Ex Parte Dicks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

11877966 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
1001.004.999 8794
EXAMINER
KANAAN, MAROUN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/877,966 10/24/2007
7590
Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
2216 Beacon Lane
Falls Church, VA 22043
12/27/2016
Kent Dicks
12/27/2016 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 KENT DICKS, RALPH KENT,
THOMAS CROSLEY, and TERRY BARTLETT
Appeal 2014-007438
Application 11/877,966
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’
final decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—8, 10, 11, 14—16, 18—20, 22 and 23.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2014-007438
Application 11/877,966
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving wirelessly, by a computer, patient information
from each of a plurality of medical devices wherein each
medical device operates on a different communications
protocol, the patient information from each of the plurality of
medical devices including data related to the medical device;
determining, by the computer, based upon the patient
information and the data related to the medical device received
by the computer, a data collection frequency for the data related
to the medical device for each of the plurality of medical
devices;
determining, by the computer, whether the data collection
frequency for each of the plurality of medical devices is within
an expected frequency threshold;
analyzing, by the computer, the patient information
received from each of the plurality of medical devices to
identify a condition for the patient;
determining, by the computer, whether the data related to
the medical device for each of the plurality of medical devices
is within a predetermined range;
in response to determining whether the data related to the
medical device for each of the plurality of medical devices is
within the predetermined range, determining, by the computer,
whether one or more patients is taking one or more medications
in compliance with a prescribed medical treatment;
creating, by the computer, a report based on the patient
information, the frequency threshold and the patient condition;
and
storing, by the computer, at least one of the patient
information, the patient condition, and the created report as part
of a medical record.
2
Appeal 2014-007438
Application 11/877,966
Appellants appeal the following rejection(s):
1. Claims 1—4, 6—8, 10, 11, 14—16, 18—20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35
U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scanned, Jr (US
2006/0154642 Al, pub. July 13, 2006 (hereinafter “Scanned”) in view of
Lou (US 2008/0126131 Al, pub. May 29, 2008).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does
not disclose determining, by a computer, whether the data collection
frequency for each of the plurality of medical devices is within an expected
frequency threshold?
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that Scanned does not disclose determining
whether the data collection frequency for each medical device. In
Appellants’ view, Scanned discloses determining the frequency of
administering medication. We agree.
Appellants’ Specification discloses the step of determining if patient
information has been received within a predefined interval. As an example,
if a patient is instructed to use a glucose meter three times a day, the
patient’s information is expected three times a day (Spec. 51). The claimed
invention determines whether the glucose meter information is received
three times a day. As such, the frequency of the claims relates to the
frequency of data collection.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 106 and 109 for teaching this
subject matter (Final Act. 3; Ans. 2).
3
Appeal 2014-007438
Application 11/877,966
We find that paragraph 106 of Scanned discloses a bar code plate
surface or label that contains information related to the type of medications
and dosage amounts and frequency. Paragraph 109 discloses a processor
with a program for processing the medication type, the dosage, and
frequency information. A program that has a counter, alert, reminder, and/or
function associated with the medication may be activated when a counter
quantity reaches a certain threshold. Id. This disclosure relates to counting
the frequency that a medication is administered and providing alerts for
administering a medication or reordering the medication. The frequency
relates to the administration of the medication, not the frequency of
receiving data related to the administration of the medication. There is no
disclosure in these portions of Scannell related to the frequency of which
data is collected. As such, the Examiner has not directed our attention to a
disclosure in Scannell of determining the frequency of data collection.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2—4, 6—8, 10, and 11 dependent therefrom. We will
also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 14 and claims 15, 16,
18—20, 22, and 23 dependent therefrom, because claim 14 contains subject
matter similar to claim 1 by requiring a monitoring system with a processor
that determines the data collection frequency.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4