Ex Parte Prescott et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201411751145 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte TIMOTHY MONROE PRESCOTT, 7 DAVID MONROE PRESCOTT, 8 and ANNA CLARE PRESCOTT 9 ___________ 10 11 Appeal 2011-012921 12 Application 11/751,145 13 Technology Center 3600 14 ___________ 15 16 17 Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and 18 THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. 19 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 20 DECISION ON APPEAL 21 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 22 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 17, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 27, 2011). Timothy Monroe Prescott, David Monroe Prescott, and Anna Clare 23 Prescott (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection 24 of claims 1-21, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We 25 have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 26 Appeal 2011-012921 Application 11/751,145 2 The Appellants invented a way of checking and verifying blood 1 screening data. (Specification para 0001). 2 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 3 exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 4 paragraphing added]. 5 1. A computer-implemented method 6 of verifying data 7 from an electronic blood screen panel, 8 comprising: 9 [1] extracting blood screening data 10 from the electronic blood screen panel 11 into a first data summary 12 using a computer system, 13 the first data summary including 14 a lot number and expiration date, 15 a donor number, 16 and 17 a number of negative reactions 18 in each row and column in the electronic blood 19 screen panel; 20 [2] querying a user 21 to manually enter a second data summary 22 of the blood screening data 23 using the computer system, 24 the second data summary of the blood screening data 25 including 26 the lot number and expiration date, 27 the donor number, 28 Appeal 2011-012921 Application 11/751,145 3 and 1 the number of negative reactions 2 in each row and column in the panel; 3 [3] using the computer system to compare the first and second 4 data summaries 5 to evaluate an accuracy of the blood screening data 6 extracted from the electronic blood screen panel; 7 and 8 [4] using the computer system to generate a first security code 9 according to an algorithm 10 when the first and second data summaries match, 11 the first security code being based on current blood 12 screening data incorporated into the first data summary, 13 and 14 the first security code appended to the electronic blood 15 screen panel. 16 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 17 Meador US 2003/0040128 A1 Feb. 27, 2003 Ng US 2003/0069480 A1 Apr. 10, 2003 Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 18 over Ng and Meador. 19 ISSUES 20 The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes 21 extracting and also querying a user to enter a lot number and expiration date, 22 a donor number, and a number of negative reactions in each row and column 23 in the electronic blood screen panel, comparing the two sets, and generating 24 Appeal 2011-012921 Application 11/751,145 4 a security code that, when the first and second data summaries match, the 1 security code is based on current blood screening data incorporated into the 2 first data summary, and the security code is appended to the electronic blood 3 screen panel. 4 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 5 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 6 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 7 Facts Related to the Prior Art 8 Ng 9 01. Ng is directed to automating a laboratory process and an 10 automated tracking system and interface for use in the blood 11 collection industry. Ng para 0002. 12 02. If the donor's vital signs are acceptable and the donor is 13 eligible, an identifier such as a bleed number is generated and 14 queued in a scheduling database. Ng para 0381. 15 03. The bleed number is preferably a unique identifier that is 16 generated once for each separate donation. A unique bleed 17 number allows the system to differentiate between different bleed 18 or collection procedures performed at different times on the same 19 donor. This is important for traceability and donor evaluations, 20 for example, tracking when the donor last underwent a bleed or 21 collection procedure. Ng para 0382. 22 04. The system server creates a donation data file indexed on the 23 bleed number. Ng para 0383. 24 Appeal 2011-012921 Application 11/751,145 5 05. Future apheresis instruments may be capable of configuring 1 themselves based on the donor information received. The 2 instrument would read the donor information received from the 3 system server and load a system configuration file. Here, the 4 bleed number is inputted into the ready apheresis instrument for 5 verification, instead of the PDA/scanner. Next, at the apheresis 6 instrument or PDA/scanner, the bleed number is scanned by the 7 phlebotomist. This bleed number must match the information 8 retrieved by the PDA or the instrument from the system server. 9 The bleed number is read into the apheresis instrument or 10 PDA/scanner and compared with the donor information 11 previously downloaded from the server. Ng para 0389 - 0391. 12 Meador 13 06. Meador is directed to conducting and documenting drugs of 14 abuse or other analyte screening tests using one or more analyte 15 screen media carried in a support. Meador para 0002. 16 07. The test is conducted and documented at the on-site testing 17 location. After the test is completed, Meador includes 18 electronically imaging at the on-site testing location the reacted 19 drug screening support visibly showing the test results. Meador 20 para 0050. 21 08. After the image is acquired and stored, the electronic image is 22 incorporated into a read-only electronic form at the site of testing. 23 After the user has filled out the templates completely, the 24 information on the templates including the acquired image of the 25 Appeal 2011-012921 Application 11/751,145 6 drug screening card is exported into a read only word processor 1 file. Meador para 0055. 2 09. Entry of a test result forces opening of a text-box which must 3 be completed to show lot number and expiration date of the test. 4 A “ditto” icon allows convenient entry of the lot number 5 identification and expiration if a multi-test panel was run from one 6 test card. Meador para 0065. 7 ANALYSIS 8 We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the art fails to 9 describe extracting and also querying a user to enter a lot number and 10 expiration date, a donor number, and a number of negative reactions in each 11 row and column in the electronic blood screen panel, comparing the two 12 sets, and generating a security code that, when the first and second data 13 summaries match, the security code is based on current blood screening data 14 incorporated into the first data summary, and the security code is appended 15 to the electronic blood screen panel. The Examiner cites several paragraphs 16 describing measuring and recording blood test data, but none of those 17 paragraphs describes these specific limitations. 18 The Examiner does not respond to this argument, but instead states that 19 the Response section of the Answer responds to arguments made prior to the 20 Final Rejection. 21 Thus, the Examiner fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. 22 All independent claims have similar limitations. 23 Appeal 2011-012921 Application 11/751,145 7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 2 over Ng and Meador is improper. 3 DECISION 4 The rejection of claims 1-21 is reversed. 5 6 REVERSED 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 mls 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation