Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13171832 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
7553.00089c/11-0063 6196
EXAMINER
MARMOR II, CHARLES ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/171,832 06/29/2011
60683 7590
Robert Bosch LLC
1800 W. Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Stephen J. Brown
02/21/2017 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
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
Technology Center 3700
Before JOHN C. KERINS, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stephen J. Brown (Appellant) appeals under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to managing a medical condition. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for management of a medical condition,
comprising the steps of:
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
(a) measuring data representative of the medical condition
of a user using a measuring device, wherein said measuring
device is separate from a portable microprocessor-based unit;
(b) receiving said data at said portable microprocessor-
based unit from said measuring device;
(c) running a program of instructions that uses said data on
said portable microprocessor-based unit, wherein (i) said
program of instructions presents an interactive presentation to
said user via a display screen of said portable microprocessor-
based unit and (ii) said interactive presentation reinforces
compliance with a management plan to treat said medical
condition by presenting one or more potential future negative
consequences of the disease in said interactive presentation in
response to said data being outside a range; and
(d) transmitting one or more results of said interactive
presentation from said portable microprocessor-based unit to a
server computer via a communications network, wherein said
server computer is remotely located from said portable
microprocessor-based unit.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mazeski
Quy
Worthington
Goodman
REJECTIONS
US 4,332,566
US 5,601,435
US 5,822,715
US 5,827,180
June 1, 1982
Feb. 11, 1997
Oct. 13, 1998
Oct. 27, 1998
(I) Claims 1—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.1
1 The Examiner entered this rejection as a New Ground of Rejection on
pages 2—3 of the Answer (mailed Dec. 24, 2014).
2
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
(II) Claims 1—5, 8, 10—15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Worthington and Goodman.
(III) Claims 6, 7, 16, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Worthington, Goodman, and Quy.
(IV) Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Worthington, Goodman, and Mazeski
OPINION
Rejection (I)
The Examiner finds that “[t]he claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract
idea of a mathematical relationship relating medical data measured to
displayed consequences in an interactive display.” Ans. 3. The Examiner
states that any additional elements amount to “generic computer structure
that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities . . . [that] do not provide meaningful
limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application
of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than
the abstract idea itself.” Id.
Appellant argues that, “rather than simply a ‘generic computer
structure’ as alleged by the Examiner, claim 1 requires a variety of different
and specialized devices in a cohesive architecture.” Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellant asserts that “the Examiner’s argument ignores the specific
relationships and functions delegated by the claim to the various specialized
components which results in a novel manner in which an architecture
functions to provide a method for management of a medical condition.” Id.
3
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
at 4. Appellant thus argues that “contrary to the Examiner’s argument, all of
the devices required by the claim are not simply a single generic structure.
Nor are the various components individually generic computer structures.”
Id.
To determine whether a claim is directed to ineligible subject matter,
we apply the two-step test explained in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). First, we determine whether
the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an
abstract idea. Id. Next, we “examine the elements of the claim to determine
whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2357.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to the abstract
idea of the mathematical manipulation of measured medical data. In this
regard, “[wjithout additional limitations, a process that employs
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate
additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As for step two, we look to whether the steps recited in claim 1, taken
individually, and as an ordered combination, add enough to claim 1 to
transform the recited abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Here,
the Examiner concludes that claim 1 does not recite an element or
combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than a claim
upon the abstract idea itself, but does not make any findings addressing why
each element is considered “generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions.” See Reply Br. 3^4. Because the
4
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
Examiner has not provided an analysis as to why the recited measuring
device and portable microprocessor-based unit running a program of
instructions that presents an interactive presentation to a user via a display
screen of the portable microprocessor-based unit are found to be generic, the
basis for the Examiner’s findings are not apparent. We therefore reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as directed to patent ineligible subject
matter. Likewise, because the Examiner did not analyze any of claims 2—10,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as well. See id. at 9.
Rejection (II)
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “presenting one or more potential
future negative consequences of the disease in said interactive presentation
in response to said data being outside a range.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims
App.). Claim 11 includes a substantially similar limitation. Id. at 32—33.
The Examiner finds that Worthington discloses most of the limitations
of claim 1 including the above limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Worthington,
col. 6,11. 13—24). The Examiner considers that the device of Worthington
“is an interactive display because the user controls what is displayed and
what is input using the menu.” Id. The Examiner states that, “the potential
future negative consequence of the disease is being interpreted as the future
high glucose value in combination with the alert on a display (14).” Id.
Appellant argues that, “[t]he only consequence of data being outside
of a range as disclosed by Worthington, is the audible alerting of the
patient.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts that an audible alert is not an
“interactive presentation.” Id. Appellant thus argues that “because an
5
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
audible alert is not an interactive display, Worthington does not disclose
presentation of potential future negative consequences of the disease in said
interactive presentation in response to said data being outside a range as
required by claim 1Id.
The Examiner responds that “the display of the curve (50) provides
the potential negative future consequence of showing that the patient’s blood
glucose will fall outside of an optimal range and result in a hypoglycemic or
hyperglycemic event.” Ans. 4. The Examiner states that “[t]he alarm
further reinforces such potential future negative consequence.” Id.
Appellant replies that the Specification describes an embodiment of a
potential future negative consequence and discloses that in the course of a
video game a “plane or balloon crashes to visually depict a bad
consequence.” Reply Br. 12 (citing Spec. 27,11. 1—31; Figs. 14—15).
Appellant asserts that crashing is particular “to a situation wherein a data is
out of the desired range, not simply rendering of the data as being outside of
the range.” Id. Appellant thus argues that, “the specification describes a
‘negative consequence’ which is not the same as data outside of a range.”
Id. Appellant asserts that the claims must be construed “to require the
‘negative consequence’ to be something other than simply a depiction of the
‘data,’” so that all of the words in the claims are given meaning, and that to
do otherwise is unreasonable. Id.
We agree with Appellant that the claims require that the “negative
consequence” be something more than simply a depiction of data. The
Specification discloses an embodiment where a “pilot needs to follow proper
diet and exercise regimen to avoid crashing a plane or balloon which he is
6
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
flying.” Spec. 27,11. 6—8. If the pilot eats the wrong foods, this “causes
blood glucose level to increase and the plane or balloon starts gaining
altitude uncontrollably.” Id. at 27,11. 10—12. As such, one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that not only is there an increase (or decrease) in
blood glucose level, but also, there is the negative consequence of the plane
crashing, or gaining altitude uncontrollably. Worthington depicts a graph of
predicted blood glucose that is displayed as a curve over time. Worthington,
Fig. 1. The graph “includes a hypoglycemic line 52 indicating a
hypoglycemic threshold of the patient and a hyperglycemic line 53
indicating a hyperglycemic threshold of the patient.” Id. at col. 6,11. 17—20;
Fig. 1. Worthington also discloses an audio transducer “for audibly alerting
the patient when a predicted future blood glucose value lies below the
hypoglycemic threshold.” Id. at col. 6,11. 21—24. However, neither the alert
nor the hypoglycemic event triggering the alert presents a potential future
negative consequence of the disease. The hypoglycemic event is a threshold
level indicating that there is a low blood glucose level, and the alert is an
audible warning that the threshold has been exceeded, “alerting the patient to
possible future hypoglycemia.” Id. at col. 6,11. 58—60. That is, the data of
Worthington only indicates that the disease is present, which is why the
person is monitoring blood glucose in the first place. Worthington does not
present a potential future negative consequence of the disease if the disease
is not properly managed, i.e., when the data is outside the range. In other
words, “presenting one or more potential future negative consequences of
the disease in said interactive presentation in response to said data being
outside a range” is not the same as “showing that the patient’s blood glucose
7
Appeal 2015-004254
Application 13/171,832
will fall outside of an optimal range and result in a hypoglycemic or
hyperglycemic event.” Ans. 4.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11, as well as of claims 2—5, 8, 10, 12—15, 18, and 20,
dependent from claims 1 and 11, as unpatentable over Worthington and
Goodman.
Rejections (III) and (IV)
The Examiner does not rely on Quy or Mazeski in any manner that
would remedy the deficiencies in the rejection based on Worthington and
Goodman discussed supra. See Final Act. 5—6. Thus, for the same reasons,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 as
unpatentable over Worthington, Goodman, and Quy, and the rejection of
claims 9 and 19 as unpatentable over Worthington, Goodman, and Mazeski.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8