Ex Parte McLaren et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201612789783 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121789,783 05/28/2010 5073 7590 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 ROSS A VENUE SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 05/20/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffrey Lee McLaren 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. 080415.0102 9273 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, TERESA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2016 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): ptomaill@bakerbotts.com ptomail2@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY LEE MCLAREN, WILLIAM DYER RODES II, and JOHN MALCOLM TOUPS Appeal2013-009238 Application 12/789,783 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Jeffrey Lee McLaren, William Dyer Rodes II, and John Malcolm Toups (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-19, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed March 7, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 8, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 9, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed September 17, 2012). Appeal2013-009238 Application 12/789,783 The Appellants invented a way of managing medical case and chronology information for one or more medical practices. Specification, para. 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A handheld apparatus comprising: [A J a user interface comprising a display and capable of receiving user input; [BJ a wireless network interface capable of coupling to a central medical information management system; [CJ a memory maintaining a medical information management application; and [DJ a processor operable when executing the medical information management application: [ 1] to receive electronic medical case board information from the central medical information management system, wherein the electronic medical case board information includes a plurality of patient treatment entries that correspond to patients scheduled for care by a medical practice at a practice location during a predetermined period of time, wherein each of the patient treatment entries includes a patient identifier, and one of a plurality of predefined phases of care; [2J to provide a plurality of display modes corresponding to the plurality of phases of care, wherein each of the display modes displays the patient treatment entries having the one of the predefined phases of care corresponding to the display mode; 2 Appeal2013-009238 Application 12/789,783 [3] to receive a patient update corresponding to one of the patient treatment entries using the user interface, the patient update comprising information associated with a medical care event for the patient associated with the corresponding patient treatment entry; [ 4] to communicate the patient update to the medical information management system; [ 5] to receive updated electronic medical case board information from the central medical information management system, and the updated electronic medical case board information incorporating the information from the patient update; [ 6] to update the display based on the updated electronic medical case board information. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Morgan US 2007/0192133 Al Aug. 16, 2007 Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morgan. ISSUE The issue of anticipation turns primarily on whether Morgan describes limitation [2] providing different display modes wherein the display mode displays the patient treatment entries having the one of the predefined phases of care in limitation [ 1] corresponding to the display mode. 3 Appeal2013-009238 Application 12/789,783 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUE The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Morgan 01. Morgan is directed to a patient records system. Morgan, para. 2. 02. Morgan describes storing a patient record in a patient record system that receives a request for patient information from an input/output device, retrieves patient information from the patient record, transmits the patient information to the input/output device, receives verification information from the input/output device, and identifies the patient as being ready for a next stage of the medical process in accordance with the verification information. Morgan, para. 4. 03. Morgan describes storing an operating list for a ward for the day. This will contain the record for each patient of the ward, who is scheduled to have elective surgery that day. For each patient, the list contains at least the fields: date of surgery, start time of surgery, operating theatre identification, consultant surgeon and anaesthetist name, surgery order number, patient name, patient number, patient age and sex, ward identification, bed allocation (blank until arrival of patient on ward), surgery identification including side and site (free text), anaesthetic type. Morgan, para. 72. 4 Appeal2013-009238 Application 12/789,783 ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Morgan fails to describe limitation [2] providing different display modes wherein the display mode displays the patient treatment entries having the one of the predefined phases of care in limitation [1] corresponding to the display mode. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds that Morgan provides display modes that differ based on where a patient is in the medical process. Final Act. 2-3. We agree. We also agree that this could be broadly construed as displaying those patient treatment entries having the one of a set of predefined phases of care corresponding to the display mode. The Examiner apparently fails to appreciate that this is not quite enough. Appellants do not just recite a function of changing the display mode, but also recite an implementation for making that change. Limitation [2] does not refer to predefined phases of care in the abstract or even that which a patient is experiencing per se, but implements its mode based on the predefined phase of care that is included in the patient treatment entry of limitation [ 1]. The Examiner finds that Morgan describes various fields related to predefined phases of care (Final Act. 3; FF 03), but this list of fields does not include a field that identifies one of a plurality of predefined phases of care and more importantly, Morgan does not describe a display mode that depends on any of these fields. Instead, Morgan's display mode depends on location data transmitted from an RFID tag. The Examiner does not even refer to this field in limitation [ 1] in the Response. Ans. 2-3. 5 Appeal2013-009238 Application 12/789,783 CONCLUSION OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Morgan is improper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-19 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation