Ex Parte Brummel et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 2, 201109950242 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte TONY BRUMMEL, BRAD EICHHORST, and CHRISTOPHER ALBAN ___________ Appeal 2010-010363 Application 09/950,242 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010363 Application 09/950,242 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Tony Brummel et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2010) of the final rejection of claims 51-66. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2010). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is “an intelligent system and method for managing and navigating patient information.” Specification 1:12-14. Claim 51, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 51. A system for assisting healthcare providers in entering patient visit data in a database comprising: a database holding patient visit data that provides clinical information about a patient visit to a healthcare provider and at least one of other patient information and healthcare provider information; a set of section-definition templates defining at least one section for an entry of patient visit data by the healthcare provider; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Mar. 15, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed May 10, 2010). Appeal 2010-010363 Application 09/950,242 3 a visit template engine communicating with the set of section-definition templates and operating to: (1) automatically select section-definition templates from the set of section definition templates to create a visit template having sections; (2) monitor entry of patient visit information by the healthcare provider into the sections of the visit template; and (3) automatically modify the selection of the section templates when patient visit information is entered into the sections to modify the sections in response to patient visit information entered into sections of the visit template by the healthcare provider, to provide different sections in the visit template for the entry of patient visit data. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Evans US 6,266,675 B1 Jul. 24, 2001 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 51-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Evans. ISSUE The issue is whether claims 51-66 are anticipated by Evans under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Specifically, the issue is whether Evans describes a visit template engine that operates to: App App supp Quig evid 1 eal 2010-0 lication 09 au te in to th pr th We find orted by a g, 849 F.2 entiary sta . Figur 10363 /950,242 tomaticall mplates w to the sect patient vi e visit tem ovide diff e entry of that the fo t least a pr d 1422, 14 ndard for p e 12 of Ev y modify t hen patien ions to mo sit informa plate by th erent secti patient vis FINDIN llowing en eponderan 27 (Fed. C roceeding ans is repr 4 he selectio t visit info dify the se tion enter e healthca ons in the it data. GS OF FA umerated ce of the e ir. 1988) s before th oduced be n of the s rmation is ctions in r ed into sec re provide visit templ CT findings o vidence. (explainin e Office). low. ection entered esponse tions of r, to ate for f fact (FF) Ethicon, In g the gene are c. v. ral Appeal 2010-010363 Application 09/950,242 5 Figure 12 depicts a flowchart of a method for entering patient data. Col. 15, ll. 21-23. 2. The method depicted in Figure 12 includes displaying an error message and prompting for correction of entered patient information when previously entered patient information is improper. Col. 15, ll. 31-38. 3. The method depicted in Figure 12 does not include a step of modifying the selection of the activity fields in response to the entered patient information. PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted). ANALYSIS Apparatus Claims 51-58 The Examiner and the Appellants dispute whether the method depicted in Figure 12 of Evans describes a visit template engine that operates to: automatically modify the selection of the section templates when patient visit information is entered into the sections to modify the sections in response to patient visit information entered into sections of the visit template by the healthcare provider, to Appeal 2010-010363 Application 09/950,242 6 provide different sections in the visit template for the entry of patient visit data. See Br. 11-14 and Answer 6-7. We find that the method depicted in Figure 12 and discussed in column 15, lines 21-50 of Evans, which was relied upon by the Examiner (see Answer 6-7), does not anticipate a visit template engine which has a structure as required by the limitation above. Evans’ description of correcting entered patient information by displaying an error message (step 1225) and prompting the user to enter date in the activity fields (step 1212) (see FF 1 and 2) does not describe a visit template engine that is structured to modify the selection of the section templates in response to the entered patient visit information to provide different section. Evans’ method of Figure 12 does not include any step of modifying the selection of the activity fields (i.e. the section templates) in response to the entered patient information to provide different activity fields. FF 3. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 51, and claims 52-58, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Evans. Method Claims 59-66 Claim 592 recites a method that includes a step of: 2 We note that claim 59 listed in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief is not the currently pending version. The currently pending version of claim 59 is listed in the Amendment filed on Oct. 13, 2009. In our Decision, we will consider the currently pending claim 59 and not the version listed in the Claims Appendix. Appeal 2010-010363 Application 09/950,242 7 automatically modifying the selection of the section templates comprising the visit template during the entry of patient visit information into the sections by the user in response to patient visit information entered into sections of the visit template by the user, the modification changing sections in the visit template that receive patient visit data. The Appellants and the Examiner also dispute whether this step is anticipated by Evans. See Br. 11-14 and Answer 6-7. For the same reasons as discussed above, we find that the method depicted in Figure 12 of Evans relied upon by the Examiner, does not anticipate this step. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 59, and claims 60-66, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Evans. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 51-66 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). REVERSED erc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation