Ex Parte Anuszewski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2013

11556356 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/556,356 11/03/2006 David Anuszewski 2005P20180 US01 8521
28524 7590 06/13/2013
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
KANAAN, MAROUN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2013 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 DAVID ANUSZEWSKI and
OLADIMEJI OKEWOLE
____________________

Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and JAMES A.
TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a context information processing
system for the acquisition and characterization of medical data (Spec. 1:5-8).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A context information processing system used for
accessing medical data, comprising:
an acquisition processor for acquiring configuration
information indicating a type of a particular patient
identification tag reader device for a plurality of different types
of tag reader device and a format of patient identification data
used by said particular patient identification tag reader device;
an interpreter for using the acquired configuration
information in selecting a data decoding protocol from a
plurality of different decoding protocols used for decoding data
from a corresponding plurality of different types of patient
identification tag reader device and using the selected decoding
protocol for processing patient identification data received from
said particular patient identification tag reader device using said
acquired configuration information to provide a particular
patient identifier; and
a context processor for updating a record indicating a
current patient context comprising a patient identifier to be
compatible with said particular patient identifier.

Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356

3
Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-20 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Condurso (US 2006/0047538
A1, pub. Mar. 2, 2006) and Yarin (US 6,380,858 B1, iss. Apr. 30, 2002).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Specification describes receiving a first information about device
type data as follows:
The acquired metadata 12 includes first information regarding a
method of raw data 8 transfer from the identification device 3 to
the computer workstation 4 from the metadata repository 12.
This first information indicates to the interpreter 2 that a
particular type of a patient identification tag reader device 3 is
connected to the computer workstation 4.
Spec., 9:2-6.
2. The Specification describes receiving a second information about data
structure as follows:
The metadata 12 also contains second information regarding a
structure of the raw data 8 transferred from the patient
identification device 3 to the computer workstation 4 from the
metadata repository 12. This second information indicates to
the interpreter 2 a format of patient identification data used by
said particular patient identification tag reader device 3 that is
connected to the computer workstation 4.
Spec., 9:6-10.
3. The Specification describes that “interpreter 2 selects a raw data 8
decoding protocol based on the first and second information described
above. The interpreter 2 uses the selected raw data decoding protocol to
decode the raw data 8.” Spec., 9:18-21.
Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356

4
4. Condurso discloses different implementations of a bar code
identification system that read and decode bar codes, or, alternatively,
magnetic stripes or programmed punched holes. Para. [0095].
5. Yarin discloses identifying radio-frequency (RFID) “electromagnetic
tags resonating within a range of about 55 kHz to about 85 kHz” and,
alternatively, tags resonating at other frequencies. Col. 6, ll. 56-60.
6. Yarin discloses alternative embodiments utilizing “optical, magnetic,
and capacitive sensors.” Col. 6, ll. 64-66.
7. Condurso discloses “IR or RF transceivers may be incorporated into
medication database carriers or other identification devices that are
capable of interfacing and communicating with the therapy management
system.” Para. [0098].
8. Yarin discloses implementation-specific configuration of an RFID tag
reader, stating:
An RF coil (39, FIG. 6) associated with a respective receptacle
32 is configured to detect the presence of a medicine container
34 disposed therein via the RFID tag 50. In addition, an RF
coil is also configured to interrogate the circuitry of the RFID
tag 50 to obtain information therefrom.
Col. 8, ll. 9-14.
9. The Specification describes that “[t]here exists today no standard format
for the raw data 8 written and read by the various external scanning
devices 3.” Spec., 5:22-23.
10. The Specification describes, in the background section, problematic
situations where “the customer either targets a specific patient selection
technology or incurs the cost of an alternative implementation.” Spec.,
2:1-3.
Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356

5
11. The Specification describes the interpreter as device-independent
interface software, stating, “interpreter 2 acts as an interface and does
not distinguish between the actual type of device 3 connected to the
workstation 4. The interpreter 2 is a generic component, unaffected by
the specific type of reader or scanner 3 attached to the computer 4.”
Spec., 5:23-27.
12. The Specification describes “adaptive patient selection using different
technologies such as (a) a radio frequency identification (RFID) tags,
(b) bar code labels, (c) wireless tags, (d) smart cards and/or (e) other
similar types of technologies.” Spec., 4:10-13.
13. The Specification describes a plurality of different types of tag reader
devices as including “(a) an RFID tag compatible reader device, (b) a
bar code tag compatible reader device, and/or (c) a wireless tag
compatible reader device.” Spec., 7:7-9.

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 13 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations
to that of claim 1’s limitation of “an interpreter for using the acquired
configuration information in selecting a data decoding protocol from a
plurality of different decoding protocols used for decoding data from a
corresponding plurality of different types of patient identification tag reader
device and using the selected decoding protocol for processing patient
identification data received.” We construe these substantially similar
limitations as acquiring device-specific information (FF 1) and data used to
determine data format (FF 2), so that an appropriate decoding protocol can
be selected based on both the type of device from among a plurality of
Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356

6
different possible types and the determined data format (FF 3), using device-
independent interface software.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “Yarin and Condurso
nowhere shows, suggest or provides any enabling description of a system
that identifies the type of tag reader device and the decoding protocol to use
in decoding data from the particular type of tag reader ....” App. Br. 9. See
also App. Br. 15-16, 17.
For the limitation at issue, the Examiner variously directs us to
paragraph [0095] of Condurso (Ans. 4, 8-9, for claims 1 and 13, and Ans.
12, responding to argument) and Yarin column 6, last paragraph (Ans. 10-
11, for claim 18). We find that paragraph [0095] of Condurso discloses that
different types of identification systems could be used, specifically
mentioning bar code, magnetic stripes, and programmed punched holes. FF
4. We find that Yarin, column 6, discloses using radio frequency
identification (RFID) tags and readers (FF 5), as well as embodiments that
instead use “optical, magnetic, and capacitive sensors” (FF 6). However,
Condurso appears to disclose that alternative technologies can be utilized,
but only if they “are capable of interfacing and communicating” with the
existing system. FF 7. Also, Yarin appears to disclose that the data
decoding method is manually configured, based on the particular device
implemented. FF 8.
Based on the cited portions of Condurso and Yarin, we agree with the
Appellants that the combination does not disclose “using the acquired
configuration information in selecting a data decoding protocol” as required,
because neither Condurso nor Yarin discloses the need to have an interpreter
perform this “selecting” function. The systems of Yarin and Condurso are
Appeal 2011-008315
Application 11/556,356

7
manually configured for use with only one particular device at a time. No
selection is performed after the identification data is acquired, as recited in
the independent claims, as none is necessary: each device is only capable of
decoding one format of data. This is exactly the type of situation Appellants
describe in background (FF 9, 10) that led to the claimed device-independent
interface software to make the one system “adaptive” to data acquired from
various types of devices operating on various protocols/formats (FF 11-13).
For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) of independent claims 1, 13, and 18, and their dependent claims.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

dm