Ex Parte Janevski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12992169 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/992,169 11/11/2010 Angel J. J anevski
24737 7590 08/31/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2008P00864WOUS 5373
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
debbie.henn@philips.com
patti. demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANGEL J. JANEVSKI, NEVENKA DIMITROV A,
SITHARTHAN KAMALAKARAN, Y AS SER ALSAF ADI,
NILANJANA BANERJEE, ANCA IOANA DANIELA BACUR,
JASPER VAN LEEUWEN, and VINA Y V ARADAN
Appeal2014-005468
Application 12/992, 1691
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES A. WORTH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 19 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005468
Application 12/992, 169
19. A medical analysis process for pre-clinical and/or
clinical analysis of data obtained from at least one
patient, the process comprising:
executing a configurable flow of analysis and
visualization of a plurality of data modalities, the plurality of
data modalities comprising:
a first bio-molecular modality comprising bio-molecular
data related to the patient, and
a second clinical modality comprising clinical data
related to the patient,
instantiating one or more tools working on one or more
of the data modalities, wherein the one or more tools are
executed in a graphical user interface (GUI),
simultaneously visualizing data, analysis results, and
outcome of one or more tool executions, further simultaneously
visualizing an outcome of said first bio-molecular modality, and
an outcome of said second clinical modality.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1-212 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Dalton (US 8,135,595 B2, iss. Mar. 13, 2012).
ANALYSIS
35 US. C. § 102te) Rejection
Independent claims 1, 19, and 21 recite in one form or another,
"instantiating one or more tools working on one or more of the data
2 Although claim 21 is not included in the numbering of claims which are
rejected, it is clear from the Examiner's analysis which does include claim
21, that claim 21 is rejected and is before us on Appeal. (Final Act. 6).
2
Appeal2014-005468
Application 12/992, 169
modalities, wherein the one or more tools are executed in a graphical user
interface (GUI)," and "simultaneously visualizing data, analysis results, and
outcome of one or more tool executions, further simultaneously visualizing
an outcome of said first bio-molecular modality, and an outcome of said
second clinical modality." (Appeal Br. 10, 13-14, Claims App.).
Thus, the claims require (I): simultaneously visualizing (1) data, (2)
analysis results, and (3) outcome of one or more tool executions, and (II):
simultaneously visualizing (1) an outcome of said first bio-molecular
modality, and (2) an outcome of said second clinical modality.
Concerning this limitation, the Examiner found that Dalton discloses
these limitations at column 6, line 58 through column 7, line 37, and column
22, lines 12-60. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner further finds:
Dalton teaches the clinical outcome of the patient being
monitored at time intervals by obtaining molecular-profiling the
biological specimen; and these outcomes are correlated with the
molecular profiles and clinical characteristics to determine new
correlations and relationships to test the assumptions relied
upon. Therefore, Dalton teaches visualizing the outcomes of
the modalities.
(Id. at 6).
Appellants argue that
In view of the above, column 6, line 58, to column 7, line 37;
and column 22, lines 12-60; of Dalton clearly do not disclose a
system that includes a graphical user interface (GUI) that
simultaneously visualizes an outcome of the bio-molecular
modality and an outcome of the clinical modality, as recited by
claim 1. Furthermore, the Response to Arguments section of
the final Office Action and the Advisory Action do not provide
any evidence to the contrary. Thus, Dalton does not anticipate
claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed.
(Appeal Br. 7-8).
3
Appeal2014-005468
Application 12/992, 169
We agree with Appellants. Our review of Dalton at the cited sections
reveals no disclosure either explicit or inherent as to the simultaneous
visualizing of (1) data, (2) analysis results, and (3) outcome of one or more
tool executions, and simultaneously visualizing (1) an outcome of said first
bio-molecular modality, and (2) an outcome of said second clinical
modality. Our review of Dalton at best reveals that Dalton discloses,
"[t]hese outcomes are correlated with the molecular profiles and other
clinical characteristics of the patients to determine new correlations and
relationships and to test the assumptions relied upon in the initial
development of the clinical trials." (Dalton, col. 22, 11. 45--49). Nothing is
disclosed in Dalton about the correlation being effected in a GUI, let alone
for the specific data points which are claimed. 3 "A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." (Verdegaal Bros. v.
Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Since claims 2-18 and 2 0 directly or indirect! y depend from claims 1
and 19, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 19, the
rejection of claims 2-18 and 20 likewise cannot be sustained.
3 We note that claim 21 does not require (1) data, (2) analysis results, and (3)
outcome of one or more tool executions data points, but instead requires
"instantiating one or more tools working on one or more of the data
modalities, wherein the one or more tools are executed in a graphical user
interface (GUI) . . . . " As found supra, Dalton fails to disclose executing the
data modality tools in a GUI.
4
Appeal2014-005468
Application 12/992, 169
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-21under35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5