Ex Parte Avinash et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 3, 201612845853 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/845,853 07/29/2010 Gopal Biligeri Avinash 61604 7590 05/05/2016 GE Healthcare, IP Department 9900 W. Innovation Drive Mail Code RP2131 Wauwatosa, WI 53226 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. 243999-1 (8081.547) 1784 EXAMINER SAEED, USMAAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2016 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): HCTechnologies@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GOP AL BILIGERI A VIN ASH, ERIC DAVID KIGER GARLAND, and ANANTH P. MOHAN Appeal2014-000412 Application 12/845,853 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to the original Specification ("Spec.," filed July 29, 2010); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Jan. 14, 2013); Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 17, 2013); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 18, 2013) and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 18, 2013). Appeal2014-000412 Application 12/845,853 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to statistical analysis of a patient's clinical test data records in relation to records collected from a sample population and the visual display of the analysis results. Spec. i-fi-128, 33--40, Figs. 9, 10. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 8. A method comprising: accessing a first dataset comprising results from a clinical test having a plurality of possible outcomes corresponding thereto, the first dataset acquired from a reference population; calculating a reference index from the first dataset, the reference index representing a distribution of the first dataset over the plurality of possible outcomes; accessing a second dataset comprising a patient outcome of the plurality of possible outcomes from the clinical test, the second dataset acquired from a patient of interest; calculating a patient index from the second dataset, the patient index representing a disagreement between the patient outcome and the distribution of the first dataset; calculating a deviation score based on the reference index and the patient index; and outputting a visualization of the deviation score, the visualization depicting a relevance of the patient outcome of the second dataset. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stead et al. (US 2006/0287890 Al; publ. Dec. 21, 2006) ("Stead"), in view of Symmans et al. (US 2007/0134688 Al; publ. June 14, 2007) ("Symmans"). 2 Appeal2014-000412 Application 12/845,853 Claims 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stead, in view of Symmans, further in view of Pressman et al. (US 2003/0190602 Al; publ. Oct. 9, 2003) ("Pressman"). Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stead, in view of Symmans, in view of Pressman, and further in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2011/0212090 Al; publ. Sept. 1, 2011) ("Pedersen"). ANALYSIS We concur with Appellants' contention regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 14 that Stead fails to disclose various claim limitations directed to a distribution of a reference population dataset. App. Br. 9-10, 16. Specifically, Appellants argue, "[t ]hus, while the cited portions of Stead et al. may include the terms 'distribution' and 'distributed,' the disclosure of Stead et al. in no way relates to identifying a distribution of enumerated test results ... [and] further does not teach 'calculating a relevance index based on the distribution of reference data." App. Br. 9. During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The broadest reasonable interpretation criterion should not to be confused with the broadest possible interpretation. The meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, where the focus of the inquiry is what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, when interpreting the term in view of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, 3 Appeal2014-000412 Application 12/845,853 Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Jn re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Consistent with Appellants' Specification, the "distribution" as claimed relates to statistical analysis of data - i.e., statistical distribution of data. The portions of Stead relied upon by the Examiner teach a computing environment in which data storage or data processing is implemented according to a distributed computing architecture (e.g., dispersed storage and/ or processing coupled through networks). Final Act. 19, Ans. 8 (citing Stead i-fi-16, 38). We agree with Appellants that, although the cited portions of Stead refer to terms "distribution" and "distributed," the portions of Stead referenced by the Examiner are unrelated to statistical data distribution as claimed and as disclosed in the Specification. Id. at 9; see also Spec. i-fi-135- 39. Therefore, we find teachings of Stead are distinguishable from claim limitations directed to "calculating a reference index from the first dataset, the reference index representing a distribution of the first dataset over the plurality of possible outcomes," as recited in independent claim 8 and similar recitations in independent claims 1 and 14. To the extent Appellants raise additional issues in the Briefs, we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. Therefore, we do not reach any additional issues. On this record, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 14 or the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 respectively depending therefrom. 4 Appeal2014-000412 Application 12/845,853 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. 2 REVERSED 2 Should there be further prosecution of this Application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014, as updated by Interim Eligibility Guidance, July 30, 2015. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation