Ex Parte Brummel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 2, 2011

09950242 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2011)

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