11141430 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2011)

Ex Parte Jacobus et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 13, 2011

11141430 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2011)

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. 11/141,430 05/31/2005 Charles J. Jacobus CYB-06103/03 5304 7590 07/14/2011 John G. Posa Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson & Citkowski, P.C. PO Box 7021 Troy, MI 48007 EXAMINER NGUYEN, HIEP VAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/14/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CHARLES J. JACOBUS, JEFFREY BRAUN, and PAUL COBB ___________ Appeal 2010-006173 Application 11/141,430 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006173 Application 11/141,430 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Charles J. Jacobus, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Oral arguments were presented on July 12, 2010. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is a method for storing and accessing medical or dental patient records through the Internet. Spec. 1:6-8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of managing patient information, comprising the steps of: acquiring patient information from medical instruments or imaging systems and existing medical records, including film and documents; storing the information on one or more computer networks associated with medical practices or institutions; providing one or more interfaces to a wide-area network independent from the computer networks associated with the medical practices or 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jul. 2, 1009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 14, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 13, 2009). Appeal 2010-006173 Application 11/141,430 3 institutions, the interfaces allowing access to the information by the patient’s physician or clinician; and wherein the interfaces further provide secure access to the information directly by the patient. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Johnson Wong US 5,664,109 US 6,260,021 B1 Sep. 2, 1997 Jul. 10, 2001 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong and Johnson. ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner has established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by the teachings of Wong and Johnson, a method that includes interfaces that provide secure access to information directly by the patient as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-13 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong and Johnson. The Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether the combination of Wong and Johnson teaches that “the interfaces further provide secure access to the information directly by the patient” as recited in the method of claim Appeal 2010-006173 Application 11/141,430 4 1. App. Br. 2-6, Reply Br. 2-3, and Ans. 9-14. In the rejection, the Examiner seems to rely upon column 4, lines 40-51 of Johnson to teach this limitation and admits that Wong does not disclose providing interfaces that allow access to the information by the patient (Ans. 3), and in the response to the Appellants’ argument, the Examiner cites column 10, lines 28-47 of Wong as teaching this section (Ans. 14). While column 4, lines 40-52 of Johnson describes a system that allows access “by subscribing service providers such as physicians, clinics, hospitals, laboratories, insurance companies, researchers or other persons or entities requiring access to the records” (Johnson 4:43-46), Johnson does not describe that their system provides secure access directly to the patient. Also, while column 10, lines 28-47 of Wong, describes a security object server that protects medical data from unauthorized access, Wong does not describe an interface providing secure access directly to the patient. The Examiner provides no other evidence or explanation with logical underpinnings as to the obviousness of this limitation. See Ans. 3-4. We find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the limitation at issue. Accordingly, the Appellants have overcome the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-4 and 6-13, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wong and Johnson. Appeal 2010-006173 Application 11/141,430 5 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 6-13 is reversed. REVERSED hh