Ex Parte Eaton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201511022571 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL A. EATON, J. MICHAEL EATON, ROY FREDRICKSEN, and JAY MASON ____________________ Appeal 2012-007204 Application 11/022,5711 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 21, 23–27, 30, 31, 33–37, and 40–46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We REVERSE.2 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as My Health Direct, Incorporated. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-007204 Application 11/022,571 2 INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates generally to a computerized system and method for allowing consumers to view health care opportunities from a plurality of different health care providers. Spec. ¶ 9. Claim 21, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. App. Br., Claims App. 21. A computer system for scheduling a health care appointment with one of a plurality of different health care providers, the computer system comprising: a first computer interface configured to communicate with the plurality of different health care providers to receive information of available appointment dates and times from the plurality of different health care providers; a second computer interface configured to provide the information of the available appointment dates and times to a remote client based on appointment criteria received from the remote client; and wherein the computer system is configured to receive an appointment selection from the remote client via the second computer interface and to use the first computer interface to schedule the selected appointment with the one of the plurality of different health care providers; wherein the appointment criteria comprise a distance from a location associated with the remote client and wherein the computer system is configured to search for available appointment dates and times associated with health care providers located within the distance from the location associated with the remote client; and 2 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 3, 2012), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 31, 2012), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 31, 2012). Appeal 2012-007204 Application 11/022,571 3 wherein the computer system is further configured to cause the remote client to display the available appointment dates and times associated with the health care providers located within the distance. REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review. Claims 21, 23, 25–26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 40, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nudd (US 2004/0158486 A1, pub. Aug. 12, 2004), and Nakatsuchi (US 2002/0040305 A1, pub. Apr. 4, 2002). Claims 24, 27, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nudd, Nakatsuchi, and Herz (US 7,065,528 B2, iss. June 20, 2006). Claims 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nudd, Nakatsuchi, and Haskell (US 2003/0078813 A1, pub. Apr. 24, 2003). Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nudd, Nakatsuchi, and Dutt (US 2003/0187691 A1, pub. Oct. 2, 2003). ANALYSIS The Examiner rejected independent claims 21 and 31 as obvious over Nudd and Nakatsuchi. Ans. 4–7. Independent claim 21 requires “the appointment criteria comprise a distance from a location associated with the remote client and wherein the computer system is configured to search for available appointment dates and times associated with health care providers located within the distance from the location associated with the remote client.” The Examiner finds that Nudd discloses “searching available Appeal 2012-007204 Application 11/022,571 4 appointment dates and times associated with health care providers . . . [and] relie[s] upon Nakatsuchi for searching by location.” Id. at 13–14. The Examiner cites paragraph 66 of Nakatsuchi and determines that the search by location feature of Figure 22 “is equivalent to searching within the distance from the location associated with the remote client.” Id. at 14. Appellants contest the Examiner’s construal of the disputed claim limitation. In particular, Appellants argue that the prior art “does not disclose, teach or suggest searching for providers within a distance from a remote client [because] [t]he location searching of Nakatsuchi could be absolute, e.g., as follows: ‘search for all doctors in Nashville’ rather than, e.g., ‘all doctors having available appointments within 25 miles from the user’s remote client location.” Reply Br. 4–5. Appellants’ contention is persuasive. The Examiner has not provided credible evidence or articulated a rationale to justify the finding that “searching by location” is equivalent to “[searching within] a distance from a location associated with the remote client,” as called for in claim 21. Although Nakatsuchi teaches searching for hospitals by location, the resulting list of hospitals based on the identified location must be reviewed by the patient to determine the nearest hospital from the patient’s location. See Nakatsuchi ¶¶ 64–66. Nakatsuchi, thus, provides a list of all providers matching the specified location, rather than all providers within a specified distance from the location associated with the remote client. In other words, the disputed claim limitation further narrows the search within a distance from the location associated with the remote client. Appeal 2012-007204 Application 11/022,571 5 Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The remaining rejections based on Nudd and Nakatsuchi in combination with Herz, Haskell and Dutt, rely on the same erroneous finding regarding the disclosure in Nakatsuchi. Thus, for the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 23–27, 30, 33–37, and 40–46. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”). DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of the claims are reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation