Ex Parte Miller

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2010

10222366 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte THERESA MCELWAIN MILLER 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-005579 11
Application 10/222,366 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided: February 23, 2010 16
____________________ 17
18
19
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W. 20
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 21
22
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 23
24
25
DECISION ON APPEAL26
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 2
of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 3
Appellant invented systems and methods for generating orders for a 4
healthcare information system (Spec. 1:10-12). 5
Claim 1 under appeal is further illustrative of the claimed invention as 6
follows: 7
1. A computer implemented automated method for 8
providing a form for display to a user for ordering particular 9
services supporting healthcare delivery to a patient, comprising 10
the steps of: 11
acquiring data identifying order types and associated 12
parameter types; 13
automatically analyzing said acquired data to provide 14
collated data suitable for presentation in a display form for use 15
in placing an order for a particular type of service to be 16
provided to a patient, said analyzing including parsing said 17
acquired data to determine: 18
(a) type of display fields for incorporation in said display 19
form, 20
(b) a sequence of presentation of said display fields in 21
said display form, and 22
(c) placement of said display fields in said display form; 23
and 24
automatically processing said collated data to prepare 25
data, representing said display form, for use in placing said 26
order for said particular type of service to be provided to a 27
patient and presenting a user with allowable values for a 28
parameter associated with a particular order type for said 29
particular type of service by deriving said allowable values 30
from memory. 31
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 1
appeal is: 2
Macrae US 5,786,816 Jul. 28, 1998 3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being 4
anticipated by Macrae. 5
We REVERSE. 6
7
ISSUE 8
Did the Appellant show the Examiner erred in asserting that Macrae 9
discloses “automatically analyzing said acquired data to provide collated 10
data suitable for presentation in a display form for use in placing an order for 11
a particular type of service to be provided to a patient,” as recited in 12
independent claims 1 and 8, and “a processor adapted to automatically 13
generate the order form using a generated order template responsive to 14
receiving the input information by automatically processing said input 15
information related to format and content of an order form to prepare data,” 16
as recited in independent claim 10? 17
18
FINDINGS OF FACT 19
Specification 20
Appellant invented systems and methods for generating orders for a 21
healthcare information system (Spec. 1:10-12). 22
Order generator 24 and/or 34 dynamically creates the order form 23
based on a master file definition by automatically placing the fields on the 24
detail form based on an identified sequence (Spec. 7:19-21; 20:16-18). 25
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

4
The order generator 24 and/or 34 may permit the user to save the 1
order form or automatically populate the order form, without manual 2
intervention from the user (Spec. 13:6-8). 3
4
Macrae 5
Macrae discloses providing graphic medical healthcare plans 6
(protocols), and in particular a graphic user interface, for developing, 7
viewing, and implementing medical healthcare plans (col. 1, ll. 8-11). 8
The term “‘template’” is used to refer to a generic healthcare 9
treatment plan, protocol, or guideline (col. 5, ll. 38-39). 10
Figure 1 illustrates an example of a Template Builder window with an 11
open template. The template graphically represents a medical healthcare 12
treatment plan in upper window 10. The upper window 10 shows a Flow 13
Chart view 11 of a medical healthcare treatment plan. The template contains 14
a number of graphic elements including: a start node, three triplets of an 15
order node, a result node, a flow control node, and an exit node. These 16
graphical elements are positioned in window 10 in order to represent a 17
medical healthcare treatment plan (col. 6, ll. 14-23). 18
In Flow Chart view 11, the process flow begins with a Start node, 19
enters into the first Order nodes, and flows out to Result nodes. After the 20
results are entered, the process flow continues on to a Flow Control node 21
where the next step in the treatment is determined (col. 6, ll. 26-30). 22
Before a user can create a template, treatment work flow must be 23
defined; that is, the order in which treatment activities are carried out for a 24
given condition (col. 7, ll. 24-26). 25
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

5
A template is constructed from graphic elements or building blocks 1
called “‘nodes.’” There are five kinds of nodes: Start, Order, Results, Flow 2
Control, and Exit. Every template has a Start node, which indicates the start 3
of the template. Likewise, every template has at least one Exit node, which 4
indicates the end of the template. Between the Start and Exit nodes are a 5
series of Order, Results, and Flow Control nodes (col. 7, ll. 27-34). 6
When building a template, nodes are positioned in the chronological 7
order in which they are to be carried out or executed. A user defines each 8
node and connects the nodes (col. 7, ll. 61-63). 9
Template creation involves the following activities: (1) placing Order, 10
Results, and Flow Control nodes in their proper sequence; (2) filling in the 11
orders (i.e., treatment procedures, medicine, and advice); (3) placing an Exit 12
node at the end of the template; (4) deciding on the circumstances and order 13
in which each template step is executed during treatment; and (5) saving the 14
template (col. 7, l. 64 through col. 8, l. 3). 15
Thus, when a physician prescribes treatment for a condition addressed 16
in an existing template, a stored treatment template can be used instead of 17
creating a new one. If a treatment template does not exist for a given 18
condition, a physician may retrieve a template from the library that 19
addresses a similar condition, modify the template as needed, and start the 20
patient treatment using the modified template (col. 8, ll. 4-11). 21
22
PRINCIPLES OF LAW 23
Claim Construction 24
The specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction 25
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning 26
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

6
of a disputed term. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 2
ANALYSIS 3
We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s 4
argument that Macrae does not disclose “automatically analyzing said 5
acquired data to provide collated data suitable for presentation in a display 6
form for use in placing an order for a particular type of service to be 7
provided to a patient,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 8, and “a 8
processor adapted to automatically generate the order form using a generated 9
order template responsive to receiving the input information by 10
automatically processing said input information related to format and 11
content of an order form to prepare data,” as recited in independent claim 10 12
(App. Br. 6-7, 9-10, 18-20, 22-24). The Examiner makes two arguments. 13
The first argument is that the process of creating/modifying a 14
treatment template/plan in Macrae corresponds to the recited automatically 15
analyzing/generating of acquired data/input information (Ex. Ans. 22-23). 16
In other words, some analysis/generation has to occur in Macrae in order to 17
place the nodes in correct sequence in the template. However, column 7, 18
lines 24-26 of Macrae discloses that such analysis, if any, is performed by 19
the user, who then manipulates the template/plan and places the nodes (col. 20
7, ll. 27-34; col. 7, l. 61 through col. 8, l. 4). Accordingly, no automatic 21
analyzing/generating occurs in Macrae, as set forth in the claims, and thus a 22
rejection under § 102(b) is improper. 23
The second argument is that the process of displaying a stored 24
template corresponds to the recited automatically analyzing/generating of 25
acquired data/input information (Ex. Ans. 21-22, 25-26, 33-34). 26
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

7
Specifically, the Examiner argues that any stored template has a plurality of 1
data elements, and that these data elements must be “analyzed” and then 2
assembled in the correct order (i.e., collated) in order to be properly 3
displayed on a screen. However, we agree with the Appellant that one of 4
ordinary skill in the art would not consider the process steps associated with 5
the displaying of a stored template on a screen as corresponding to 6
analyzing/generating steps based on acquired data/input information. This 7
interpretation is supported by the Specification, which discloses 8
analyzing/generating in the context of dynamic data analysis, and not the 9
Examiner’s generic displaying on a screen (Spec. 7:19-21; 13:6-8; 20:16-10
18). See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d at 1582. 11
Accordingly, as the displaying in Macrae does not correspond to the claimed 12
analyzing/generating, the claim recitation is not met. 13
14
CONCLUSION OF LAW 15
On the record before us, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred 16
in rejecting claims 1-17. 17
18
DECISION 19
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17 is reversed. 20
21
REVERSED 22
Appeal 2009-005579
Application 10/222,366

8
hh 1
2
3
4
Siemens Corporation 5
Intellectual Property Department 6
186 Wood Avenue South 7
Iselin, NJ 08830 8