Ex Parte Knapp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2014

11356673 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/356,673 02/17/2006 Robert Ernest Knapp 2005P02938 US01 5289
7590 01/14/2014
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
RAJ, RAJIV J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2014 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 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte ROBERT ERNEST KNAPP 7
___________ 8
9
Appeal 2011-010624 10
Application 11/356,673 11
Technology Center 3600 12
___________ 13
14
15
Before: ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and 16
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. 17
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.18
19
DECISION ON APPEAL 20
21
Appeal 2011-010
Application 11/356,673

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1
Robert Ernest Knapp (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of 2
the Examiner’s non-final rejection of claims 1-19, the only claims pending 3
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant 4
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 5
The Appellant invented a medical resource estimation and simulation 6
system. (Specification 1:9-11). 7
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 8
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 9
paragraphing added]. 10
1. A healthcare decision support system for simulating effects 11
of a change in a number of patients, comprising: 12
[1] at least one repository of information 13
including patient specific clinical and nonclinical data 14
comprising a plurality of medical record attributes 15
of a plurality of patients; 16
[2] a simulation processor 17
for receiving data representing a plurality of numerical 18
adjustment factors 19
for adjusting a value 20
representing number of patients identified in 21
data 22
in a corresponding plurality of 23
associated subsets of said plurality of 24
patients 25

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 22, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
March 31, 2011).
Appeal 2011-010
Application 11/356,673

3

using information derived from said at least one 1
repository, 2
an individual subset comprising data 3
identifying patients having a particular medical 4
record attribute 5
of a particular type; 6
and 7
[3] a calculation processor 8
for identifying patients 9
common to different pat1icular subsets 10
individually having a particular medical record 11
attribute of a particular type 12
and 13
for calculating a change in a value 14
representing number of patients 15
common to said different particular 16
subsets 17
by calculating a product of numerical adjustment 18
factors associated with said different pat1icular 19
subsets, 20
said product representing a multi-factor simulation. 21
22
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 23
Mok US 2003/0140044 A1 Jul. 24, 2003
Wager US 2005/0075904 A1 Apr. 7, 2005
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 24
over Mok and Wager. 25
Appeal 2011-010
Application 11/356,673

4

ISSUES 1
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art applied 2
describes calculating a product of numerical adjustment factors. 3
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 4
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 5
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 6
Facts Related to the Prior Art 7
Mok 8
01. Mok is directed to medical records management and to the 9
collection, organization, presentation, and distribution of a 10
patient's medical records. Mok para [0002]. 11
02. Mok has a patient-directed central data repository and a set of 12
processes that enable the patient to be the hub in a hub-and-spoke 13
arrangement, where each spoke goes to one of the patient's 14
healthcare providers, both past and present. The patient's medical 15
records, past and present, and any updates, are collected, classified 16
and stored in the central data repository. The system which stores 17
the records in the central data repository provides classification 18
schema and capabilities that enable the record pages to be sorted 19
and prioritized in numerous meaningful ways. The system also 20
automatically organizes the medical record documents in such a 21
way that facilitates the generation of reports that can then be 22
readily distributed. Mok para [0014]. 23
Appeal 2011-010
Application 11/356,673

5

03. Mok does not describe calculating a product of numerical 1
adjustment factors. 2
3
Wager 4
04. Wager is directed to tools and techniques for automatically 5
filtering and assigning care providers to hospital and other patients 6
based on a matching of the clinical requirements of those patients 7
to provider factors including clinical qualifications or 8
certifications, the exposure of the provider to other infectious 9
patients, the estimated workload represented by those patients and 10
the provider's capacity to perform that work, among other clinical 11
evidence and factors. Wager para [0003]. 12
05. Wager automatically generates evidence-based assignments of 13
care providers to patients, in which a rules-based assignment 14
engine may perform a thorough, programmatic comparison 15
between patient needs and requirements and care provider factors 16
including qualifications, skills, patient workload, infectious 17
exposure, provider availability and other factors. The assignment 18
engine may access a patient's medical chart or other clinical 19
documentation or records to identify necessary qualifications or 20
factors which may guide the assignment of nurses, doctors, 21
technicians and other care providers to that patient. Wager 22
generates an assignment of each patient in a unit or department to 23
the care provider having a best, closest or sufficient match to the 24
clinical needs of that patient, consistent with workload, infectious 25
Appeal 2011-010
Application 11/356,673

6

or other constraints. In cases, clinical or epidemiological factors 1
such as potential exposure or assignment to other patients having 2
identified classes of infectious disease may be used to rule out the 3
assignment of given providers to individual patients. A clinical 4
manager may manipulate a management application or interface to 5
accept or override given provider assignments, to evaluate 6
alternate providers for assignment to individual patients under 7
different conditions, to view resulting matches to patient 8
requirements, to adjust various schedules and view other 9
simulations or projected results or schedules. The management 10
interface may flag potential conflicts between a provider's 11
background and a patient's clinical needs. For example a 12
supervisor may be alerted that the reassignment of a care provider 13
to a patient may be contraindicated by skill, certification, 14
infectious status, scheduling or other factors. Wager para [0006]. 15
06. Provider factors may include acuity or workload ratings for a care 16
provider indicating their availability or capacity to undertake new 17
patient assignments, given for instance the number and nature of 18
existing patient assignments, work schedules or other workload 19
factors. Workload ratings or estimates in provider factors may be 20
computed or generated. Provider factors may include rating, 21
evaluation, seniority or other data for providers within their 22
organization or clinical unit. Wager para [0017]. 23
07. Wager does not describe calculating a product of numerical 24
adjustment factors. 25
Appeal 2011-010
Application 11/356,673

7

ANALYSIS 1
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that neither reference 2
describes calculating a product of numerical adjustment factors. App. Br. 9. 3
In response, the Examiner found 4
[t]he cited prior art discloses patient laboratory numerical data 5
and said numerical data factors are applied to a rule set in a 6
comparative analysis to produce calculated results. (see at least 7
Wager [0015-0020])[.] 8
Ans. 22. The Examiner found such factors were used in rule tables, but 9
not that the factors were multiplied to compute a multiplication product as in 10
all independent claims. The Examiner therefore has not provided a prima 11
facie case for obviousness. 12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 13
The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 14
over Mok and Wager is improper. 15
DECISION 16
The rejection of claims 1-19 is reversed. 17
18
REVERSED 19
20
21
22
23
rvb 24