Ex Parte Auer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2009

09942516 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOHN R. AUER
__________________

Appeal 2009-0521
Application 09/942,516
Technology Center 3600
________________

Decided: 1 March 30, 2009
________________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-0521
Application 09/942,516

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). (2002).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. In an internet compatible system for displaying medical information
derived from a plurality of sources, apparatus comprising:
an acquisition processor for acquiring data associated with a patient
from at least one of the plurality of sources, the processor prioritizing the
acquired data for display in a desired order;
a display; and
a menu generating processor for generating a composite window
including a first panel for displaying on said display user specified parameters
of said ordered acquired data in a graphical format, a second panel for
displaying user specified parameters of said ordered acquired data in tabular
format, and a third panel for displaying a user selected one of user-entered
medical notes, medical laboratory results, and ventilator data;
wherein said second panel includes a slider bar for navigating through
the user specified parameters in tabular format; and
said first panel includes a cursor, said cursor being controlled by said
slider bar, said slider bar controlling said cursor and enabling concurrent user
navigation in both said first and second panels through said user specified
parameters in both graphical format and tabular format.
The references set forth below are relied upon as evidence of
anticipation:

Wallace US 6,305,373 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Schoenberg US 2005/0125256 A1 Jun. 9, 2005

Appeal 2009-0521
Application 09/942,516

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Wallace.
Claims 1, 11, and 18, are the sole independent claims from which all
dependent appealed claims depend.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 require:
said first panel includes a cursor, said cursor being controlled by said
slider bar, said slider bar controlling said cursor and enabling concurrent
user navigation in both said first and second panels through said user
specified parameters in both graphical format and tabular format.

With respect to the above limitation, the Examiner maintains that
Schoenberg discloses this feature:
Examiner respectfully submits that paragraph 0031 of the specification
of this application recite a time slider bar, so that (0031)"...The user
may then use time slider bar 352 to focus on the specific time period
within the days specified in the date navigator 330, so that the
particular time period of interest may be displayed on the screen." In
paragraph 0054 Schoenberg teaches multiple graphical displays of
patient information, which can be viewed simultaneously (paragraphs
0015 and 0054) and a time scale as a slider bar, the table below the
graph includes numerical data in one minute intervals of time and time
scale can be changed for any of (sic, or) all the images, a cursor in
paragraph 0037 and in paragraph 0052 mutiple (sic) simultaneous
displays, and tabular, graphical or graphical/tabular display. (Answer,
10).

Initially, we agree with the Examiner that the multiple graphical
displays to which the Examiner refers are presented simultaneously on one
screen (Schoenberg ,¶ [0054]). However, Schoenberg discloses that each
Appeal 2009-0521
Application 09/942,516

4
display has “appropriate icons at the right side and bottom of each display”
(Schoenberg, ¶[0055]) which independently control functions, such as,
scrolling or maximizing. Schoenberg, in Figure 2B, so illustrates a screen
with four displays, with each of the four displays shown having a separate
time scale at the bottom thereof. As the Examiner points out, Schoenberg
discloses that the time scale “for any or all of the images” can be selectively
changed by a user. (Schoenberg, ¶[0054]) But, since each display panel is
illustrated with its own time scale, and Schoenberg specifically discloses that
“[e]ach display can be scrolled through independently to review all the
information contained therein” (Schoenberg, ¶[0054]), we read Schoenberg as
disclosing that each time scale is likewise independently controlled relative
the other time scales which may be shown simultaneously together on the
screen. Thus, while any or all simultaneously displayed panel time scales
may be independently changed, we do not find that Schoenberg discloses or
makes inherent one slider controlling a cursor which enables concurrent user
navigation in both said first and second panels. As such, we conclude that
Schoenberg fails to disclose said first panel includes a cursor, said cursor
being controlled by said slider bar, said slider bar controlling said cursor
and enabling concurrent user navigation in both said first and second panels
through said user specified parameters in both graphical format and tabular
format.
The Examiner relies on Wallace only to teach ventilator data
comprising ventilator parameters (Answer 5). Since Schoenberg does not
Appeal 2009-0521
Application 09/942,516

5
disclose the limitation of said slider bar controlling said cursor and enabling
concurrent user navigation in both said first and second panels through said
user specified parameters in both graphical format and tabular format, but in
fact teaches away from this limitation as discussed above, and Wallace is
silent on such a feature, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims
1, 11, and 18. See United States v. Adams, 86 S.Ct. 708 (1966) (“…when the
prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery of
a successful means of combining them is more likely to be unobvious”).
Since claims 2-3, 6, 8-10, 21 and 23 depend from claims 1, 11, and 18,
and since we cannot sustain the rejection of the independent claims, the
rejection of these claims likewise cannot be sustained.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of
Wallace is reversed.

REVERSED
JRG

JACK SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES
1350 BROADWAY, SUITE 1510
NEW YORK, NY 10018