Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11668103 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/668,103 01129/2007
60683 7590 02/29/2016
Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.
2400 GENG ROAD, SUITE 200
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen J. Brown
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.
06-0667 3263
EXAMINER
SALAD,ABDULLAHIELMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN J. BROWN
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to remotely querying an individual
regarding effects of a pharmaceutical drug by including a server and a
remote apparatus that receives computer executable commands from the
server over a communications channel (Abstract).
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for remotely querying an individual regarding effects of a
pharmaceutical drug, said system comprising:
a communications channel;
a remote interface device that generates data queries to be answered
by the individual;
a server that generates one or more computer executable commands
based on said data queries;
a remote hand-held apparatus that receives said one or more computer
executable commands from said server over said communications channel
and comprising at least one device jack that directly connects the remote
hand-held apparatus with a monitoring device,
wherein said computer executable commands represent said data
queries related to said pharmaceutical drug developed by a pharmaceutical
drug manufacturer, wherein said remote hand-held apparatus comprises a
processor that executes said computer executable commands to cause
communication of at least one of said data queries to said individual entered,
wherein said remote hand-held apparatus comprises a visual indicator
for visually notifying unanswered queries stored in said apparatus to said
individual,
wherein said server generates said computer executable commands
using a script generator and one or more templates,
wherein said server comprises a script assignor that assigns said
computer executable commands to said individual based on script
assignment information,
wherein said script assignment information is further based on a
unique identification code of said individual,
wherein said remote hand-held apparatus further (i) receives responses
to said at least one of said data queries from said individual, and (ii)
transmits said responses to said server,
wherein said remote hand-held apparatus further (i) receives
measurements from said monitoring device, and (ii) transmits said
measurements to said server,
and
wherein said server receives said responses and said measurements
and generates a report to be sent back to said remote hand-held apparatus.
2
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Policastro
Pross
Cohen
Iliff
us 5,012,411
us 5,343,869
us 6,014,626
US 2008/0051638 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Apr. 30, 1991
Sept. 6, 1994
Jan. 11, 2000
Feb.28,2008
Claims 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting. 1
Claims 1-21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iliff in view of Policastro and further in view of Pross and
Cohen.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Iliff in view of Policastro and further in view of Pross and
Cohen teaches the limitations of:
a server that generates one or more computer executable
commands based on said data queries;
a remote hand-held apparatus that receives said one or
more computer executable commands from said server over said
communications channel and comprising at least one device jack
that directly connects the remote hand-held apparatus with a
monitoring device,
1 A terminal disclaimer was entered on 10/19/2012, and thus, the
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is not before us for review.
3
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Cohen merely discloses that the interface server
handles the process of receiving answers from the patient system but
completely fails to teach or suggest generating queries and messages that are
being answered by an individual/patient as required by claim 1 (App. Br.
20). Appellant further argues that Iliff does not teach or suggest that scripts
created by the server are based on data queries received from a remote
interface (App. Br. 20-21; 24). Appellant further asserts that Appellant's
claimed subject matter there is no input by the patient/individual based on
which commands are generated (App. Br. 22). Appellant further asserts that
Iliff does not teach "said remote hand-held apparatus comprises a visual
indicator for visually notifying unanswered queries stored in said apparatus
' • 1 • 1. • 1 1.,., • 1 1 1 • ... / A.. T""t. I"\ Al'
IO sa10 mmv1aua1 · as reqmrea oy crn1m l ~App. tlf. L«+ J.
Appellant further asserts that Iliff does not teach the limitation of
"wherein said server comprises a script assignor that assigns said computer
executable commands to said individual based on script assignment
information, wherein said script assignment information is further based on a
unique identification code of said individual" as required by claim 1 (App.
Br. 26).
Appellant further asserts that Policastro fails to teach or suggest a
hand held device or portable device receiving physiological data input from
a monitoring device through an input (App. Br. 29).
Appellant further asserts that Pross teaches a connector non-directly
connected to a combiner via a cable, wherein the combiner in tum connects
4
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
with sensors or transducers applied to a patient (App. Br. 30). Therefore,
according to Appellant, Pross fails to teach direct connection of a remote
apparatus with a monitoring device (App. Br. 30).
We do not agree. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We adopt the Examiner's findings in the
Answer and the Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner relies on Illif, not Cohen, for teaching a server generating
computer executable commands using a script generator to provide questions to
the user (Ans. 10; i-fi-1678---680). We further agree with the Examiner's finding
that Illif teaches medical diagnostic scripts executed on a script engine to
generate medical advice or a diagnosis and generating a medical diagnosis by
selectively executing at least one diagnostic code portion based on at least a
portion of the received information, and transmitting a medical diagnosis to the
user over the public data network (Ans. 10; i-fi-131-32). We also agree with the
Examiner that Illif teaches a remote apparatus (Final Act. 5, Fig. 25a, element
2116, Fig. 28, element 2356) adapted to receive one or more executable
commands from the server (Final Act. 5; Figs. 25a, 28, elements 2108/2110)
over a communications channel (Final Act. 5; Fig. 25a, element 2102).
We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Illif teaches a visual
indicator for visually notifying unanswered queries stored in said apparatus
to said individual, (FIG. 25a, the user/patient 2114, include diagnostic tools
to include visual analysis and "graphic user interface" (GUI) (Final Act. 6;
i-fi-1621,634)). We note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation any
queries posted, even the ones posted for the first time to the patient,
constitute "unanswered queries" until they are answered.
5
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
We also disagree with Appellant that Iliff does not teach the script
assignment information being further based on a unique identification code
of the individual as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 26). We agree with the
Examiner that Iliff teaches the script assignment information being further
based on a unique identification code of the individual (Ans. 10; if 256).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Policastro teaches a remote
apparatus being a hand-held portable apparatus (10) for monitoring, storing
and transmitting detected physiological information, having an input that
receives input from monitoring device (32) (Final Act. 7; see Fig. 1 and
col. 3, 1. 60-col. 4, 1. 3, and col. 8, 11. 47---68, and col. 10, 11. 30-43). Thus,
we disagree with Appellant's argument that Policastro fails to teach or
suggest a hand held device or portable device receiving physiological data
input from a monitoring device through an input (App. Br. 29).
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Pross teaches a remote
portable hand-held apparatus 1 including at least one device jack 7 that
directly connects the remote hand-held apparatus l with a monitoring device
10 (Figs. 1-2b ).
Appellant further argues that claims 2, 3, and 5 are not taught by Illif,
but fails to state why (App. Br. 31 ). Appellant presents no substantive
arguments regarding these claims other than merely restating the limitations
called for in the claims. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(vii) ("A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Nonetheless,
6
Appeal2013-009249
Application 11/668, 103
we agree with the Examiner's finding (Ans. 13) that Iliff teaches audible
processing (i-f 78) which suggests audio notification of the queries.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5.
We also affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 6, 7-21 for the same
reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Iliff in
view of Policastro and further in view of Pross, and Cohen teaches the
limitations of:
a server that generates one or more computer executable
commands based on said data queries;
a remote hand-held apparatus that receives said one or
more computer executable commands from said server over said
communications channel and comprising at least one device jack
that directly connects the remote hand-held apparatus with a
monitoring device,
as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
7