Ex Parte McRae et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

11756486 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KRISTEN MCRAE, JOHN M. JACKSON, JENNIE L. SMITH,
BRET BRODOWY, and REGINA LEUNG
____________

Appeal 2011-012574
Application 11/756,486
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and PHILIP J.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012574
Application 11/756,486

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-18, 21-33, and 36-45. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to medication inventory management
systems, and in particular to an inventory management system for a medical
service provider.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An inventory management system for managing an
inventory of medications for a medical service provider, said
system comprising:
a data input device configured to read medication data
associated with the medications;
a database of electronic medical records; and
a processor configured to execute an inventory
management application, wherein the inventory management
application is configured upon execution by the processor to
process the medication data and to interface with the database
of electronic medical records for updating the inventory of
medications,
wherein the inventory management application is further
configured to interface with the database of electronic medical
records to access at least one of the group consisting of a
diagnosis, stage of illness, or regimen and to project patient
medication needs based at least in part on the diagnosis, stage
of illness, or regimen, and to automatically order medications
based at least in part on the projected patient medication needs.

Appeal 2011-012574
Application 11/756,486

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 22-26, 29, 31-33, 37-41, and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Glass (US 2006/0190297 A1; pub. Aug.
24, 2006).
Claims 13, 15, 28, 30, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glass.
Claims 6, 12, 21, 27, 36, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Glass and Talachian (US 2003/0144882 A1; pub. Jul. 31,
2003).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because Glass does not
teach or suggest projecting patient medication needs based at least in part on
a diagnosis, stage of illness, or regimen, and automatically ordering
medications based at least in part on the projected patient medication needs?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of the
references as our own. Ans. 4-9. Additional findings of fact may appear in
the Analysis that follows.

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Glass does not teach or suggest projecting patient
medication needs based at least in part on a diagnosis, stage of illness, or
regimen, and automatically ordering medications based at least in part on the
Appeal 2011-012574
Application 11/756,486

4
projected patient medication needs. In response to the Examiner’s finding
that Glass discloses this step of claim 1 by disclosing that automatic ordering
is performed in response to inventory data or patient data, Appellants argue
that (1) Glass does not disclose what particular patient data is used and (2)
Glass does not disclose medications scheduled to be dispensed (App. Br. 6).
Glass discloses that the patient data upon which the automatic
ordering is based includes patient identification data, patient schedules, and
treatment data and regimen (para. [0032]). In our view, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that medications would be
included in a treatment data and regimen. Furthermore, Glass specifically
discloses that the portable device captures transaction data that includes
medication data at the point of care, and that this data is used to update the
patient data on the Lynx Mobile server (paras. [0034]-[0035]). As such,
Glass does disclose what the patient data is and it is clear that the patient
data includes medication data.
We also find Glass discloses that the patient data is used to
automatically order one or more drugs and supplies for the facility in
response to one or more of the inventory data and the patient data, and as
such Glass does indeed disclose medications scheduled to be dispensed
(para. [0116]).
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as anticipated by Glass. We will also sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 22-26, 29, 31-33, 37-
41, and 44 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability
of these claims.
Appeal 2011-012574
Application 11/756,486

5
We will also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the
remaining claims because the Appellants rely on the arguments made in
response to the anticipation rejection to address these rejections.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1) (2011).

AFFIRMED

hh