Ex Parte Haider et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311583612 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/583,612 10/18/2006 Sultan Haider P06,0282 3220 26574 7590 09/24/2013 SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP PATENT DEPARTMENT 233 S. Wacker Drive-Suite 6600 CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473 EXAMINER ZARE, SCOTT A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SULTAN HAIDER and GEORG HEIDENREICH ____________ Appeal 2011-011622 Application 11/583,612 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Sultan Haider, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-7 and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Appeal 2011-011622 Application 11/583,612 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM.1 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for managing inventory of a pharmacy, comprising: a pharmacy search and order system on a computer system and connected to receive information relating to prescriptions for patients in a predetermined region, said pharmacy search and order system having an output at which prescription information is transmitted to at least one pharmacy serving patients in said predetermined region; a self learning system on a computer system and connected to receive prescription information from said pharmacy search and order system, said self learning system being operable to learn patient care path information from the prescription information; a rule database stored on a computer system and connected in communication with said self learning system, said rule database storing rules relating to patient care paths and prescription needs information indicated by the patient care paths, said patient care paths and prescription needs information being for patients in said predetermined region, said rule database communicating said prescription needs information to said self learning system; said self learning system communicating the prescription needs information of the predetermined region to the pharmacy for use in increasing or decreasing inventory in accordance with predicted needs; and 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed Feb. 4, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Apr. 26, 2011). Appeal 2011-011622 Application 11/583,612 3 a user output for communicating to a patient information relating to the prescription. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Jay Ziegele Albrecht US 2003/0050799 A1 US 2004/0260599 A1 US 2008/0046295 A1 Mar. 13, 2003 Dec. 23, 2004 Feb. 21, 2008 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jay, Albrecht, and Ziegele. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in concluding that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the cited prior art combination to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention? FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that: “the combination of Jay and Albrecht fails to teach a self learning Appeal 2011-011622 Application 11/583,612 4 system to learn patient care path information from the prescription information and to use the care path information in conjunction with a rule database to identify changes that can be made in pharmacy stock to better meet the changing needs of the patients using the pharmacy” (Br. 9); and, “[t]he combination of Jay and Albrecht in view of Ziegele also lacks a self learning system and further lacks a rules database” (Br. 10). But the Examiner made factual findings that a self learning system is disclosed in Jay at paragraph [0038] (Final Rejection, page 5) as well as in Albrecht at paragraph [0055], citing element 642 (Final Rejection, page 6). These facts have not been addressed, let alone rebutted with argument and/or evidence. Similarly, the Examiner made a factual finding that Albrecht discloses a rule database at paragraph [0057], citing element 610 (Final Rejection, page 7) which also remains unchallenged. Why is this evidence not sufficient to show that a self learning system and a rules database, as claimed, were known in the art at the time of the invention? We are not told. Consequently, we find that the Appellants’ general arguments, which do not focus on the facts underlying the Examiner’s position, are unpersuasive in establishing that the Examiner erred in concluding, from the relied-upon factual findings, that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the cited prior art combination to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. We have considered all the arguments, including those directed at claims 7 and 12 (Br. 10-13), but find that they are unpersuasive as to error in the Examiner’s position for the same reasons. Appeal 2011-011622 Application 11/583,612 5 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 and 12 is affirmed. AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation