Jason Czaplewski et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14084967 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/084,967 11/20/2013 Jason Czaplewski 79816-893048 6355
20350 7590 08/21/2019
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
HAYLES, ASHFORD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JASON CZAPLEWSKI, JAMES WEAVER,
G. JOHN D'AMBROSIO, MANISH PATEL, and KIM HIXSON
____________

Appeal 2017-009793
Application 14/084,9671
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–25, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify Omnicell, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.

Appeal 2017-009793
Application 14/084,967

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to “item dispensing, and in particular to
systems and methods for managing inventory at dispensing units, such as a
dispensing units in a medical or other healthcare facility.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim
1 is exemplary:
1. A dispensing system, comprising:
a plurality of dispensing stations, each station having a
plurality of storage locations for storing items to be dispensed,
wherein the dispensing stations are arranged in a plurality of
station groups, and wherein each of the station groups includes
more than one of the dispensing stations;
a database for storing inventory data collected over time
and relating to the items stored at the dispensing stations; and
a processor programmed to execute a sequence of
instructions to cause the processor to display, at a display
device, inventory data for a user, by:
receiving from the user a first station group identifier
identifying a first station group for which inventory data is to be
displayed;
receiving from the user a second station group identifier
identifying a second station group for which inventory data is to
be displayed;
receiving from the user a time identifier identifying a
period of time for which the inventory data is to be displayed;
calculating statistical outliers from the inventory data for
at least one of the identified station groups for the identified
period of time, wherein the outliers reflect anomalous usage at
the one identified station group outside a normal range of
activity; and
displaying simultaneously, at the display device, at least
two graphic views of data relating to inventory for both the first
identified station group and the second identified station group,
for the identified period of time, including at least the statistical
outliers, with the graphic views displayed side-by-side.

Appeal 2017-009793
Application 14/084,967

3
References and Rejections2
Claims 1–11, 13–23, and 253 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Brzozowski (US 6,842,736 B1, published Jan.
11, 2005), Inbaraj (US 2013/0139234 A1, published May 30, 2013), and
Miller (US 2011/0161108 A1, published June 30, 2011). Final Act. 8–17.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Brzozowski, Inbaraj, Miller, and Engineering Statistics
Handbook, NIST SEMATECH (Jan. 23, 2011), http://www.itl.nist.gov/
div898/handbook/ (“NIST SEMATECH”). Final Act. 18–21.4
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred in determining the cited portions of
Brzozowski and Inbaraj collectively teach:
receiving from the user a first station group identifier
identifying a first station group for which inventory data is to
be displayed;
receiving from the user a second station group identifier
identifying a second station group for which inventory data is to
be displayed; [and] . . .

2 Throughout this decision, we refer to the (1) Final Office Action dated
Sept. 1, 2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) Appeal Brief dated Feb. 27, 2017 (“App.
Br.”); (3) Examiner’s Answer dated May 19, 2017 (“Ans.”); and (4) Reply
Brief dated July 10, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Although the heading omits claim 25, the Examiner provides substantive
rejection of that claim in the text. See Final Act. 17. Therefore, the
omission appears to be a typographical error.
4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ans. 17.
Appeal 2017-009793
Application 14/084,967

4
displaying simultaneously, at the display device, at least
two graphic views of data relating to inventory for both the first
identified station group and the second identified station group,
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 14–16;
Reply Br. 2–3.
The Examiner cites excerpts from Brzozowski’s columns 5, 7, and 8
and Appendix II, and Inbaraj’s paragraph 67 and Figure 3B for teaching the
disputed claim limitation. See Final Act. 9–11; Ans. 18–21. We have
reviewed the cited prior art portions, and they do not describe
receiving from the user a first station group identifier
identifying a first station group for which inventory data is to
be displayed;
receiving from the user a second station group identifier
identifying a second station group for which inventory data is to
be displayed; [and] . . .
displaying simultaneously, at the display device, at least
two graphic views of data relating to inventory for both the first
identified station group and the second identified station group,
as required by claim 1 (emphases added). In particular, while Brzozowski
describes surgical floor stations (Brzozowski 5:65), the cited prior art
portions do not describe a first station group identifier identifying such floor
stations. See App. Br. 14–16. Absent further explanation from the
Examiner, we do not see how the cited prior art portions teach the disputed
claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 13 recites claim limitations that are substantively
similar to the disputed limitations of claim 1. See claim 13. The Examiner
Appeal 2017-009793
Application 14/084,967

5
applies the same findings and conclusions discussed above to claim 13. See
Final Act. 8–12; Ans. 18–21. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 13.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2–12 and 14–25. Although the Examiner cites an additional
reference for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown
the additional reference overcomes the deficiency discussed above in the
rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–25.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED