intel . . . ,” and that any form of wired or
wireless internet access may be used as the “network protocol.” (Final
Action 6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 22–24, 38, 40).) The Examiner states that the
Specification makes clear that “the additional elements” do not provide the
inventive concept, but rather the data analysis of the “vast amounts of real-
time and historical data . . . available in some hospitals” that is able to be
displayed “quickly and in a way that is easy-to-read for hospital personal” is
the invention. (Id. at 6–7 (emphasis omitted).) Thus, the Examiner
concludes “that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as
an ordered combination, do not provide an[] inventive concept, and the
claim is ineligible for patent.” (Id. at 7.)
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection fails to establish a
prima facie case that the claims recite an abstract idea because it did not
explain which specific claim limitations are “an observation and evaluation.”
(Reply Br. 13.) Appellant asserts that the displaying of graphical elements
that have at least one visual attribute and adjusting that attribute based on
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

6
calculations cannot practically be performed in the human mind and “[t]he
claimed interface is not simply a picture that can be practically drawn using
a pen and paper.” (Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 10.) According to the
Appellant, the claim is to a tangible interface, i.e.:
dynamic graphical displays showing predictive utilization of
facility areas based on a selected second time, and historical
data and real-time data received from a networked database.
This useful combination produces a tangible result that offers a
benefit of dynamically displayed predictive graphical elements
that could not be achieved by manually examining data (if
manual review is even possible) and drawing pictures.
(Reply Br. 12; Appeal Br. 13.)
Appellant also argues that elements [d]–[i] recite a specific set of
computerized instructions that “integrate any judicial exception into a
practical application of providing predictive graphics based on predictive
statistical analysis of received real-time and historical data . . . and user
inputs.” (Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 15–16.) According to Appellant, the
claimed interface is an “improvement[] in computer functionality” because it
“provides predictive graphical interfaces” based on the statistical analysis
and user interactions. (Appeal Br. 14.) Appellant argues that claim
limitations [e]–[i] “involve multiple nuanced calculations and comparisons
to generate and adjust predictive data,” not simply “generating a display” as
urged by the Examiner. (Id. at 14–15.) The end result, according to
Appellant, is a “new and improved data visualization that dynamically
displays a plurality of patients in various areas or in transit in a facility,”
which “alleviat[es] the problem that ‘existing hospitals lack the ability to
display large amounts of information quickly and in a way that is easy-to-
read for hospital personnel’” (Id. at 16 (quoting Spec. ¶ 4); Reply Br. 14,
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

7
21.) Appellant urges that the claim “improve[s] upon computer
environments that must continuously process large amounts of data,” like the
claims found patent eligible in Trading Technologies International,
Incorporated v. CQG, Incorporated, 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Trading Tech I”). (Reply Br. 13–14; Appeal Br. 17–18.) Appellant also
urges that the claimed improvements are similar to those in Core Wireless
Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Incorporated, 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed.
Cir. 2018), by “improv[ing] conventional user interfaces by providing
dynamic, predictive, easy-to-understand graphical user interfaces based on
specific computations of large quantities of real-time and historical patient
data.” (Appeal Br. 21.)
Finally, Appellant argues that the claim amounts to significantly more
than any judicial exception because it recites a non-conventional
combination of “computerized instructions that are outside the alleged
abstract idea,” which is a technological solution to a technological problem.
(Appeal Br. 22–24; Reply Br. 16–17.)
The Analysis
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for
“distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). “First,
we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” a patent-ineligible
concept. Id. If so, “we 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
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

8
application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)).
Applying the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
(“Guidance”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019),2 and in accordance with
judicial precedent, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims
are addressed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We address representative
claim 1 in light of the fact that Appellant does not provide separate argument
for the claims.
STEP 2A, Prong One:
Under the Guidance, in determining what concept a claim is “directed
to” in step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, we first look to
whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, such as (a) mathematical
concepts, (b) methods of organizing human activity including fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk), and/or (c) mental processes including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, or opinion. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54 (Step 2A, Prong
One).
Appellant’s claim is directed to the basic idea of evaluating
individuals/assets of a facility to facilitate the display of the
individuals/assets of a facility in real-time and at future selected times. We
agree with the Examiner that the claim recites abstract ideas. The Examiner
noted that claim 1 sets forth a system in which a display regarding the use of

2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management,
expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 1 (the “October 2019 Update”) (available
at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_
update.pdf).
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

9
a facility by individuals is generated through (1) the receipt of several types
of data, (processor operations [a] and [b]), (2) calculating individuals in
areas of the facility and in transit within the facility using the data,
(processor operation [c]), (3) comparing the calculated values with
benchmark data to determine a use level at a first time, (processor operation
[d]), (4) displaying graphical elements representative of the facility areas and
at least one visual attribute that represents the determined use level
(processor operation [e]), (5) receiving a second time input from a user that
is later than the first time at which a use level was determined, (processor
operation [f]), (6) calculating a predicted use level at the second time that
includes an indication of individuals predicted to be in areas of the facility
and in transit within the facility at the second time using the data, (processor
operation [g]), (7) calculating a difference between the predicted use and the
determined use level at the first time (processor operation [h]), and (8)
adjusting the at least one visual attribute based on the calculated difference
(processor operation [i]). (Final Action 4–5.) The Examiner noted that, at a
minimum, “[t]he above-recited limitations” are an “evaluation” of assets and
individuals using a facility. (Id. at 5.) For this reason, we disagree with
Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner’s rejection failed to identify the
claim limitations reciting an abstract idea.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s position that the
limitations involve an evaluation of data concerning assets and individuals
using a facility. What is more, the “evaluation” relies on a number of
“calculati[ons]” using data received, i.e., limitations [c], [g] and [h]. Indeed,
Appellant concedes that the “dynamic visualization of metrics” is based on a
calculation of data received by the processor. (Appeal Br. 13, 15 (noting
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

10
that processor operations [g] and [h] “involve multiple nuanced
calculations”).) This comports with the Specification which indicates:
Historical data, identified trends and patterns, and correlative
relationships may be identified through regression analysis,
queuing analysis and other known statistical analysis methods,
stored, and recalled to predict future utilization and present the
predicted utilization hospital personnel in an easy-to-read
graphical interface.
(Spec. ¶ 43.)
Appellant’s argument that displaying a group of graphical elements on
a user interface cannot be practically performed in the human mind (Appeal
Br. 12) is, thus, not persuasive to establish the claim does not recite an
abstract idea. Even if the Examiner may have identified the evaluation as a
mental process, there can be no dispute that the claim recites mathematical
calculations, which are, as Appellant noted in the Appeal Brief, an abstract
idea of one of “[t]he three groupings of abstract ideas specified in the 2019
Guidance.” (Appeal Br. 12.) Even limitation [d], which is comparing
calculated first and second numbers with benchmark data to determine a
utilization level at a first time, recites a mathematical concept, i.e.,
comparing numerical values to assess high or low use depending on the
value, and involves, as the Examiner noted, “observation” with respect to
level of use.
In light of the above, we conclude that claim 1 recites mathematical
concepts which are abstract ideas, and thus, we proceed to the next step of
the eligibility analysis under the Guidance.
STEP 2A, Prong Two:
Following the Guidance, we next consider whether “the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

11
the exception,” i.e., whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This analysis includes
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application.” Id. at 54–55.
Here, the additional limitations include, as the Examiner noted, a
processor, a storage medium, networked database, and display information
on a user interface. (Final Action 5.) We also find that the receiving of data
is an additional limitation. Even though the Examiner did not identify the
receiving of data as an “additional limitation,” we, nevertheless, agree with
the Examiner’s conclusion that the additional limitations of claim 1 do not
integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
The operations recited in [a], [b], and [f] are necessary data gathering
steps to carry out the mathematical concepts recited in carrying out the
processor operations [c], [d], and [g] of claim 1. Such data gathering is
considered insignificant extra-solution activity that is insufficient to confer
patent eligibility, i.e., it does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79 (concluding that additional element of
measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant
extra-solution activity); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that mere data gathering is insufficient
to confer patent eligibility); see also In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (en banc), affd sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)
(characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

12
We turn now to the recited computer elements. The processor,
storage medium, networked database, and user interface, are generically
recited. The Specification also indicates that these computer elements can
be any type of processor, storage medium, networked databases, and user
interfaces. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 27 (“User device 120 may be a personal
computing device such as, for example, a general purpose or notebook
computer, a mobile device with computing ability. . .”), ¶ 32 (“Network 150
may comprise any type of computer networking arrangement used to
exchange data”), ¶ 33 (“Local network 110 may comprise any type of
computer networking arrangement used to exchange data”), ¶ 34 (“Network
server 160, Third party server 170, and database 180 may be one or more
servers or storage devices provided by an entity such as a provider of
networking, cloud, or backup services”), ¶ 37 (“Display 210 may include
one or more screens for displaying task management information”), ¶ 38
(“Processor 220 may be one or more known processing devices”), ¶ 68
(“server 130 may generate a graphical display of current facility utilization.
Any graphical or textual format enabling visualization of facility utilization
may be used.”).)
We note in particular with respect to the user interface, which
Appellant asserts is “a dynamic visualization of metrics calculated based on
large amounts of . . . data” (Appeal Br. 13), that Appellant’s Specification
states “[a]ny graphical or textual format enabling visualization of facility
utilization may be used.” (Spec. ¶ 68.) “[A]fter Alice, there can remain no
doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

13
mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency
of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract
idea.”).
The recitation of “displaying” graphical elements, at least one of
which has a visual attribute, as well as adjusting the visual attribute
according to the result of a calculation, also are not processor operations that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Displaying
information is “abstract as an ancillary part of . . . collection and analysis” of
data. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis.”); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896
F.3d 1335, 1344–46 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that displaying different types
or sets of information from various sources on a generic display is abstract
absent a specific improvement to the way computers or other technologies
operate).
Appellant’s argument that processor operations [d]–[i] combine to
provide “predictive graphics based on predictive statistical analysis of
received real-time and historical data regarding facility utilization levels and
user inputs” (Appeal Br. 20–21) does not persuade us that the claim recites
an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. The graphical
element that is adjusted to show the “predicted” analysis of facility
utilization, (processor operation [i]), is simply the representative display of
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

14
calculations that are the abstract idea, which relies on the second time input
of a user, i.e., data gathering that is insufficient to confer patent eligibility.
In other words, what is adjusted is just a visual attribute on the graphical
display that represents the determined calculation. Appellant’s “advance” is
simply a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified
content, and displaying the results, “not any particular assertedly inventive
technology for performing those functions.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Trading Tech II”). That
the computer implementation might improve efficiency of facility use
(Appeal Br. 21) is not sufficient to render the claim patent eligible where, as
here, the efficiency resulting from the claim limitations is simply efficient
analysis of large amounts of data which is inherent with applying the
claimed abstract idea on a computer rather than an improvement to computer
functionality. See, e.g., Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In short, “the focus of the claims is not a
physical-realm improvement but an improvement in wholly abstract ideas—
the selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by
reporting or display of the results.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168. Claims
directed to the “process of gathering and analyzing information of a
specified content, then displaying the results,” without “any particular
assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions,” were held
ineligible in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Trading Tech II, 921 F.3d at 1385.
We also do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the claim is
like those found patent eligible in Core Wireless. (Appeal Br. 21.) In Core
Wireless, the Federal Circuit held patent eligible claims reciting an improved
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

15
user interface for electronic devices that reduced the steps needed for a user
to navigate toward the desired data/functionality, and thus improved the
efficiency of the electronic device, “particularly those with small screens.”
Core Wireless, 880 F.3d 1359–63. Appellant’s claim does not recite any
particulars with respect to the user interface except for the fact that it
displays visual attributes representative of use level and accepts user input,
i.e., a user selection of a second time. There is no evidence that such a
graphical user interface improves the efficiency of any computer device,
much less “a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information
in electronic devices” that is different from conventional user interface
methods of displaying data with respect to resource use. See id. at 1362–63.
Moreover, Appellant does not provide adequate reasoning or
evidence, and we do not see from the claim, how the limitations provide a
technological solution to a computer-based problem, i.e., a solution
“necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, 773
F.3d at 1257; see also SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (e.g., claims directed to solving the technological problem
of identifying uniquely difficult-to-track, large-scale attacks caused by the
decentralized nature of computer networks with a specific improvement to
network functionality, namely deployment of specific monitors to collect
specific types of data).
We also do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the claimed
invention is patent eligible because it provides “a new and improved data
visualization that dynamically displays a plurality of patients in various
areas or in transit in a facility” similar to the claims in Trading Tech I.
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

16
(Appeal Br. 16–17.) In Trading Tech I, the Federal Circuit found that “the
specific structure and concordant functionality of the graphical user
interface”3 provided a “specific implementation of a solution to a problem in
the software arts.” 675 F. App’x at 1004–06. Appellant has not provided
any evidence that the generically recited user interface that has a group of
graphical elements with a visual attribute that is adjusted after certain
calculations are made provides a solution to a problem in the software arts.
Instead, we find Appellant’s claim to be more like those found
ineligible in Trading Tech II. In that case, the claim required receipt of data
and computing values based thereon and then displaying those values,
displaying a visual indicator that is adjusted based on a new input. Trading
Tech II, 921 F.3d at 1381–82. The Federal Circuit explained, in response to
the argument that the claim provides “a particular graphical user interface
that improves usability, visualization, and efficiency,” that “[t]he claims are
focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process
information more quickly . . . not on improving computers or technology,”
because the “‘tool for presentation’ here . . . is simply a generic computer”
where information is arranged in a particular manner that “does not improve
the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve

3 Important to the outcome in Trading Tech I, with respect to the claimed
interface, was the fact that the bid and asked prices for a commodity traded
in a market are displayed dynamically along the static display, and the
system paired orders with the static display of prices and prevented order
entry at a changed price, thereby solving the problem in the prior art “when a
trader attempt[ed] to enter an order at a particular price, but [would] miss[]
the price because the market moved before the order was entered and
executed,” or that “trades were executed at different prices than intended,
due to rapid market movement.” 675 F. App’x at 1002–03.
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

17
any technological problem.” Id. at 1384–85. Similarly, here, the claim is
focused on providing information to a facility user in a way that helps them
process information more quickly, i.e., showing use of resources of the
facility. The “‘tool for presentation’ here . . . is simply a generic computer”
where information is arranged in a manner that “does not improve the
functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any
technological problem.” Id.
We also do not find the claim at issue to be similar to those found
patent eligible in Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d
999 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as suggested by Appellant (Appeal Br. 14). In that
case, the Federal Circuit held patent eligible claims reciting “a specific
method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets,” a
form of information-organization unique to computers, because the claimed
invention “improv[ed] computers’ functionality as a tool able to instantly
access all parts of complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.”
Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1007–08. Here, there is no evidence or argument
that the processor’s functionality as a tool is improved such that navigation
of the graphical user interface is different from prior art graphical user
interface technology.
To the extent Appellant may be arguing the “instructions” are a
software improvement (Appeal Br. 14–15 (noting the “computerized
instructions” are “steps [that] involve multiple nuanced calculations and
comparisons to generate and adjust predictive data”), we do not find this
argument persuasive. “[S]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to
computer technology just as hardware improvements can.” Customedia
Techs., 951 F.3d at 1365. However, such improvement must be “to the
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

18
functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Id. There is no
evidence provided by Appellant that the invention enables a computer to
operate more quickly or efficiently, or that it solves a technological problem.
Appellant’s Specification states: “While vast amounts of real-time
and historical data may be available in some hospitals, existing hospitals
lack the ability to display large amounts of information quickly and in a way
that is easy-to-read for hospital personnel.” (Spec. ¶ 4.) According to
Appellant’s Specification the “[d]isclosed embodiments relate to
computerized systems and methods for visual presentation of present and
future facility utilization information.” (Id. ¶ 6.) The Specification goes on
to explain the invention that allows for the visual presentation of present and
future facility utilization information. In particular, the Specification
explains:
app(s) 254 may configure computer terminal 140 to analyze the
current and historical information associated with the facility to
predict estimated future utilization and display the estimated
utilization in predictive graphical user interfaces. In some
embodiments, app(s) 254 may configure one or more computer
systems to analyze historical patient itinerary data and hospital
performance data to identify patterns, trends or correlative
relationships in the historical data. . . . Historical data, identified
trends and patterns, and correlative relationships may be
identified through regression analysis, queuing analysis and
other known statistical analysis methods, stored, and recalled to
predict future utilization and present the predicted utilization
hospital personnel in an easy-to-read graphical interface.
(Id. ¶ 43.) Thus, the Specification echoes Appellant’s statement that the
“nuanced display” is generated “based on predictive calculations stemming
from large amounts of data.” (Appeal Br. 13.) Thus, the calculations
performed by the computer and displaying those results graphically is the
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

19
invention, despite Appellant’s repeated assertion that the invention is to a
dynamic display. (See, e.g., id. at 24; id. at 13 (“dynamic aspect of the
visualization”); id. at 16 (“new and improved data visualization that
dynamically displays a plurality of patients in various areas or in transit in a
facility”).) As Appellant’s Specification makes clear, general purpose
notebook computers, mobile devices with computing ability, a tablet, or
smartphone are devices with user interfaces that may be employed in the
invention. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 27.) It is well-known that these devices are
ones with dynamic displays.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments and the disclosure in the Specification
all point to the fact that, at best, the claimed invention improves the abstract
concept of analyzing data and displaying the results graphically about
potential facility use at a selected time using a computer to analyze that data
and display the results, i.e., using the computer as a tool. “This is not what
the Supreme Court meant by improving the functioning of the computer
itself nor is it consistent with our [reviewing Court’s] precedent applying
this concept.” Customedia Techs., 951 F.3d at 1363; see also TecSec Inc. v.
Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292–94 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
As the Federal Circuit has explained, “improving a user’s experience
while using a computer application, is not, without more, sufficient to render
the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality.”
Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1365. The Court went on to explain as follows:
For example, in Trading Techs. I[I], we held patent ineligible
claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the
placement of a trader’s order. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092–93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs.
I[I]). Although the claimed display purportedly “assist[ed]
traders in processing information more quickly,” we held that
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

20
this purported improvement in user experience did not
“improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more
efficiently, or solve any technological problem.” Id.; see
also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378,
1381, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II[I]) (holding
that claims “focused on providing information to traders in a
way that helps them process information more quickly” did not
constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer
functionality).
(Id.) As discussed above, Appellant’s claimed display and manner of
generating it and adjusting visual elements thereon, although having
potential to assist a user by collating and interpreting a lot of information
quickly, does not improve the functioning of the computer, or make it
operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.
In sum, we find that the claimed invention does not integrate the
abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the
Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Thus, we conclude that the
claim is directed to an abstract idea. We next turn to the second step of the
Alice analysis, i.e., whether the claim includes an “inventive concept.”
STEP 2B
Step 2B requires that we look to whether the claim, that we have
determined above to set forth the judicial exception of an abstract idea,
“[a]dds a specific limitation [beyond the judicial exception that is] not well-
understood, routine, conventional in the field.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
56; MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
The Examiner notes that Appellant’s own Specification indicates the
conventionality of the claimed processor, storage medium, networked
database, and user interface. (Final Action 6.) We agree; nothing in the
claim, understood in light of the Specification, requires anything other than
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

21
off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for
gathering, and presenting the desired information. And Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s finding in this regard. Rather, Appellant argues that
claim amounts to “significantly more” because it presents a “technological
solution to a technological problem.” (Appeal Br. 22–24.) We have
explained above why we disagree that such is the case.
Appellant’s inventive concept is compiling large amounts of real-time
and historical data quickly using a computer and mathematical algorithms so
as to be able to display, upon request, a hypothetically determined facility
use at a future time based on statistical analysis of the data. Appellant does
not explain how this improves computer performance or how it improves a
graphical user interface.
Appellant’s argument that the claimed invention “provide[s] a novel
graphical user interface driven by a computer system programmed in a
particular manner” (Appeal Br. 18) does not persuade us that the claimed
invention is patent eligible. Novelty and eligibility are separate inquiries.
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV,
LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “[e]ven assuming”
that a particular claimed feature was novel, such novelty does not “avoid the
problem of abstractness”). The novelty of any one claim element or of the
claim itself, “is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of
a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject
matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981).
After considering the additional claim elements beyond the judicial
exception as an ordered combination, we conclude that claim 1 is directed to
Appeal 2020-005185
Application 15/393,803

22
ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., Inventor
Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission was abstract).
Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

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