Ex Parte Fors et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 10, 201311740344 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEVE LAWRENCE FORS, MARK M. MORITA, and WILLIAM DOUGLAS HUGHES ____________________ Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-15, and 17-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention generally relates to clinical information systems and, more specifically, to systems and methods for user-configurable range settings in clinical information systems (Spec., para. [04]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A clinical information system, the system including: a user interface operably connected to a computer processor, the user interface and processor being part of a clinical information system used in connection with providing healthcare services, the user interface adapted to allow a user to configure a custom range for a lab result for a patient population; and a custom range storage component operably connected to the processor, the custom range storage component adapted to use the processor to store the configured custom range. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 27, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 7, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 8, 2010). Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 3 THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-15, and 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katz (US 2004/0078240 A1, pub. Apr. 22, 2004) in view of Johnson (US 2001/0051879 A1, pub. Dec. 13, 2001). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because neither Katz nor Johnson discloses or suggests a “user interface adapted to allow a user to configure a custom range for a lab result for a patient population,” as recited in the claim (App. Br. 5-7 and Reply Br. 3-9). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and cites paragraphs [0016], [0041], and [0042] and Figures 3-12 of Katz as disclosing a user interface adapted to allow a user to configure a custom range for a lab result. The Examiner concedes that Katz does not specifically disclose the custom range being configured for a patient population, and relies on paragraphs [0360] – [0367], [0381], and [0530] of Johnson to cure this deficiency (Ans. 4-5 and 8-11). We have reviewed the portions of Katz and Johnson cited by the Examiner, and we conclude that the Examiner’s findings as set forth at pages 8-11 of the Answer are reasonable and supported. Katz discloses a method and apparatus that allows a user to build a cumulative record of his or her clinical data over time (Katz, Abstract), and explicitly describes at Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 4 paragraph [0016] that the clinical data may include medical tests and that high and low test result values can be specified for each test. Johnson describes configuring test results that meet certain criteria, e.g., date range, patient group, location, ordering physician, for a particular patient or group of patients, i.e., a patient population (Johnson, para. [0381]). Appellants argue that “not only does Katz fail to disclose configuring a custom lab result range for a patient population, Katz disparages and teaches away from more complex systems, such as the one recited in claim 1.” Therefore, according to Appellants, “Katz is not properly modified or combined with another reference to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1” (App. Br. 6). We disagree. Katz distinguishes prior systems that are: focused upon the needs of health care providers (i.e., doctors [sic] offices, laboratories) and/or require a complex technical support infrastructure (e.g., complex databases, connectivity to multiple remote data sources, etc.) and/or specialized knowledge that is not available to an individual patient interested in viewing trends in the patient’s own personal medical treatment (Katz, para. [0006]). However, a teaching away requires criticism and/or discouragement. Appellants have not shown that Katz criticizes or discourages configuring a custom lab result range for a patient population and, therefore, has not shown that Katz teaches away from this feature. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant”). Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 5 Appellants further argue that the proposed modification: would render Katz unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (i.e., allowing patients with basic computer skills and minimal medical vocabulary to build a cumulative record of their clinical data over time and to prepare tabular and graphic reports that provide a clear view of trends related to their treatment) and would change the principle of operation of the Katz system (Reply Br. 5, emphasis in original). However, we agree with the Examiner that Katz and Johnson disclose complementary approaches, and that the proposed combination is nothing more than a combination of prior art elements according to their established functions, and yields a predictable result (Ans. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of Appellants’ invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U. S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”). Appellants’ further argument that paragraphs [0381] and [0530] of Johnson only disclose “customizing reports to allow the user to create patient categories that include trends in a patient population for obtaining statistical information” (App. Br. 6) also is unpersuasive. In creating the custom lab reports for a patient population, Johnson allows the user to enter custom ranges for lab reports (see Johnson, paras. [0360] – [0367] and [0381] (allowing a user to specify a date range for a lab result)). Appellants argue that a date range is not a lab result range and that “Johnson’s alleged disclosure of a custom date range fails to disclose ‘a custom range for a lab result for a patient population,’ as set forth in Appellant’s independent claim 1” (Reply Br. 8). However, we agree with Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 6 the Examiner that the phrase “a custom range for a lab result for a patient population,” as reasonably broadly construed, covers a range of dates. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent claims 14, 19, and 22 Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 14, 19, and 22 are substantially similar to Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 5-7 and Reply Br. 3-9). We found Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive with respect to claim 1, and we find them equally unpersuasive as to claims 14, 19, and 22. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 2, 15, and 23 Appellants argue claims 2, 15, and 23 as a group (App. Br. 8). We select claim 2 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites that “the user interface is adapted to allow the user to associate the custom range with a patient population that is indicated to have a certain disease.” We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (App. Br. 8 and Reply Br. 9-10). After carefully considering Appellants’ arguments, we agree with, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales as set forth at page 5 of the Answer. We note in particular that Johnson teaches that a user can “customize the search criteria to produce only the results that best meet the user’s practice requirements. For example, the user can generate a listing of all the patients who had Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 7 abnormal or high HDL cholesterol readings over a period of time” (Johnson, para. [359]). In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 23, which stand or fall with claim 2. Dependent claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the user interface is adapted to allow a second custom range to be configured for the lab result, the custom range being a normal range for the lab result and the second custom range being an acceptable but less desirable range for the lab result.” We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Appellants’ argument that neither Katz nor Johnson discloses or suggests a user interface that allows two custom ranges to be configured for a lab result for a patient population, the first custom range being a normal range for the lab result and the second custom range being an acceptable but less desirable range for the lab result, as recited in the claim. (App. Br. 8-9). The Examiner cites Figures 8, 10, and 12 of Katz as disclosing a second custom range configured for the lab result but acknowledges that Katz does not disclose that the second custom range is an acceptable but less desirable range for the lab result (Ans. 5). The Examiner relies on paragraphs [0290] through [0295] and [0615] of Johnson to cure the deficiency of Katz (Ans. 5-6). But we find nothing in any of the cited portions of Katz and Johnson that discloses or suggests a user interface that allows two custom ranges to be configured for a lab result for a patient population, the first custom range being a normal range for the lab result and Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 8 the second custom range being an acceptable but less desirable range for the lab result, as recited in claim 9. Katz discloses configuring a custom range for a lab result, and discloses a user interface for editing a previously defined range (see, e.g., Figure 8). Paragraphs [0290] through [0295] of Johnson are directed to compiling a “results report,” including a column heading “Normal Range,” and paragraph [0615] of Johnson discloses a filter for narrowing search results. But none of these cited portions of Katz and Johnson discloses a user interface that allows two custom ranges to be configured for a lab result for a patient population, as recited in claim 9. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claim 10 Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the user interface is adapted to allow the user to configure the custom range to be applied for a limited duration.” We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (App. Br. 9 and Reply Br. 11-13). The Examiner cites paragraph [0017] of Katz as disclosing this feature. However, we find nothing in that paragraph that discloses or suggests allowing a user to configure a custom range to be applied for a limited duration, as recited in claim 10. Instead, paragraph [0017] of Katz merely discloses producing a custom report that includes test data from tests conducted during a specified date range. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 9 Dependent claim 11 Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that the claimed system includes “an alert component adapted to alert a healthcare provider based at least in part on the custom range and a lab value for the lab result.” We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (App. Br. 9 and Reply Br. 13-14). The Examiner cites Johnson as teaching that a healthcare provider may configure a listing of all patients who had abnormal or high HDL cholesterol readings over a period of time (Ans. 6 and 12, citing Johnson at para. [0359]). We agree with the Examiner that configuring such a listing constitutes an alert component, as recited in claim 11. Katz also describes in paragraph [0016] that “[t]est result values that exceed minimum or maximum values specified for the test are automatically marked so that the patient is alerted to the out of range values.” In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 12, 18, 21, and 24 Appellants argue claims 12, 18, 21, and 24 as a group (App. Br. 9-10). We select claim 12 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 12 depends from claim 1, and recites that the claimed system further includes “a profile component adapted to allow a profile including a plurality of custom lab result ranges to be associated with the patient population.” We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (App. Br. 9-10 and 14-15). Katz teaches a profile Appeal 2011-007836 Application 11/740,344 10 including a plurality of custom lab result ranges (Katz, Figs. 5 and 6). Katz does not specifically disclose that the custom ranges are associated with a patient population. However, Johnson describes configuring test results that meet certain criteria, e.g., date range, patient group, location, ordering physician, for a particular patient or group of patients, i.e., a patient population (Johnson, para. [0381]). We agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination of Katz and Johnson is nothing more than a combination of prior art elements according to their established functions, and yields a predictable result (Ans. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of Appellants’ invention. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 21, and 24, which stand or fall with claim 12. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 11-15, and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1) (2011). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation