Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

11771860 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111771,860 0612912007
37945 7590 04/27/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Lee Angell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
END920070107US 1 8610
EXAMINER
RAPILLO, KRISTINE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LEE ANGELL and JAMES R. KRAEMER
Appeal2014-003861
Application 11/771,860
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stoodley,3 Roslak,4 and Papageorge. 5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Aug.
22, 2013), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 18, 2014), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 18, 2013).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Stoodley et al., US 2004/0078236 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004.
4 Roslak et al., US 7,010,501 Bl, issued Mar. 7, 2006.
5 Papageorge, US 6,584,445 B2, issued June 24, 2003.
Appeal2014-003861
Application 11/771,860
ST ATEivIENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to a computer implemented method,
computer usable program product, and system "for utilizing digital video
modeling to generate an optimal healthcare delivery model for providing
healthcare services to patients based on patterns of events occurring in a
medical care facility" (Spec. i-f 2). Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent
claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer implemented method for generating an
optimized healthcare delivery model, the computer implemented
method comprising:
a computer recording video data of a set of methods or
procedures for providing treatment to achieve a target outcome;
the computer processing the video data using smart
detection software to form event data, wherein the event data
comprises metadata describing events associated with a medical
care facility;
the computer processing the event data by a set of data
models to identify event patterns, wherein the set of data models
includes one or more data models for mining event data,
identifying events of interest, and identifying patterns between
events of interest and identifying relationships between events of
interest, wherein each pattern is related to one of the set of
methods or procedures for providing treatment to achieve the
target outcome, wherein the set of data models comprises a
timeline data model;
the computer associating the event of interest with the
timeline data model to form a set of integrated events, wherein
each of the set of integrated events comprises multiple sub-
events;
the computer identifying a subset of patterns of events
from the patterns of events that achieves the target outcome to
form a set of optimized patterns of events, wherein the optimized
2
Appeal2014-003861
Application 11/771,860
pattern of events is a method or procedure of providing treatment
to achieve the target outcome for under a particular cost, wherein
the optimized pattern of events achieves a patient rate of recovery
equal to or greater than a patient recovery rate for others of the
patterns of events, and the optimized pattern of events has a
treatment cost less than others of the patterns of events; and
the computer generating a healthcare delivery strategy
using the set of optimized patterns of events to form an optimized
healthcare delivery model for the medical care facility.
Appeal Br. 18-19, Claims App.
DISCUSSION
Independent claim 1
Appellants contend that "[t]he cited art does not disclose, 'the
computer processing the video data using smart detection software to
form event data, wherein the event data comprises metadata describing
events associated with a medical care facility"' (Appeal Br. 11 ). In
particular, Appellants argue "contrary to the Examiner's assertions, Stoodley
does not process video data using smart detection software to form event
data" (id. at 13).
The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Stoodley fails to teach
smart detection software and rather relies on Roslak to cure this deficiency
(Ans. 3--4; see also Ans. 9). Thus, Appellants' argument does not address
the Examiner's actual rejection. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
reversible error.
Appellants also contend that "[t]he cited art does not disclose
'identifying a subset of patterns of events ... "' (Appeal Br. 14--16; Reply
Br. 2--4). In particular, Appellants argue that Roslak "is unconcerned with"
performing this limitation (Appeal Br. 16).
3
Appeal2014-003861
Application 11/771,860
The Examiner, however, relies on the combination of Stoodley and
Papageorge for teaching this limitation (Ans. 3-5, 9-10). The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to modify Stoodley to include
"the ability to analyze the data input to generate treatment options as taught
by Papageorge" (Ans. 5). Appellants' arguments regarding the disclosure in
Roslak do not address the Examiner's proposed modification with respect to
this contested limitation. Accordingly, we are not apprised of reversible
error by Appellants' argument.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that "Stoodley's 'outcomes' does
not make any determination relative to the cost of providing medical
services" or "regarding whether one pattern of events is as effective as other
patterns of events within Stoodley's database" (Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner, however, relies on Papageorge for disclosing "wherein
the optimized pattern of events is a method or procedure of providing
treatment to achieve the target outcome for under a particular cost" and
"achieves a patient rate of recovery equal to or greater than a patient
recovery rate for other of the patterns of events" (Ans. 4). Thus, Appellants'
arguments regarding Stoodley's outcomes do not address the Examiner's
proposed modification of Stoodley according to the teachings in Papageorge.
Appellants further argue that "Papageorge' s reported costs are not
relative to the cost of providing medical services according to the optimized
pattern of events" because "Papageorge's reported costs simply provide a
listing of the potential negative outcomes of the particular associated
treatments" (Reply Br. 6). However, as the Examiner finds (see Ans. 4--5),
Papageorge is directed to a tool that helps patients and physicians decide
between treatment options based on different financial costs, benefits, and
4
Appeal2014-003861
Application 11/771,860
effectiveness of treatment options by assessing each option in terms of
patient specific data (see Papageorge, col. 3, line 66 - col. 4 line 3).
Therefore, Papageorge is not limited to "simply provid[ing] a listing of the
potential negative outcomes of the particular associated treatments" as
argued by Appellants. Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error by
Appellants' arguments.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1.
Appellants do not separately argue or contest the rejection of claims
2-20. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5