Ex Parte Avinash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12845853 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

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