Ex Parte Green et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13083436 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/083,436 04/08/2011 W. Thomas Green III 110751-00114 8156
27557 7590 12/02/2016
BLANK ROME LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5403
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TRAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
B elay @ blankrome. com
W ashingtonDocketing @ blankrome. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte W. THOMAS GREEN III, JAMES T. INGRAM,
JOHNATHAN SAMPLES, and GREGORY H. SCHULENBURG
Appeal 2014-0099311
Application 13/083,43 62
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Feb.
18, 2014) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept. 22, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 31, 2014), Advisory Action (“Adv.
Act.,” mailed Nov. 7, 2013), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed
Aug. 28, 2013).
2 Appellants identify Green way Medical Technologies, Inc. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 83—102. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a medical software
system that integrates schedule management, patient registration, insurance
information, and billing and collections. Spec. 119.
Claims 83 and 93 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 83,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
83. An integrated system for healthcare provider
management with a portal that displays summarized data about
patients, the system comprising:
a database that stores clinical data, scheduling data, patient
data, and financial data in a normalized data format; and
a processor in communication with the database, the
processor configured to implement:
a clinical software module that creates an electronic
document and that captures clinical data for a patient in the
electronic document in the normalized data format during
an encounter with the patient;
a scheduling software module that captures
scheduling data in the normalized data format and that
schedules the patient and at least one of a clinician, a staff
member, and equipment at a healthcare provider using the
scheduling data and the patient data;
an account management software module that
captures financial data in the normalized data format and
that creates at least one of a bill, a claim, or a statement for
the patient using the financial data and the clinical data;
a user interface portal that displays a summary of at
least one of the clinical data, the scheduling data, the
patient data, and the financial data for the patient in a
2
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
consolidated view at a user interface, that allows a user to
customize which financial data, scheduling data, clinical
data, and patient data is displayed in the summary, and that
displays additional details about the clinical data, the
scheduling data, the patient data, and the financial data
displayed in the summary when the user selects a portion
of the clinical data, the scheduling data, the patient data,
and the financial data with the user interface; and
a framework software module that is integrated with
the clinical software module, the scheduling software
module, the account management software module, and
the user interface portal using a common architecture and
that supports an exchange of the clinical data, the
scheduling data, the patient data, and the financial data
between those software modules, the user interface portal,
and the database in the normalized data format.
REJECTIONS3
Claims 83—102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 83—85, 87, 88, 93—95, 97, and 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Crane (US 5,748,907, iss. May 5, 1998).
Claims 86, 89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, and 102 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crane.
Claims 91 and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Crane and Ross (US 5,823,948, iss. Oct. 20, 1998).
3 The rejection of claims 83—102 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
has been withdrawn. Adv. Act. 2.
3
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Appellants argue claims 83—102 as a group. Reply Br. 1—2. We
select claim 93 as representative. The remaining claims stand or fall with
claim 93. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014) identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed
subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
§101. According to Alice step one, “[w]e must first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an
abstract idea. Id. at 2355. If the claims are determined to be directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, then the second part of the framework is applied to
determine if “the elements of the claim . . . contain[] an ‘inventive concept’
sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. at 2357 (citingMayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1298).
Claim 93 is directed to displaying summarized data about patients
with an integrated medical software system and recites the steps of:
(1) allowing a user to create an electronic document; (2) scheduling the
patient and at least one of a clinician, a staff member and equipment; (3)
capturing the scheduling data; (4) pre-populating the electronic document
with patient data; (5) capturing clinical data for the patient in the electronic
document; (6) creating at least one of a bill, a claim, or a statement for the
patient using financial data and clinical data; (7) capturing the financial data;
(8) storing scheduling data, patient data, clinical data, and financial data in a
database; and (9) displaying summarized data at a user interface.
4
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
Claim 93 falls into a familiar class of claims “directed to” a patent
ineligible concept. Our reviewing court has held collecting data from
multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results to be in
the realm of abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court also has “treated analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the
abstract-idea category.” Id. (collecting cases).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract
idea of a fundamental economic practice, a method of organizing human
activities, an idea of itself, and/or a mathematical relationship or formula.”
Ans. 2. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that claim 83 is
directed to an abstract idea. See Reply Br. 2 (“Appellants will assume
arguendo that [the claims] are [directed to an abstract idea]”).
Instead, Appellants argue that claim 83 contains an “inventive
concept” that renders them patent eligible. Id. Specifically, Appellants
contend that
[t]he present claims include limitations directed to a
normalized data format. The Appellants respectfully submit that
the use of a normalized data format is an improvement to the
functioning of the computer itself, by allowing it to operate more
efficiently and accurately than it would if it had to use multiple,
non-normalized data formats, or in the alternative that the use of
a normalized data format is a meaningful limitation beyond
generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular
technological environment.
Id.
But normalizing data is itself a well-established “basic concept”
sufficient to fall under Alice step 1, i.e., analyzing information by steps
5
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
people go through in their minds or by mathematical algorithms.
Appellants’ Specification at paragraph 61 describes using a “controlled
medical vocabulary [] to normalize the collected data.” But nothing in the
claims, understood in light of the Specification, requires any new techniques
to normalize the data.
The Appellants have not come forward with, and the record before us
does not provide, sufficient evidence to support, for example, a finding that
the use of a normalized data format is an improvement to the functioning of
the computer itself. Likewise, there is insufficient discussion in the
Specification to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the
use of a normalized data format is a meaningful limitation beyond generally
linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 101 of claim 93. We also sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 of claims 83—92 and 94—102, which fall with claim 93.
Anticipation
Independent Claims 83 and 93, and Dependent Claims 84, 85, 87, 88, 94,
95, 97, and 98
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 83 and 93 because Crane does not disclose
a user interface portal that displays a summary of at least
one of the clinical data, the scheduling data, the patient data, and
the financial data for the patient in a consolidated view at a user
interface, that allows a user to customize which financial data,
scheduling data, clinical data, and patient data is displayed in the
summary, and that displays additional details about the clinical
data, the scheduling data, the patient data, and the financial data
displayed in the summary when the user selects a portion of the
6
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
clinical data, the scheduling data, the patient data, and the
financial data with the user interface,
as recited in claim 83, and similarly recited in claim 93. App. Br. 5—6; see
also Reply Br. 2—3.
Crane relates to the operation and management of medical facilities
and businesses, such as hospitals, clinics, and manufacturing and chemical
process plants. Crane col. 1,11. 10-17. Crane, with reference to Figure 15,
describes that exemplary Coordinator Room Displays include “Patients
Checking In,” “Waiting in the Lobby,” “Location of each Patient in the
Clinic,” and “Patients En Route to a Room in the Clinic.” Id. col. 25,11. lb-
28.
The Examiner takes the position that claim 83 “merely requires a
summary of any one type of the recited data.” Ans. 3. As a result, the
Examiner finds that Crane’s disclosure of “a sample display capable of
displaying brief data about a patient” constitutes the claimed user interface
portal displaying a summary of patient data. Id. at 4 (citing Crane, Fig. 15,
col. 25,11. 16—33); see also Final Act. 6.
Although the Examiner is correct that claim 83 requires a user
interface portal to display a summary of “at least one of the clinical data, the
scheduling data, the patient data, and the financial data,” claim 83 also
recites that the user interface portal
allows a user to customize which financial data, scheduling data,
clinical data, and patient data is displayed in the summary, and
that displays additional details about the clinical data, the
scheduling data, the patient data, and the financial data displayed
in the summary when the user selects a portion of the clinical
data, the scheduling data, the patient data, and the financial data
with the user interface.
7
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
Claim 93 recites similar language. Here, the Examiner does not account for
how Crane describes a user may customize which of these four types of data
is displayed in the summary, as required by claims 83 and 93.
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 83 and 93
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 84, 85, 87, 88, 94, 95, 97, and 98, which each
depends from one of claims 83 and 93.
Obviousness
Dependent Claims 86, 89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, and 102
Claims 86, 89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, and 102 each ultimately depends
from one of claims 83 and 93. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 86, 89,
90, 92, 96, 99, 100, and 102 as unpatentable over Crane does not cure the
deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 83 and 93 as anticipated by
Crane. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 86,
89, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, and 102 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 83 and 93.
Dependent Claims 91 and 101
Claims 91 and 100 ultimately depend from claims 83 and 93,
respectively. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 91 and 101 based on Ross,
in combination with Crane, does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 91 and 100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons set forth
above with respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 83—102 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.
8
Appeal 2014-009931
Application 13/083,436
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 83—85, 87, 88, 93—95, 97, and 98
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 86, 89—92, 96, and 99—102 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9