Ex Parte Boing

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2009

10833920 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte DIETER BOING 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-001687 11
Application 10/833,920 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided: September 18, 2009 16
____________________ 17
18
19
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU 20
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 21
22
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 23
24
25
DECISION ON APPEAL 26
27
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 28
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 29
of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).30
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

2
Appellant invented systems and methods for monitoring examination 1
and/or treatment activities embodying a number of different work processes 2
regarding a specific patient in a medical system with a number of networked 3
modalities. The invention also concerns a medical system with a number of 4
networked modalities for the implementation of examination and/or 5
treatment activities, each of which embodies a number of work processes 6
(Spec. 1:8-13). 7
Claim 1 under appeal is further illustrative of the claimed invention as 8
follows: 9
1. A method for monitoring medical examination or 10
medical treatment activities for a specific patient, each activity 11
comprising a plurality of different work processes performed in 12
a medical system having a plurality of networked modalities, 13
comprising the steps of: 14
electronically associating a time ascertainment unit with 15
each of said modalities and, in the time ascertainment unit for 16
that modality, automatically electronically generating time data 17
comprising a first designation of at least one of a starting point 18
and a duration of a planned work process occupying that 19
modality, a second designation of an estimated remaining time 20
for said work process that is repeatedly re-estimated and 21
updated during said work process at said modality after said 22
work process has begun at said modality, and a third 23
designation of completion of said work process at said 24
modality; and 25
electronically automatically generating a personal time 26
lapse plan for said specific patient from said time data 27
generated by each of said time ascertainment units; and 28
graphically displaying said time lapse plan. 29
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 30
appeal is: 31
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

3
Bergman US 4,866,704 Sep. 12, 1989 1
Garcia US 5,065,315 Nov. 12, 1991 2
Reeds US 5,153,919 Oct. 6, 1992 3
Eisenberg US 5,572,671 Nov. 5, 1996 4
Detjen US 5,970,466 Oct. 19, 1999 5
Rattner US 6,421,649 B1 Jul. 16, 2002 6
7
The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 5, 7, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 8
103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Rattner; claim 3 under 9
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of Rattner and 10
Reeds; claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia, 11
Rattner, Eisenberg, and Detjen; claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 12
as being unpatentable over Garcia, Rattner, and Detjen; and claim 13 under 13
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia, Rattner, and 14
Bergman. 15
We AFFIRM. 16
17
ISSUES 18
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in finding that a 19
combination of Garcia and Rattner renders obvious automatically 20
electronically generating time data comprising a second designation of an 21
estimated remaining time for said work process that is repeatedly re-22
estimated and updated during said work process at said modality after said 23
work process has begun at said modality, as recited in independent claims 1 24
and 10, because Rattner does not disclose automatically re-estimating and 25
updating the remaining time after the work process has begun? 26
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in finding that a 27
combination of Garcia, Rattner, Eisenberg, and Detjen renders obvious the 28
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

4
subject matter of dependent claim 4, because (i) indicating a period of 1
unavailability, as set forth in Detjen, does not correspond to transmitting an 2
error status from the time ascertainment unit for the modality in which the 3
error occurred to said time visualization unit, and (ii) the graphical display in 4
Detjen is person-specific and not modality-specific? 5
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in finding that Detjen 6
discloses estimating at least one of said duration of said planned work 7
process and said time of completion of said work process that has begun 8
based on respective times required for a plurality of completed similar work 9
processes, as recited in dependent claim 6? 10
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in finding that Detjen 11
discloses a plurality of different display formats corresponding to the 12
planned work process performed, as recited in dependent claims 8 and 9? 13
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in finding that a 14
combination of Garcia, Rattner, Reed, Eisenberg, Detjen, and Bergman 15
render obvious the subject matter of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 13, 16
because none of Reed, Eisenberg, Detjen, and Bergman is cited as 17
remedying the deficiencies of Garcia and Rattner? 18
19
FINDINGS OF FACT 20
Specification 21
Appellant invented systems and methods for monitoring examination 22
and/or treatment activities embodying a number of different work processes 23
regarding a specific patient in a medical system with a number of networked 24
modalities. The invention also concerns a medical system with a number of 25
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

5
networked modalities for the implementation of examination and/or 1
treatment activities, each of which embodies a number of work processes 2
(Spec. 1:8-13). 3
4
Garcia 5
Garcia discloses a central computer 26 that schedules the time each 6
test and therapy is to occur for the entire hospital so as to fully utilize 7
hospital equipment, while at the same time not delaying for unacceptably 8
long periods the time required to perform the test and therapies (col. 6, ll. 9
47-54). 10
When a physician determines that a test should be performed STAT, 11
indicating immediately, ASAP (as soon as possible), indicating the same 12
day, or routine, indicating during the next available time slot, computer 26 13
may have to reschedule previously scheduled tests. As the tests and 14
therapies are completed, the schedule may be revised to minimize patient 15
waiting where the department is behind schedule, or to minimize technician 16
waiting if a department is ahead of schedule (col. 6, l. 57 through col. 7, l. 17
3). 18
19
Rattner 20
Rattner discloses that if an operation in operating room 15 is 21
extended, and the subsequent operation in the operating room 15 is 22
postponed a certain amount of time, then the surgeon working in the 23
operating room 15 can enter this information via the data processing unit 1 24
of the operating room 15 (col. 4, ll. 37-44). 25
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

6
The central computer 13 registers this change, updates the time 1
sequences and makes the updated time sequences immediately available to 2
all data processing units 1 to 12 (col. 4, ll. 46-49). 3
4
Detjen 5
Detjen discloses computer-implemented methods and systems for 6
scheduling appointments with clients and customers at medical offices, auto 7
repair facilities, beauty salons, and other types of businesses (col. 1, ll. 6-9). 8
Detjen also discloses color-coded or shaded vertical bar graphs 9
representing time occupied by a long appointment, signifying unavailability 10
(col. 5, ll. 16-28). 11
Using an “Add Appointment” command 131, a user may select a type 12
of appointment 65 that lists a standard duration for that appointment type 65 13
(col. 6, ll. 30-40). 14
15
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 16
Claim Construction 17
While the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim 18
term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims. 19
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 20
2005). 21
22
Obviousness 23
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references 24
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 25
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). 26
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

7
1
ANALYSIS 2
Re-Estimating and Updating 3
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by 4
Appellant’s argument that combined teachings of Garcia and Rattner does 5
not render obvious automatically electronically generating time data 6
comprising a second designation of an estimated remaining time for said 7
work process that is repeatedly re-estimated and updated during said work 8
process at said modality after said work process has begun at said modality, 9
as recited in independent claims 1 and 10, because Rattner does not disclose 10
automatically re-estimating and updating the remaining time after the work 11
process has begun (App. Br. 5-14). Independent claims 1 and 10 recite that 12
the time data is automatically electronically generated. However, 13
independent claims 1 and 10 do not recite that the repeatedly re-estimating 14
and updating during the work process is also automatically electronically 15
generated. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d at 1231. 16
Accordingly, as long as the time data from the re-estimating and updating is 17
automatically electronically generated, which Rattner discloses through the 18
updating of time sequences by control computer 13, the re-estimating and 19
updating may be performed by a physician, as disclosed in Rattner, and still 20
meet the recitations of independent claims 1 and 10. 21
22
Claim 4 23
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by 24
Appellant’s argument that a combination of Garcia, Rattner, Eisenberg, and 25
Detjen does not render obvious the subject matter of dependent claim 4, 26
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

8
because(i) indicating a period of unavailability, as set forth in Detjen, does 1
not correspond to transmitting an error status from the time ascertainment 2
unit for the modality in which the error occurred to said time visualization 3
unit, and (ii) the graphical display in Detjen is person-specific and not 4
modality-specific (App. Br. 15). Initially, we note that Eisenberg is cited for 5
disclosing an error status. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Detjen is cited 6
for transmitting generic information, such as the error status of Eisenberg, 7
from a time ascertainment unit to a time visualization unit. Detjen discloses 8
displaying time information in vertical bar graphs. As the time information 9
necessarily had to have been transmitted from a computer containing the 10
time information to the graphical display, Detjen inherently discloses 11
transmitting information from a time ascertainment unit to a time 12
visualization unit, as recited in dependent claim 4. 13
Moreover, the coded or shaded vertical bar graphs representing time 14
occupied by a long appointment, signifying unavailability, in Detjen are not 15
person specific as asserted by Appellant. Each color-coded or shaded time 16
slot represents an appointment scheduled for a different person. 17
Accordingly, Detjen does disclose a modality-specific graphical display, 18
albeit for only one modality. 19
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

9
Claim 6 1
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by 2
Appellant’s argument that Detjen does not disclose estimating at least one of 3
said duration of said planned work process and said time of completion of 4
said work process that has begun based on respective times required for a 5
plurality of completed similar work processes, as recited in dependent claim 6
6 (App. Br. 16-18). The Appellant appears to be asserting that Detjen does 7
not disclose re-estimating and updating during the work process at least one 8
of said duration of said planned work process and said time of completion of 9
said work process. However, Rattner has been cited as disclosing this aspect 10
(Ex. Ans. 5-6). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Instead, Detjen is cited 11
for disclosing estimating durations and times based on respective times 12
required for a plurality of completed similar work processes. Detjen 13
discloses such an aspect via standard durations for appointment types 65, 14
which are inherently derived from past completed similar work processes. 15
16
Claims 8 and 9 17
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by 18
Appellant’s argument that Detjen does not disclose a plurality of different 19
display formats corresponding to the planned work process performed, as 20
recited in dependent claims 8 and 9 (App. Br. 16-18). Detjen discloses that 21
the disclosed computer-implemented methods and systems for scheduling 22
appointments with clients and customers may be adapted for medical offices, 23
auto repair facilities, beauty salons, and other types of businesses. While 24
Detjen discloses exemplary embodiments for a veterinary office, the display 25
formats and options for the scheduling system would necessarily be different 26
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

10
for medical offices, auto repair facilities, beauty salons, and other types of 1
businesses. For example, the columns “Species, Sex, Date of Birth, Age, 2
Weight” of Figure 6 would not be applicable for an auto repair facility (Ex. 3
Ans. 22-23). 4
5
References 6
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by 7
Appellant’s argument that a combination of Garcia, Rattner, Reed, 8
Eisenberg, Detjen, and Bergman does not render obvious the subject matter 9
of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13, because none of Reed, Eisenberg, 10
Detjen, and Bergman is cited as remedying the deficiencies of Garcia and 11
Rattner (App. Br. 14-15, 15, 16-18, 18). As the Appellant has not shown 12
how the combination of Garcia and Rattner does not render obvious the 13
subject matter of independent claims 1 and 10, none of Reed, Eisenberg, 14
Detjen, and Bergman is required to remedy any alleged deficiencies. 15
16
CONCLUSION OF LAW 17
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner 18
erred in rejecting claims 1-13. 19
20
DECISION 21
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 is affirmed. 22
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 23
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 24
25
AFFIRMED 26
Appeal 2009-001687
Application 10/833,920

11
hh 1
2
SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP 3
PATENT DEPARTMENT 4
233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600 5
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473 6
7
8
9