Ex Parte Gedeon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2018

12351628 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/351,628 01/09/2009
46169 7590 06/18/2018
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(Cerner Corporation)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HANNA MINA GEDEON
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.
CRNI.146079 9186
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRANG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2018 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
BPARKERSON@SHB.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANNA MINA GEDEON and SARA JANE GRIFFIN
Appeal2016-008157
Application 12/351,628 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JASON J. CHUNG and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to reporting and tracking clinical adverse
event reports in a medical information environment. Spec. ,r 4. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method in a medical information computing
environment for tracking one or more clinical adverse event
reports, the method comprising:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cemer Innovation,
Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
communicating, by one or more computing devices in the
medical information computing environment, a first clinical
adverse event report from a first user comprising a plurality of
data elements in an electronic clinical adverse event reporting
form directly to one or more end-user receiving parties, wherein
the first user is a clinician;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices in the
medical information computing environment, a received receipt
from the one or more end user receiving parties for the
communicated electronic clinical adverse event reporting form;
recording, by the one or more computing devices in the
medical information computing environment, indicia
corresponding to the received receipt in a record associated with
the communicated electronic clinical adverse event reporting
form·
' utilizing the recorded indicia corresponding to the
received receipt to query, by at least one device in the medical
information computing environment having a processor and a
memory, a status of the first clinical adverse event report and one
or more second clinical adverse event reports from one or more
second users communicated to the one or more end-user
receiving parties in the electronic clinical adverse event reporting
form, wherein the one or more second clinical adverse event
reports are related to the first clinical adverse event report;
receiving, by the one or more computing devices in the
medical information computing environment, information
associated with the status of the first clinical adverse event report
and the one or more second clinical adverse event reports such
that the information incorporates data from the first clinical
adverse event report of the first user and the one or more second
clinical adverse event reports of the one or more second users,
wherein the information also indicates actions taken by the one
or more end-user receiving parties with respect to the first
clinical adverse event report and the one or more second clinical
adverse event reports; and
providing a user interface on one or more display devices
in the medical information computing environment, to allow a
user of the first user and the one or more second users to at least
one of query, audit, and create reports for data corresponding to
2
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
the first clinical adverse event report and the one or more second
clinical adverse event reports.
App. Br., Claims Appendix, 27-28.
REJECTIONS
Claims 7, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter for which the applicant regards as the
invention. Final Act. 2-3. 2
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
a judicial exception to patentable subject matter. Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of McCulloch et al., (US
2005/0195077 Al; published Sept. 8, 2005) (hereinafter, "McCulloch"),
Trinks et al., (US 6,952,695 B 1; issued Oct. 4, 2005) (hereinafter, "Trinks"),
and Washburn (US 2006/0240851 Al; published Oct. 26, 2006). Final Act.
5-13.
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of McCulloch, Washburn, Trinks, and
2 We herein refer to the Specification filed Jan. 29, 2013 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action mailed May 28, 2015 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed Jan.
28, 2016 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 12, 2017
("Ans."). It is noted a Reply Brief was filed on July 1, 2016.
3
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
Hole (US 2002/0138605 Al; published Sept. 26, 2002) (hereinafter,
"Hole"). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of McCulloch, Washburn, Trinks, and
Rezvani et al., (US 2006/0010078 Al; published Jan. 12, 2006) (hereinafter,
"Rezvani"). Final Act. 14--15.
Claims 13-16, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of McCulloch, Washburn, Trinks,
and Epler et al., (US 2003/0187615 Al; published Oct. 2, 2003) (hereinafter,
"Epler"). Final Act. 15-18.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of McCulloch, Washburn, Trinks, Epler,
Rezvani, and Hole. Final Act. 18-20.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of McCulloch, Tomko (US 7,966,372
Bl; issued Jun. 21, 2011), Washburn, and Trinks. Final Act. 20-25.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: Claims 7, 16, and 20
Appellants present no arguments pertaining to the Examiner's
indefiniteness rejection of claims 7, 16, and 20. App. Br. 25. Instead,
Appellants state this rejection will be addressed after the appeal has
4
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
concluded. Id. Accordingly, we summarily sustain this rejection. See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.39(a)(l).
35 U.S.C. § 101: Claims 1-20
The Examiner concludes, and we agree, independent claims 1, 13, and
20 falls into one of the four statutory categories of invention. Ans. 4--5. In
addition, the Examiner concludes the concept of comparing categorically
organized, stored, and transmitted report information to identify and display
related reports is a method of organizing human activity and "an idea of
itself." Id. at 5---6. The Examiner also concludes the claims map to the
abstract idea of "manipulating/communicating medical data." Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes the claims amount to steps of using categories to
organize, store, and transmit information. Ans. 5. Additionally, the
Examiner concludes the claims amount to comparing new and stored
information and using rules to identify options. Id.
Moreover, the Examiner concludes the claims do not recite
significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations
are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions
of receiving, generating and transmitting. Id. at 10-11.
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
ineligibility because the rejection is based on a single, conclusory statement
without a rationale to justify the statement. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3.
Moreover, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to cite any cases in which
subject matter similar was identified as abstract. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br.
3. Further, Appellants argue the Examiner primarily relies on boilerplate
language without sufficient analysis of the present claims. App. Br. 12.
5
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
Appellants argue the Examiner's conclusion that the present claims
are directed to "manipulating/ communicating medical data" is incorrect
because it characterizes the present claims as a high level of abstraction,
untethered from the language of the claims. Id. at 12-13.
Appellants further argue the claims do not recite an abstract idea; but,
even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea, the combination of steps
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps are
unconventional and confine the claims to a particular useful application. Id.
at 13-15; Reply Br. 4. Moreover, Appellants argue the present claims
present no risk of preempting the "manipulat[ion ]/communicat[ion] [ ofJ
medical data" concept in any field because Appellants "have applied any
abstract concept present in the claims in a new and useful application
requiring specific limitations" and the "building blocks for human ingenuity
are not thus confined in the Appellants' claims." App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br.
5. Appellants argue the present claims are better viewed as "a sequence of
events for submitting and tracking adverse event reports in a medical
information computing environment." Id. at 16. Appellants argue the
aforementioned concept in the previous sentence cannot be divorced from
the technology recited therein because it does not make sense out of the
context of such computing devices. Id. at 16-17.
Appellants argue the present case is similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in which the Federal
Circuit held that claims were eligible because they were necessarily rooted
in and confined to medical information computing technology. App. Br. 11-
12, 15. Appellants further argue that, like the claims in DDR, the claims add
meaningful limitations that neither recite a mathematical relationship or
6
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
formula, nor a method of organizing human activity. Id. at 13. Further,
Appellants argue the claimed computing environment adds "additional
elements" that render the claims "significantly more" than an abstract idea, a
position which the Office has adopted. Id. at 15. We disagree with
Appellants.
Following the decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012)), we analyze
claims where the abstract idea judicial exception to the categories of
statutory subject matter is at issue using the following two-part analysis set
forth in Mayo: 1) Determine whether the claim is directed to an abstract
idea; and 2) if an abstract idea is present in the claim, determine whether any
element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that
the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350.
As to the first part of the analysis, examples of abstract ideas
referenced in Alice include: fundamental economic practices; 3 certain
methods of organizing human activities; 4 "an idea of itself'; 5 and,
mathematical relationships or formulas. 6 Claims that include abstract ideas
3 Alice Corp., at 2350: e.g., intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third
party intermediary to mitigate settlement risk.
4 Id. at 2356: e.g., a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk ( citing
Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 599 (2010)).
5 Id. at 2355: e.g., a principle, an original cause, a motive (citing Gottschalk
v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175
(1853)).
6 Id. at 2350: e.g., a mathematical formula for computing alarm limits in a
catalytic conversion process (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95
7
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
like these are examined under the second part of the analysis to determine
whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
As to the second part of the analysis, we consider the claim as a whole
by considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination. Id.
at 2355. Limitations referenced in Alice that may be enough to qualify as
"significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: Improvements to another
technology or technical field; 7 improvements to the functioning of the
computer itself; 8 and meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. 9
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as
"significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words "apply it" (or an
equivalent) with an abstract idea; 10 mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer; 11 or requiring no more than a generic computer
(1978)), or a formula for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into
pure binary form (Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72).
7 Id. at 2358: e.g., a mathematical formula applied in a specific rubber
molding process (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177-78 (1981)).
8 Id. at 2359.
9 Id. at 2360: noting that none of the hardware recited "offers a meaningful
limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular
technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers" ( citing
Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11).
10 Id. at 2357-58.
11 Id.: e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical
machine, namely a computer (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301).
8
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. 12
If there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the
abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claim is directed to non-
statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Federal Circuit held "merely selecting information, by content or
source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit
exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract
ideas." Elec. Power Gp., LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2016). In addition, "merely presenting the results of abstract processes of
collecting and analyzing information, without more ( such as identifying a
particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis." Id. at 1354. The Federal Circuit further stated:
[ t ]he claims in this case do not even require a new source or type
of information, or new techniques for analyzing it. ... As a result,
they do not require an arguably inventive set of components or
methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that would
generate new data. They do not invoke any assertedly inventive
programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation
of information-to provide a "humanly comprehensible" amount
of information useful for users ... by itself does not transform
the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and
analysis.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
12 Id. at 2359: e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,
and issue automated instructions.
9
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
Step 1
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's analysis and
conclusion that claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Ans. 4--13.
That is, we agree with the Examiner that the concept of communicating,
receiving, recording, and the usage of information corresponding to query
reports and display results of the query is a method of organizing human
activity and "an idea of itself." Id. at 5. 13
Moreover, we note the Examiner's conclusion that the claims amount
to the abstract idea of "manipulating/communicating medical data" is
analogous to Mayo. Final Act. 4. And the Examiner's conclusion that the
claims amount to steps of using categories to organize, store, and transmit
information is analogous to Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive
Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). Ans.
5. Additionally, the Examiner's conclusion that the claims amount to
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options is
analogous to Smartgene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, No.
2013-1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-precedential). Ans. 5. Although
Cyberfone and Smartgene are non-precedential, we find those cases are still
related to Electric Power, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241
(Fed. Cir. 2016), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850
F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
13 We note the Examiner pointed out Appellants' admitted well-known
computing environments in paragraph 36 of the published U.S. Patent
Application, which corresponds to paragraph 35 of the Specification. Ans.
13 (citing ,r 36 of the published U.S. Patent Application).
10
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
Similar to the claims in Electric Power, claims 1-20 of the present
case are directed to selecting information, by content or source, for
collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a
process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from
§ 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. And also
similar to Electric Power, claims 1-20 of the present case are directed to
presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information, without more ( such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
Additionally, like Electric Power, claims 1-20 of the present case merely
require the selection and manipulation of information to provide a "humanly
comprehensible" amount of information useful for users, which by itself
does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information
collection and analysis.
Since Electric Power, the Federal Circuit also held that "claims []
directed to certain functionality ... are not directed to a specific improvement
in the way computers operate." Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. at 1241. The
Ameranth court affirmed the Board's position that the claims were directed
to an abstract idea "described as generating menus on a computer, or
generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to
another location." Id. The court further noted the claims "do not claim a
particular way of programming or designing the software to create menus
that have these features, but instead merely claim the resulting systems." Id.
(citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314
(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
11
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
Similar to the case in Ameranth, claims 1-20 of the present case are
directed to generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu
from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location, and does
nothing significant to improve the way computers operate. And also similar
to Ameranth, claims 1-20 of the present case are directed to presenting
menus having particular features, is abstract as an ancillary part of
generating and sending the second menu. Additionally, like Electric Power
and Ameranth, claims 1-20 of the present case merely require the selection
and manipulation of information to provide a "humanly comprehensible"
amount of information useful for users, which by itself does not transform
the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.
Since Electric Power and Ameranth, the Federal Circuit further
clarified that "the abstract idea of 'creating an index and using that index to
search for and retrieve data"' is an exemplary activity of "organizing and
accessing records through the creation of an index-searchable database,
includ[ing] longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of
computer and the Internet." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity
Co. at 1327. The Erie court held "the claimed creation of an index used to
search and retrieve information stored in a database is [] abstract." Id. The
Erie court stated the claims were directed to an abstract concept because
"the heart of the claimed invention lies in creating and using an index to
search for and retrieve data." Id. at 1328. Moreover, "[a]n abstract idea
does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of
use or technological environment, such as the Internet." Id. (quoting
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
12
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
Similar to the case in Erie, claims 1-20 of the present case are
directed to creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve
data, and does nothing significant to improve the way computers operate.
And also similar to Erie, claims 1-20 of the present case are directed to
organizing and accessing records through an index-searchable computing
environment, is abstract as an ancillary part of creating, searching, and
retrieving data. Additionally, like Electric Power and Ameranth, claims 1-
20 of the present case merely require the selection and manipulation of
information to provide a "humanly comprehensible" amount of information
useful for users, which by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract
processes of information collection and analysis.
Even if claims 1-20 cannot be divorced from technology as
Appellants contend (App. Br. 16-17), this does not mean claims 1-20 recite
patent eligible subject matter because there still needs to be an improvement
to the underlying technology according to the Federal Circuit decision in
Enfish. In this case, claims 1-20 recite an improvement to an abstraction,
not an improvement to the underlying technology. Stated differently, just
because an improved abstract idea functions with technology does not mean
that the abstract idea is an improvement to the underlying technology.
Because claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to step (2)
of the Alice, two-part test.
Step 2
Regarding step (2) of the Alice two-part test, claims 1-20 do not
amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the present case,
claims 1-20 describe the transformation of a clinical adverse event report
13
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
into a visual depiction of a user interface of a display, which is not
significantly more than an abstract idea.
In Electric Power, the Federal Circuit distinguished DDR, stating
"[ t ]he claims at issue here do not require an arguably inventive device or
technique for displaying information." Electric Power at 1355. Unlike the
inventive concept found in DDR ("modification of conventional mechanics
behind website display to produce dual-source integrated hybrid display"),
the claims at issue merely required "off-the-shelf, conventional, computer,
network, and display technology." Electric Power at 1355. Similarly, in
Ameranth, the court "[ t ]he difficulty of the programming details for this
functionality is immaterial because these details are not recited in the actual
claims," and "[t]he patents can be readily understood as adding conventional
computer components to well-known business practices." Ameranth at
1242. Moreover, the Erie court confirms that the claims do not amount to
significantly more when "[ t ]he claimed mobile interface is so lacking in
implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component
(software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the
abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources." Erie at 1331.
Here, the claims are directed to a medical information computing
environment, which is implemented through the generic components
described as "computing devices," "a processor," "a memory," and "display
devices." There is neither a modification to the underlying conventional
technology, nor is there a new technique claimed. Instead, Appellants
claims are directed to generic components, claimed at a high level of
generality, and lacking in implementation details. Claims 1-20, therefore,
do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
14
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
As for the Appellants' preemption argument (App. Br. 15-16), while
preemption may denote patent ineligibility, its absence does not demonstrate
patent eligibility. See FairWarning, IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For claims covering a patent-ineligible
concept, preemption concerns "are fully addressed and made moot" by an
analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 13, and 20; and (2) dependent claims
2-12 and 14--19.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-20
The Examiner finds that Trinks teaches "the user can search the
reported cases for particular data, view and edit previously entered data,
[ and] input and produce case reports ... to show[]" the reception of
information "in response to the query[] ... of adverse events reported," which
the Examiner maps to "end-user receiving parties" as recited in independent
claims 1, 13, and 20. Ans. 14 (underlining omitted).
Appellants argue McCulloch, Washburn, and Trinks do not disclose
"receiving ... information associated with the status of the first clinical
adverse event report and the one or more second clinical adverse event
reports and [including] actions taken by the one or more end-user receiving
parties." App. Br. 20 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue
"Trinks is generally directed to providing a web portal ('mydrugsafety.com')
for receiving adverse event reports and for standardizing terminology
contained in the adverse event reports," which is "merely a means of
aggregating adverse event reports." Id. Appellants further argue that Trinks
15
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
cannot teach or suggest the claim feature above because the "means of
aggregating adverse event reports ... does not include information related to
actions taken by the end-user receiving party." Id. Appellants also argue
that the Specification states the "end-user" receiving parties are not third
parties. Reply Br. 6 ( citing Spec. ,r 28). Appellants further argue that Trinks
teaches an intervening party, rather than an end-user receiving party. Reply
Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Trinks teaches "the user can search the reported cases for
particular data, view and edit previously entered data, [and] input and
produce case reports ... to show[]" the reception of information "in response
to the query[] ... of adverse events reported," which teaches the limitation
"end-user receiving parties" as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 20.
Ans. 14. Here, Appellants have not defined the "end-user receiving parties"
recited in the claims.
Moreover, paragraph 28 of Appellants Specification does not say
"end-user" receiving parties are not third parties, as Appellants allege (Reply
Br. 6); rather, the Specification describes whom these parties may be,
including expressly stating "other interested parties." See Spec. ,r 28. The
term "user" is described in Trinks as including "a patient, event user, a
physician or safety monitor" (Trinks, 7:20-22), all of whom would qualify
as "interested parties" and were relied on by Examiner. See Ans. 14; see
also Final Act. 9--10.
Next, Appellants argue the combination of McCulloch, Washburn,
and Trinks do not disclose the limitation "wherein the one or more second
clinical adverse event reports are related to the first clinical adverse event
16
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
report." 14 App. Br. 20. Specifically, Appellants argue "the cited 'Monitor
path' of Trinks merely allows a Safety Monitor to review potentially
inaccurate and/or potentially serious submitted reports, rather than related
reports from other users." Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Trinks teaches the one or more second clinical adverse event reports are
related to the first clinical adverse event report because minimally, they exist
as a searchable list grouped together (Ans. 14; Final. Act. 9--10).
We also note that the argued feature "event reports are related" may
be read broadly, having any number of relationships; and Appellants'
Specification does not define the relationship(s), instead the related reports
are merely described as data that may be submitted to end-user receiving
parties. See Spec. ,r,r 33, 63.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 4, 7-9, and 13-20; instead,
Appellants rely on the reasons argued with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 6, and
10-12 (App. Br. 20-24). Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 13, and 20;
and (2) dependent claims 2-12 and 14--19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7, 16, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
14 The argument is not mapped to the claim element specifically; however,
the limitation is apparent because it is the only claim language reflecting a
relationship between the reports.
17
Appeal 2016-008157
Application 12/3 51,628
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
18