Ex Parte Gottesman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2012

11115626 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JANELL M. GOTTESMAN, JAMES E. WILLENBRING,
DAVID J. SCHEFFLER, and JOHN P. VANDANACKER
____________________

Appeal 2011-005113
Application 11/115,626
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005113
Application 11/115,626

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates generally to remote patient management
systems and in particular to a remote patient management system that
provides user-customizable workflow for controlling patient management
operations performed by the system (Spec., para. [01]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for remote patient management associated with a
medical device, comprising:
generating customized workflow instructions, including
types and order of remote patient management operations in a
central programmer;
selecting a set of workflow instructions by the central
programmer from the generated customized workflow
instructions in response to data transmitted from a remote
medical device to the central programmer;
prioritizing the selected set of workflow instructions; and
executing the selected set of workflow instructions by the
central programmer in response to the prioritizing.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed July 12, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
November 29, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
September 29, 2010).
Appeal 2011-005113
Application 11/115,626

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 15-18, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bristol (US 7,324,949 B2, iss. Jan. 29,
2008) in view of Blowers (US 2005/0060186 A1, pub. Mar. 17, 2005).
Claims 4-10, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bristol in view of Blowers and further in view of
Dalal (US 2005/0222631 A1, pub. Oct. 6, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 11
We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’
argument that neither Bristol nor Blowers discloses or suggests “selecting a
set of workflow instructions by the central programmer from the generated
customized workflow instructions in response to data transmitted from a
remote medical device to the central programmer [and] prioritizing the
selected set of workflow instructions,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12-15
and Reply Br. 6-11). The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper
and cites column 17, line 50 to column 18, line 23 and column 19, line 63 to
column 20, line 7 of Bristol as disclosing “selecting a set of workflow
instructions by the central programmer from the generated customized
workflow instructions in response to data transmitted from a remote medical
device to the central programmer” (Ans. 3-4).
Bristol discloses an implantable device management system, including
a suite of applications that provide for the administration of medical devices
as they pertain to a particular patient, the ordering of therapeutic agents from
Appeal 2011-005113
Application 11/115,626

4
participating third-party dispensaries, the scheduling of device maintenance
and explant events, and the review of literature and educational materials
pertaining to a particular medical device or class of devices (Bristol,
Abstract). Bristol describes at column 17, line 50 to column 18, line 23 that
physiological data pertaining to a patient, e.g., heart monitoring, respiration
monitoring, or temperature monitoring, is collected from an implanted drug
pump or other implanted medical device and is communicated, together with
information regarding the implanted device, to a central location where the
information is inputted into a database. Bristol states that by registering the
serial number of the implanted device with the device manufacturer, a
clinician may be provided with extensive information regarding the device,
and that “having all of the implantable device pump information assists the
clinician in developing the intrathecal or other substance-release therapy and
selecting an appropriate therapeutic agent” (Bristol, col. 18, ll. 7-23).
However, we find nothing in this portion of Bristol that discloses or suggests
“selecting a set of workflow instructions . . . from the generated customized
workflow instructions [which include the type of patient management
operations to be performed and the order in which those operations should
be performed] in response to data transmitted from a remote medical
device,” as recited in claim 1. Even if the clinician of Bristol “developing
the intrathecal or other substance-release therapy and selecting an
appropriate therapeutic agent” could be considered “selecting a set of
workflow instructions,” there is no indication in Bristol that these “set of
workflow instructions” were previously “generated … in response to data
transmitted from a remote medical device,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-005113
Application 11/115,626

5
Bristol describes the device registration system further at column 19,
line 63 to column 20, line 7 and describes a “‘Device Registration System’”
application that allows the user to register the device as well as provide
feedback to the device manufacturer regarding the operation of the device
and access reports detailing the device’s capabilities and interconnectivities
with other devices. But again, there is no teaching of selecting a set of
workflow instructions from customized workflow instructions, as recited in
claim 1.
The Examiner acknowledges that Bristol does not disclose prioritizing
the selected set of workflow instructions, and relies on the Abstract and
paragraphs [0019] through [0023] of Blowers as disclosing this feature.
However, this portion of Blowers merely describes the concept of
prioritizing medical device events, e.g., a defibrillation event, a low battery,
a lead failure, based on their relative clinical importance. It does not
disclose or suggest the selection or prioritization of workflow instructions, as
recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 11.

Independent claims 12, 15, and 20 and dependent claims 13, 16-18, and 21-
24
Independent claims 12, 15, and 20 include language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 15, and 20 for the same reasons as set
forth above with respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 13, 16-18, and 21-24.
Appeal 2011-005113
Application 11/115,626

6
Dependent claims 4-10, 14, and 19
Dependent claims 4-10, 14, and 19 depend, directly or indirectly, from
one of independent claims 1, 12, and 15. The Examiner has not established
on this record that Dalal cures the deficiencies of Bristol and Blowers noted
above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-
10, 14, and 19 for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to the
independent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

hh