Ex Parte McLaren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2016

12789783 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016)

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