Ex Parte Batch

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2011

10726202 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD M. BATCH
____________

Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
KEN B. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

O’NEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Richard M. Batch (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bocionek (US 2002/0099273 A1, pub. Jul. 25,
2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202

2
The Invention
The claims on appeal relate to a system and method for analyzing
medical treatment data. Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below and with emphasis, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for analyzing medical treatment data
associated with medical treatments for a plurality
of patients to determine a medical treatment
guideline based on actual treatment of a plurality
of patients, and for updating at least one medical
device that is in communication with the system
with the guideline, the system comprising:
a memory for storing medical treatment data
associated with medical treatments actually
delivered to a plurality of patients, the medical
treatment data including a plurality of treatment
parameters for each of the plurality of patients and
a treatment parameter value associated with each
treatment parameter; and
a processor operatively connected to the
memory and configured to compile from the
medical treatment data a plurality of treatment
parameter values associated with a selected
treatment parameter, analyze the compiled
treatment parameter values, and determine a
medical treatment guideline in accordance with the
analysis, the medical treatment guideline
representing acceptable values for the selected
treatment parameter, and to automatically supply
the medical device with at least one revised
treatment guideline.

The Rejection
A review of the Examiner’s Answer reveals that the Examiner finds
that Bocionek’s automated device controllers 31 read on the processor
Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202

3
(emphasized supra) recited in the claims. In addition, the Examiner posits
that, given the Examiner’s interpretation of what a “guideline” constitutes
(Ans. 7) and finding that Bocionek’s decision support modules for
medication 15 and for operation 17 “automatically supply a medical device
such as an infusion pump [85] with an optimized drug dosage” (Ans. 4 and
see also Ans. 5), the claimed function of automatically supplying the
medical device with a revised treatment guideline, as recited in the
independent claims 1, 11, 12, and 23, is anticipated by Bocionek. The
Examiner further posits that Bocionek’s automated alarm module 29, which
activates based on vital signs, reads on the claimed function of the alarm
being activated when a medical treatment guideline having parameters
outside of the appropriate parameters is inputted into a medication device.
(Ans. 7 and see also Ans. 9).
Contentions
Appellant contends, in essence, that the control of a device as
described in Bocionek “is very different from, (patentably so) the automatic
supplying of the medical device with a revised treatment guideline, such as
provided in independent claims 1, 11, and 12.” App. Br. 13. Appellant
further contends that only an alarm of vital signs, and not medical treatment
guideline violations, occurs within Bocionek. App. Br. 17.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in light of the
arguments of both the Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this
review, we find that the lack of novelty is not established by a
preponderance of the evidence. Our reasons follow.
Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202

4
A claim under examination is given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying specification. In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To learn the
meaning of a term in the patent claim, the specification can be used as a
dictionary. See Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
A proper finding of anticipation requires a showing that each element
or limitation in a claim is present in the cited reference, either explicitly or
inherently, and that the elements must be arranged in the same manner as in
the claim under review. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.”
Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
The Examiner’s finding that controller 31 sends signals to infusion
pump 85 such that the infusion pump is automatically supplied with a
revised guideline is insufficiently supported by the record because the
finding relies on an overly broad interpretation of “guideline” and
insufficient findings and analysis to explain how the controller 31 is
configured to automatically supply the infusion pump 85 with a revised
guideline. The term “guideline” when properly construed in light of the
Specification is a range of values within prescribed limits or parameters for
an institution. Spec., page 15, para. [00049]. Bocionek’s infusion pump 85
is signaled by controller 31 to dispense an optimal drug dosage based on
decision functions 15 and 17. Bocionek, page 4, para. [0027]. An ordinary
and customary meaning for an optimal drug dosage is a particular value for a
particular patient with a particular condition within a given institution in
Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202

5
order to provide the patient with the optimal benefit. The Examiner does not
provide any persuasive technical reasoning that when reading Bocionek, a
person having ordinary skill in the art would consider an optimal drug
dosage any more than what is stated in the previous sentence. Further, the
Examiner has not provided any persuasive technical reasoning that
Bocionek’s infusion pump 85 supplying a signal from controller 31 in order
for the pump to apply the optimal drug dosage based on what the function 15
and 17 have determined is automatically supplying the infusion pump with a
revised “guideline.” As such, we concur with Appellant’s characterization
of Bocionek’s disclosure, viz., Bocionek uses the functions from 15 and 17
to determine the optimal drug dosage to which controller 31 instructs pump
85 to dispense to the patient. App. Br. 13. Thus, we find that the Examiner
has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Bocionek
anticipates the claimed processor being configured to automatically be
supplied with a revised treatment guideline, as set forth in claims 1, 11, and
12, when the term guideline is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification, i.e., a range of values within prescribed limits or
parameters for an institution.
We agree with Appellant that Bocionek fails to disclose an alarm
being activated when a medical treatment guideline having parameters
outside of the appropriate parameters is inputted into the medication device.
App. Br. 16-17. We find, as Appellant argues, Bocionek’s alarm generates
an alarm based on vital signs collected from patient monitoring units.
Bocionek, page 4, para. [0026]. The Examiner has not provided any
persuasive technical reasoning how the person of ordinary skill in the art
would find that alarming based on collected vital signs anticipates alarming
Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202

6
when a medical treatment guideline having parameters outside of the
appropriate parameters is inputted into the medication device, as called for
in claim 23. Moreover, the Examiner has not provided any persuasive
technical reasoning that what the Examiner asserts as satisfying the
medication device (units 81-87, Ans. 9) contains a library of appropriate
parameters (stored vital signs, id.) would be considered as such by a person
having ordinary skill in the art and utilized in the manner as called for in
claim 23. Thus, we find that the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Bocionek anticipates the claimed
medication device having an alarm and a library of appropriate parameters
such that the alarm is activated when a medical treatment guideline having
parameters outside of the appropriate parameters is inputted into the
medication device, as set forth in claim 23.

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Bocionek discloses the
infusion pump is automatically supplied with a revised treatment guideline,
or that Bocionek discloses an alarm being activated when a medical
treatment guideline having parameters outside of the appropriate parameters
is inputted into the medication device, when the term guideline is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, i.e., a range
of values within prescribed limits or parameters for an institution.

Appeal 2009-012671
Application 10/726,202

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bocionek is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh