Ex Parte Coulter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12791208 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121791,208 06/01/2010
28289 7590 02/18/2016
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P,C
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BL VD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Craig Coulter
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.
6042 - 101519 2224
EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patents@webblaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ROBERT CRAIG COULTER, RALPH GROSS,
JEAN-FRANCOIS LALONDE, and
BARBARA ANNE-MARIE SIMARD
Appeal2014-001096 1
Application 12/791,208
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-32. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to medical clinical logistics
management. Spec. para. 3.
1 The Appellants identify Disruptive IP, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2014-001096
Application 12/791,208
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of controlling patient care logistics comprising:
(a) providing a programmed computer;
(b) providing a plurality of user devices in operative
communication with the computer;
( c) under the control of a logistics software program, the
computer determining for each user device a unique priority
sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device,
wherein each unique priority sorted list of queue tasks is
determined on the basis of criterion that affect the
determination of the priority sorted lists of queue tasks for the
plurality of user devices;
( d) dispatching to each user device the unique priority
sorted list of queue tasks determined for said user device in step
(c);
( e) the computer receiving a change in at least one
criterion;
(t) under the control of the logistics software program,
the computer determining for each user device on the basis of
the change received in step ( e) either an amendment to the
unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said
user device determined in step ( c) or a new unique priority
sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device; and
(g) dispatching to each user device the unique priority
sorted list of queue tasks determined for said user device in step
(t).
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Johnson (US 2008/0139898 Al, pub. June 12, 2008) and Mohanty
(US 2007/0180084 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2007).
We AFFIRM.
2
Appeal2014-001096
Application 12/791,208
ANALYSIS
Claims 1. 2. 4. 6-9. 11-17. 20-24. and 27-32
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 24 together as a
group. Appeal Br. 7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson and
Mohanty fail to disclose "determining for each user device a unique priority
sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device," as claimed,
because, according to Appellants, Johnson updates a single display, and not
a plurality of devices with unique lists of tasks. Appeal Br. 5-7, Reply Br.
2---6. Appellants seemingly argue that Johnson teaches a single device
informing a single technician of a single list of tasks to perform for an entire
patient population of a hospital. Reply Br. 6. We disagree.
Johnson discloses use in a hospital (para. 2), by telemetry-monitoring
technicians (para. 3), a system that "may be configured according to beds,
wards, staffing, and/or patient management guidelines .... " Para. 26.
Johnson discloses "adding new tasks for all patients being monitored 126,
automatically updating task statuses 100, and updating and re-prioritizing a
task list 102, for example, according to adaptive priority rules 104." Id.
Johnson further discloses a "screen update interval" before updating the list
in the tele-tech's screen. Id. Johnson does not limits its computer
architecture, and discloses servers and multiple processing systems (id. at
para. 29), and information forwarded to a "network node" that serves "a
ward or floor of a hospital" and makes available at the network node "patient
alarms" and other information for the tele-tech. Id. at para. 14.
3
Appeal2014-001096
Application 12/791,208
The skilled artisan would thus recognize that in a hospital
environment, where a system is configured by "beds, wards, staffing" and
other management guidelines, more than a single technician would be
expected to be involved in monitoring telemetry devices. The artisan would
recognize that if work responsibilities and tasks are divided among multiple
technicians, a unique task list would be displayed for each user, based on the
"beds, wards, and staffing" that are appropriate for each user, or at least that
such a display of information would have been within the abilities of one of
ordinary skill. While Appellants may be asserting that Johnson only
displays a single task list for all technicians, and does not indicate to an
individual technician which tasks are for them to perform and which are for
a different technician, we are unpersuaded such a position is credible given
that the system is configured by "beds, wards, staffing" and other
management guidelines.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson
teaches away from "a unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user,"
as claimed, because Johnson has telemetry technicians utilize "hospital
paging system 44." Reply Br. 5. Johnson discloses the "tele-tech notifies
the appropriate medical staff, such a clinician, for example, via paging
system 44" (para. 25), and thus uses the paging system to communicate
downstream to, for example, doctors. We are unclear as to how this teaches
away from any features of the tele-tech's screen. Indeed, we are unclear as
to why they could not be used together.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, 16, and 24,
as well as of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 20-23, and 27-32
that are not separately argued.
4
Appeal2014-001096
Application 12/791,208
Claims 3. 10. 18. and 26
Appellants argue the claims together as a group (Appeal Br. 9), so we
select claim 3 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Dependent claim 3 recites "the computer responsive to user activation of a
first one of the user devices for causing said first user device to be coupled
in communication with a second one of the user devices."
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to
disclose the claim language. Appeal Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 8. Johnson
discloses "tele-tech notifies the appropriate medical staff, such a clinician,
for example, via paging system 44" (para. 25), and that the computer the
tele-tech utilizes is connected to a "communication network or link" (para.
28). Johnson thus discloses the tele-tech system, as the first user device, is
connected to the network, as the second user device. For this reason, we
sustain the rejection of claims 3, 10, 18, and 26.
Claims 5. 19. and 25
Appellants argue the claims together as a group (Appeal Br. 10), so
we select claim 5 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Dependent claim 5 recites "wherein the computer determines the second
user device to connect in communication with the first user device based on
a role of a user of the second user device."
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to
disclose the claim language. Appeal Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 9. Johnson
discloses contacting the hospital paging system "as a special manual inquiry
concerning whether the action is completed." Para. 26. The tele-tech's
5
Appeal2014-001096
Application 12/791,208
system, as the first user device, thus connects to the second user device of
the paging system, based on the role of the user of the paging system to
perform the listed actions from the task list. For this reason, we sustain the
rejection of claims 5, 19, and 25.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6