Ex Parte Penny et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2010

10411056 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
____________________ 2
3
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4
AND INTERFERENCES 5
____________________ 6
7
Ex parte MARK PENNY, ALAN ALPERT, and RAND J. MONTELEONE 8
____________________ 9
10
Appeal 2009-006698 11
Application 10/411,056 12
Technology Center 3600 13
____________________ 14
15
Decided: May 11, 2010 16
____________________ 17
18
19
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. 20
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. 21
22
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 23
24
25
DECISION ON APPEAL26
Appeal 2009-006698
Application 10/411,056

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a Final 2
Rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 3
§ 6(b) (2002). 4
Appellants invented systems and methods related to processing and 5
displaying patient medical information in a network environment and in 6
particular to facilitating storage, retrieval, and processing of data for fluid 7
intake and output computations and display (Spec. 1:12-14). 8
Independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 9
1. A patient medical parameter data 10
processing system for providing patient medical 11
parameter data for trend indicative display 12
covering a time period comprising user selectable 13
patient parameter acquisition time intervals, 14
comprising: 15
an acquisition processor for receiving data 16
identifying, for a continuing infusion, 17
(a) rate of volume of fluid infusion into a 18
patient, a fluid type identifier and a start time and 19
start date of said continuing infusion, and for a 20
non-continuing infusion, 21
(b) a total volume of fluid infusion, a fluid 22
type identifier and a time and date of said non-23
continuing infusion; and 24
a data processor for determining, from said 25
received data, a cumulative total volume infusion 26
of a particular fluid into a particular patient for a 27
particular user selectable patient parameter 28
acquisition time interval, wherein said data 29
processor stores said received data comprising a 30
reduced set of fluid parameter data supporting 31
extrapolation and interpolation of intermediate 32
fluid volume data values affecting fluid cumulative 33
volume computation and excluding storage of fluid 34
Appeal 2009-006698
Application 10/411,056

3
parameter data irrelevant to fluid cumulative 1
volume computation.. 2
3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 4
appeal is: 5
Malave US 2002/0193679 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 6
Hungerford US 5,091,863 Feb. 25, 1992 7
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 7-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 8
as being unpatentable over Malave in view of Hungerford.1 9
We REVERSE. 10
11
ISSUE 12
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Malave and 13
Hungerford renders obvious a data processor that stores received data 14
comprising a reduced set of fluid parameter data supporting extrapolation 15
and interpolation of intermediate fluid volume data values affecting fluid 16
cumulative volume computation and excluding storage of fluid parameter 17
data irrelevant to fluid cumulative volume computation, as recited in 18
independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 20-22? 19
20
FINDINGS OF FACT 21
Specification 22
Appellants invented systems and methods related to processing and 23
displaying patient medical information in a network environment and in 24

1 The rejection of claims 1, 16, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for indefiniteness, set forth on pages 2-3 of the Office Action
mailed February 21, 2008, was withdrawn on pages 21-22 of the Examiner’s
Answer.
Appeal 2009-006698
Application 10/411,056

4
particular to facilitating storage, retrieval and processing of data for fluid 1
intake and output computations and display (Spec. 1:12-14). 2
3
Malave 4
Malave discloses a communication station is for use with a medical 5
device (such as an infusion pump) and a processing device (such as a 6
computer (Abstr.). 7
Downloading for infusion pumps includes the process of transferring 8
appropriate data from the infusion pump 12 to the PC 14. Typical stored 9
information, which is downloaded from an infusion pump 12 are current 10
pump settings, daily totals and boluses, events, and alarms ([0078]). 11
12
Hungerford 13
Hungerford discloses an automatic liquid sampling and flow 14
measuring apparatus provided as a unitary structure within a case, and 15
capable of collecting liquid samples at selected intervals, measuring flow 16
rate through a channel at selected intervals, and collecting and storing 17
sampling and flow rate data for later retrieval. The apparatus is provided 18
with its own self-contained microprocessor for automatically controlling 19
sampling operations, calculating flow rate on the basis of signals from a 20
sensor, and storing data relating to sample collection and flow rate 21
measurement. The stored data can be called up on a display of the 22
apparatus, or can be transferred via a portable transfer unit to an external 23
output device, such as a printer capable of producing a hard copy of the data 24
(Abstr.). 25
Appeal 2009-006698
Application 10/411,056

5
ANALYSIS 1
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that a 2
combination of Malave and Hungerford renders obvious a data processor 3
that stores received data comprising a reduced set of fluid parameter data 4
supporting extrapolation and interpolation of intermediate fluid volume data 5
values affecting fluid cumulative volume computation and excluding storage 6
of fluid parameter data irrelevant to fluid cumulative volume computation, 7
as recited in independent claims 1, 12, 16, and 20-22 (App. Br. 11-15, 19-21, 8
23-26, 28-35). As an initial matter, the downloading of “appropriate” fluid 9
data of Malave and/or sampling at selected intervals of Hungerford does not 10
correspond to the claimed “reduced set of fluid parameter data,” as neither 11
cited portions discloses what the “appropriate” fluid data or sampled data is 12
reduced from. While we agree with the Examiner that this data set reduction 13
does not need to be dynamic, and can be manual, the cited portions of 14
neither Malave nor Hungerford disclose even a manual reduction of data; 15
they simply disclose the collection of fluid/sampling data. 16
Moreover, even if Malave and Hungerford disclosed a reduced data 17
set, neither cited portions disclose that the reduced data set excludes “fluid 18
parameter data irrelevant to fluid cumulative volume computation.” The 19
cited portions of Malave disclose collecting “current pump settings, daily 20
totals and boluses, events, and alarms” ([0078]). The cited portions of 21
Hungerford disclose “data relating to sample collection and flow rate 22
measurement” (Abstr.). Both of these data sets are replete with data 23
“irrelevant to fluid cumulative volume computation.” 24
Appeal 2009-006698
Application 10/411,056

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW 1
The Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-22 under 35 2
U.S.C. § 103(a). 3
4
DECISION 5
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 and 7-22 is 6
reversed. 7
8
REVERSED 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
hh 16
17
18
19
Jack J Schwartz 20
JACK J SCHWARTZ & ASSOCIATES 21
1350 Broadway 22
Suite 1507 23
New York, NY 10018-7702 24