Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13812392 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/812,392 01/25/2013 Michael Chun-chieh Lee 2010P00690WOUS 3314
24737 7590 03/01/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue TRUONG, DENNIS
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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 MICHAEL CHUN-CHIEH LEE and
ERIC COHEN-SOLAL
Appeal 2016-0023761
Application 13/812,392
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—15, which are all of the pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claim 3 has been canceled. (App. Br. 6.)
Appeal 2016-002376
Application 13/812,392
Introduction
The claims are directed to a system for aiding authoring of reports,
such as medical reports, by associating concept terms, wherein the
associations may “indicate that when a data record . . . contains a first
concept term, the report frequently contains a second concept term.” (Spec.
6:9—10.) The absence of the second concept term may then be flagged. For
example, in a cardiology report:
a report for which “pericarditis” is the diagnosis may be
reasonably expected to mention “friction rub” as one of the
findings. A report lacking this term may be flagged, as it is either
lacking a term that the reader might expect (i.e. the finding
should be mentioned as being present or absent) or the
terminology actually used in the report is somehow non­
standard, and a more consistent use of terminology is
appropriate.
(Spec. 9:33—10:4.) Thus, the invention aids report authoring by, inter alia,
“discovering] and suggesting] relevant or missing medical concept terms to
be possibly added to the report” based on associations between concepts.
(Spec. 10:5-7.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for aiding report authoring, comprising:
a memory that stores a set of associations, wherein an
association links at least one first concept term in a knowledge
domain with at least one second concept term in the knowledge
domain, wherein the association indicates a frequent co­
occurrence of the at least one first concept term and the at least
one second concept term in reports in the knowledge domain;
a processor that extracts the at least one first concept term
relating to a particular subject from an at least partially
2
Appeal 2016-002376
Application 13/812,392
completed report relating to the particular subject, and that finds
the at least one second concept term linked to the at least one
first concept term based on the set of associations, wherein the
at least one second concept term is missing from the at least
partially completed report; and
a display the visually presents an indicator that indicates
the at least one second concept term.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lipscher et al. US 2005/0273363 A1 Dec. 8, 2005
van Arragon et al. US 2008/0275913 Al Nov. 6, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 4—6, and 8—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by van Arragon. (Final Act. 6—15.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over van Arragon and Lipscher. (Final Act. 15—17.)
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on
appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding van Arragon discloses all
limitations of claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
3
Appeal 2016-002376
Application 13/812,392
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6—
17) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-4.) We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis.3
With respect to independent claim 1, he Examiner finds, inter alia:
[A]t least by . . . paragraph 0040, [v]an Arragon discloses that a
practitioner or administrator assigns concepts to various subjects
and the concepts are also associated with each statement. And
further discloses a matching module that which allows
statements/forms to be recommended based on concepts that are
related to each other. See also paragraph [0059-0066] which
discloses that based on a particular type (concept) of exam,
matching list of useful statements/forms is recommended to the
practitioner based on associated concepts between the concept of
the exam and associated concept of the statements/forms such
matching shows that there is an associated link between
concepts.
[A]t least by . .. paragraph [0059-0066] [v]an Arragon discloses
that based on a particular type (concept) of exam, matching list
of useful statements/forms is recommended to the practitioner
based on associated concepts between the concept of the exam
and associated concept of the statements/forms such matching
shows that there is an associated link between concepts. The
partially created report is created when the practitioner starts an
exam in paragraph 0059 the exam is a radiology exam which is
the extracted first concept.
(Final Act. 6—7 (emphasis added).)
Appellants acknowledge van Arragon discloses “first and second
3 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2016-002376
Application 13/812,392
concepts (i.e., input exam concept and statement concepts) are compared to
link the first concept (e.g., the input exam concept to a statement).” (Reply
Br. 3.) Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings are in error, however,
because “[paragraph [0040] of [v]an Arragon et al., contrary to the Office’s
assertion, does not disclose or suggest a set of associations that links a
statement concept (i.e., a concept 31 from concepts 30 selected for a
statement 17) to a subject 32 such that a processor finds the subject 32
linked to the statement concept based on the set of associations.'1'’ (App. Br.
4 (emphases added).) Rather, according to Appellants, van Arragon
“compares concepts of statements (statement concept) and the clinical
concept to find matching (identical) concepts, and uses that statement to
generate a form. [v]an Arragon et al. does not use any association of a
statement concept to find a subject.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because
they are premised on an unduly narrow reading of van Arragon. As the
Examiner finds, and we agree:
[v]an Arragon .. . describes the ability to associate^ concepts to
statements and also concepts to exam type. And based on
concepts sharing/matching the same subject, statement sets
associated with the concept are provided to assist in collecting
relevant information about the patient. In para. 0040, [v]an
Arragon discloses “association links” as the assignment of
statement concepts SC with various subjects 32 related to
examination concepts EC, patient related concept PC, and
medical practitioner related concepts MPC[]. [v]an Arragon
discloses “first concept terms” as statement concepts and
“second concept terms” as examination concepts EC, patient
related concept PC, and medical practitioner related concepts
MPC[],
(Ans. 2-3.)
5
Appeal 2016-002376
Application 13/812,392
The Examiner further notes van Arragon provides an example of
associating statement concepts and patient-related concepts in paragraph 59,
wherein van Arragon discloses: “For example, [a] statement 17 like ‘pain ’
may also provide structure on the generated statement form 9 to allow the
medical practitioner 18 to specify the duration and location of the pain, as
communicated by the patient 20 or otherwise identified/surmised by the
medical practitioner 18.” (van Arragon 159 (emphases added).) As the
Examiner finds, and we agree, this portion of van Arragon discloses
associating a statement concept (“pain”), which the Examiner maps to the
claimed “first concept term,” with a patient-related concept (e.g., “duration”
and/or “location”), which the Examiner maps to a “second concept term.”
(Ans. 3.) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, van Arragon discloses
the second concept terms are provided to the practitioner by way of a
generated statement form. (Id.; see also Final Act. 6—8; van Arragon || 53—
55, 160.)
Appellants respond to the Examiner’s findings regarding van
Arragon’s example in paragraph 59 by stating, conclusorily, that the
Examiner’s “interpretations are not supported by [van] Arragon et al.”
(Reply Br. 3.) Appellants provide no analysis or reasoning to support this
contention. Moreover, as noted above, we find the Examiner’s findings are
supported by the cited teachings and, thus, we disagree with Appellants’
unduly narrow reading of van Arragon.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and we,
therefore, sustain that rejection. Appellants argue independent claim 14
collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 4.) Accordingly, we also sustain the
6
Appeal 2016-002376
Application 13/812,392
rejection of independent claim 14 for the reasons stated above with regard to
independent claim 1. Separate patentability is also not argued for dependent
claims 2, 4—6, 8—13, and 15, which also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over van Arragon. (Final Act. 6—15; App. Br. 4.) Accordingly, we
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Dependent claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over van
Arragon and Lipscher. Appellants do not, however, argue this claim
separately from independent claim 1, from which it depends. (App. Br. 5.)
Rather, Appellants contend only that “Lipscher et al. does not make up for
the deficiencies of claim 7 with respect to claim 1.” Because, as noted
above, we do not find the Examiner’s findings deficient with regard to claim
1, we also sustain the rejection of claim 7 for the reasons stated above with
regard to independent claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—
15 is affirmed.
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
7