Ex Parte Manetta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

12264627 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/264,627 11104/2008
77595 7590 09/16/2016
IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US) - DMI
ONE LIBERTY PLACE
1650 MARKET STREET, SUITE 4900
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amy M. Manetta
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.
2007D00011US01 1508
EXAMINER
PATEL,NEHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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):
pto. phil@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMY M. MANETTA, JOLYN RUTLEDGE,
CHRISTINA L. SIZEMORE, and JAQUELINE MULCAHY
Appeal2014-005872
Application 12/264,627
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-27 which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-005872
Application 12/264,627
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention relates to a patient treatment
planning system for creating and editing of a patient treatment plan to be
implemented by healthcare professionals (Spec. 1 ). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A patient treatment planning system, comprising:
at least one repository of medical information of a
plurality of different patients;
a data processor for acquiring patient data from said at
least one repository for presentation in a user interface display
and storing patient data; and
a user interface for initiating generation of data
representing a composite display image presenting patient data
acquired from said at least one repository using said data
processor,
said composite display image enabling user initiation of
execution of a plurality of different executable applications by
said data processor including at least,
a medication administration scheduling application, and
a care planning application that
enables scheduling a care plan event for a particular
patient, said care plan event defining at least one action to be
performed on a patient and including associated context data
describing a characteristic associated with the care plan event,
automatically initiates care plan event conflict checking
in response to scheduling said care plan event for said particular
patient by comparing the scheduled care plan event and
associated context data with previous care plan events and
associated context data stored in said at least one repository for
said particular patient to determine if any actions in the
scheduled care plan event duplicate actions in said previous
care plan events stored in said at least one repository, and
2
Appeal2014-005872
Application 12/264,627
automatically conveys data identifying said scheduled
care plan event and associated context data to said medication
administration scheduling application for population of a
medication administration schedule for display by said user
interface.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Goldstein
Dvorak
Tajaliawal
Buttner
US 2001/0021910 Al
US 2002/0120472 Al
US 2007 /0033073 Al
US 2007/0143149 Al
The following rejection is before us for review:
Sept. 13, 2001
Aug.29,2002
Feb. 8,2007
June 21, 2007
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Buttner, Goldstein, Dvorak, and Tajaliawal.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper
because, inter alia, Dvorak does not disclose determining "comparing the
scheduled care plan event and associated context data with previous care
1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2014-005872
Application 12/264,627
plan events and associated context data stored in said at least one repository
for said particular patient to determine if any actions in the scheduled care
plan event duplicate actions in said previous care plan events stored in said
at least one repository" as required by claim 1. According to the Appellants,
"Dvorak does not check for any duplication in any manner whatsoever"
because "[t]here is no consideration made by the system described in Dvorak
as to the nature of the appointment so long as both could be timely kept"
(Appeal Br. 18).
The Examiner has however determined that the cited claim limitation
is disclosed by Dvorak at paragraph 70 (Ans. 6). According to the
Examiner, "duplicate action can be interpreted as another appointment for
same time slot" (id.).
We agree with the Appellants.
Claim 1 requires determining "duplicate actions" based on comparing
(1) "the scheduled care plan event" and (2) "associated context data."
We begin with claim construction. The Specification describes a
"conflict resolution process" that includes a first level that identifies "event
data values [that] match the existing event data values exclusive of context
data" and a second level wherein "upon proposed event data being equal to
existing event data," the process "compar [es] context data of the proposed
event with context data of the existing event" (Spec. 5---6). Regarding the
event data values compared in the first level, the events in the plan identify
"an action to be performed on or on behalf of a patient" such as "medication
administration, fluid administration, an assessment or an intervention"
(Spec. 3). Regarding the data compared in the second level, the
Specification describes "context data" as "any data characterizing the event,
4
Appeal2014-005872
Application 12/264,627
including scheduling data detailing a time and/or frequency of occurrence
for the event" (id.). Thus, the Specification makes a distinction between
comparing events (i.e., action to be performed) and comparing associated
context data for an event (i.e., data associated with the action). Claim 1
requires determining "duplicate actions" on the basis of both of these two
distinct comparisons. Thus, we construe the term "duplicate actions" to
refer to two actions that are similar in some substantive manner other than
their associated data. The Examiner's construction of the term "duplicate
actions" in the claim to include "another appointment for same time slot"
(see Ans. 6), regardless of substantive similarity, is inappropriate for the
reasons given above in light of the Specification.
Here, the citation to Dvorak at paragraph 70 fails to disclose
"duplicate actions" as recited in claim 1. Dvorak, at the cited portions, does
disclose a scheduler that selects a time to perform a procedure based on
"potentially conflicting appointments" but not "duplicate actions" as claimed
in light of the Specification.
As the cited claim limitation has not been shown where cited in the
prior art, the rejection of claim 1 is not sustained. The remaining claims
contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained
for the same reasons given above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.
5
Appeal2014-005872
Application 12/264,627
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27 is reversed.
REVERSED
6