Ex Parte Erlanger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2013

11404330 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LINDA SUSAN ERLANGER, MICHAEL HAROLD EUBANK,
ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER, JAMES R. KRAEMER,
and MEREDITH KEATING MOORE
____________

Appeal 2010-007948
Application 11/404,330
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4-18, 21-35, and 38-51, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 2, 3, 19, 20, 36, and 37 are cancelled
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-007948
Application 11/404,330

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“[Appellants’] invention relates to data processing in general and,
more particularly, to organization of data.” Spec. ¶ [1]. Still more
particularly, Appellants’ invention relates to “storing, organizing and/or
manipulating cohort based information associated with a research study.”
Abstract. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for storing, organizing
and/or manipulating cohort based information associated with a
research study, the method comprising:
a processor receiving project information associated with
a first project at an interface of a computer database
environment, the project information associated with the first
project including cohort information associated with at least
one cohort of the first project and patient information associated
with members of the at least one cohort of the first project,
wherein the patient information is one or more of: name,
address, phone number, age, and condition clinical data;
generating a first virtual project drawer associated with
the first project to be stored in the computer database
environment, the first virtual project drawer including project
information associated with the first project, at least one cohort
file and/or at least two cohort member files,
receiving project information associated with a second
project at the interface of the computer database environment,
the project information associated with the second project
including cohort information associated with at least one cohort
of the second project and patient information associated with
members of the at least one cohort of the second project;
generating a second virtual project drawer associated
with the second project to be stored in the computer database
environment, the second virtual project drawer including the
project information associated with the second project, at least
one cohort file and/or at least two cohort member files;
Appeal 2010-007948
Application 11/404,330

3
generating a query to locate project information, one or
more cohort information and patient information associated
with one or more of the first and second projects;
searching one or more of the first and second project
drawers according to the generated query so as to locate results
therein that may be relevant to the research study; and
generating a report including the located results, wherein
the generated report provides project information, one or more
cohort information and patient information associated with one
or more of the first and second projects.
Claims 1, 4-18, 21-35, and 38-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Knapp (US 6,278,999 B1; Aug. 21, 2001) and
Ricciardi (US 2004/0215981 Al; Oct. 28, 2004). Ans. 3-26.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (App. Br.
filed Nov. 25, 2009; Reply Br.1 filed Apr. 26, 2010) and the Answer (Ans.
mailed Feb. 25, 2010) for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner.

ISSUE
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants’ contentions is as follows:
Has the Examiner established a prima facie case that Knapp combined with
Ricciardi teaches or suggests “a first virtual project drawer associated with
[a] first project to be stored in [a] computer database environment, . . . [and]
a second virtual project drawer associated with [a] second project to be

1 In considering the Reply Brief, we note that although it bears information
identifying it as applying to the instant patent application and appeal, Reply
Br. 1, the arguments and contentions made in the Reply Brief, Reply Br. 2-4,
appear to relate to a different, unidentified, patent application and appeal.
Appeal 2010-007948
Application 11/404,330

4
stored in the computer database environment” (hereinafter “virtual project
drawer limitation”), as recited in claim 1?2

ANALYSIS
In finding that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Knapp
and Ricciardi, the Examiner maps the virtual project drawer limitation to
Knapp, stating that “Column 4 Lines 8-25, discloses creating a filter which
will include information about the project, cohort information and consumer
(member) information.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner further explains:
Examiner maintains that Knapp (Column 12 Lines 31-34)
discloses searching a database according to a generated query
and Column 3 Lines 26-36, discloses that said database will be
partitioned based on numerous viewpoints (appellants drawers)
that analyze the data by different basis; therefore during
searching the numerous viewpoints stored in the database are
accessed so that the desired results can be extracted.
(Ans. 28).
Appellants contend that
the Examiner has either mischaracterized what is simply
described as a “database” by Knapp and/or has read features
into Knapp that are not taught or suggested by the reference
itself. . . . The database taught by Knapp “collects and stores
monitoring data from a large number of individuals” (Abstract).
However, Knapp does not teach or suggest the use of one or
more project drawers within the database.
App. Br. 14. We agree with Appellants.
Giving the phrase its broadest reasonable interpretation, In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997),we construe a virtual project drawer to

2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. Because we are persuaded
of Examiner error by the identified issue, which is dispositive of the appeal,
we do not reach the additional issues.
Appeal 2010-007948
Application 11/404,330

5
be a portion of a computer database environment dedicated to a particular
project, into which are placed project information, cohort files related to the
project, and cohort member files related to the project, much like paper files
in a drawer of a physical file cabinet. See Spec. ¶¶ [4], [31]. We further
conclude that the virtual file drawer limitation requires that there be at least
two (“first” and “second”) such portions. We conclude our claim
construction is consistent with ordinary usage of the words, as understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, and with Appellants’ Specification. See
Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054.
The passages cited by the Examiner as teaching the virtual project
drawer limitation appear to be directed to statistically analyzing the data in
Knapp’s information management system and generating data queries
(Knapp col. 3, ll. 26-35; col. 4, ll. 8-25; col. 12, ll. 31-34); and to controlling
access to the data in the information management system (Knapp col. 4, ll.
8-25). Knapp does teach that “[t]he information management system for
personal health digitizers includes processing elements that perform
statistical analysis of the collected data from any of numerous viewpoints,
such as on a per consumer, population segment, or query specific basis.”
Knapp col. 3, ll. 32-36 (emphasis added). However, we find that neither this
passage of Knapp, nor any other cited passage of Knapp or Ricciardi,
teaches or suggests that the “viewpoints” are portions (i.e., “virtual project
drawers”) of Knapp’s information management system (i.e., a “computer
database environment”) dedicated to a particular set of data files, let alone
dedicated to a particular project.
Therefore we conclude the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case that Knapp and Ricciardi teach or suggest the virtual file drawer
Appeal 2010-007948
Application 11/404,330

6
limitation. Accordingly, on this record we will not sustain the rejection of
(1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 18 and 35, which were argued together
with claim 1 and include a limitation substantially the same as the virtual file
drawer limitation; and (3) claims 4-17, 21-34, and 38-51, which depend
from claims 1, 18, and 35 respectively.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-18, 21-35, and 38-
51 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc