Robert Arling et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2021

2020001166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2021)

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.
13/990,831 05/31/2013 Robert Stanley Arling 2010P00751WOUS 4174
24737 7590 03/17/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LAM, ELIZA ANNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT STANLEY ARLING and JOSEPH ERNEST ROCK
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
Technology Center 3600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, and 22–41. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
displaying, with a display monitor, an interactive
graphical user interface, including:
one or more logical reporting element windows,
each displaying a different set of logical reporting
elements, wherein the different sets of logical reporting
elements are from a group consisting of a medical
finding, a measurement value, and a patient
demographic; and
first and second ruleset creation windows;
receiving, with an input device, a first input identifying a
ruleset type from a group consisting of mutual exclusion,
exclusion and implication;
receiving, with the input device, a second input
identifying a logical reporting element of the different sets of
logical reporting elements displayed in the one or more logical
reporting element windows;
populating, with a processor, the first ruleset creation
window with the identified logical reporting element, wherein
the identified logical reporting element includes a clause of one
or more logical statements that evaluate to true or false;
populating, with the processor, the second ruleset
creation window based on the identified logical reporting
element and the identified ruleset type to create a ruleset,
wherein the content populated in the first and second ruleset
creation windows formalizes a relationship between the logical
reporting elements;
populating, with the processor, fields of an electronic
medical report for a medical study of interest with user input;
evaluating the ruleset for the medical report;
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831

3
in response to a result of the evaluating indicating a
logical reporting element violation in the medical report,
displaying the logical reporting element violation in an
evaluation window;
receiving, with the input device, a third input resolving
the logical reporting element violation in the medical report;
and
generating, with the processor, a final electronic medical
report that mitigates the violation.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Parkhurst US 2008/0186133 Al Aug. 7, 2008
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 22–26, and 28–412 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipate over Parkhurst. Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Parkhurst. Final Act. 5–6.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Figure 2 and paragraph 35 of Parkhurst as
disclosing “an interactive graphical user interface, including: one or more

2 The Office Action Summary of the Final Rejection lists claim 41 as
rejected. The Examiner, however, does not include any substantive
discussion of claim 41 in the Final Rejection, nor list claim 41 in any of the
subheadings of the rejection. Because claim 41 recites a limitation identical
to one found in claim 1 (with the exception of the recitation of a “non-
transitory computer readable storage medium”), however, we hold this
omission to be harmless error and include claim 41 as anticipated over
Parkhurst.
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831

4
logical reporting element windows, each displaying a different set of logical
reporting elements, wherein the different sets of logical reporting elements
are from a group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and
a patient demographic.” Final Act. 2. Figure 2 of Parkhurst is reproduced
below:

Figure 2 of Parkhurst depicts an exemplary autoverification process in the
form of a flowchart. Parkhurst ¶ 18. Paragraph 35 of Parkhurst, which
describes Figure 2, states:
Decision nodes 112 are those nodes where a decision is made to
proceed to one of a plurality of other nodes based on an input.
For example, a decision node may check information provided
about a patient, a specimen from the patient, one or more test
results from a laboratory analyzer, or other information. After
analyzing the input, the node determines a process flow based
on the input information. Accordingly, each decision node
includes two or more output edges 106b.
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831

5
Relying on the above disclosure from Parkhurst, the Examiner finds
that “a node checking information provided about a patient corresponds to a
patient demographic and one or more test results corresponds to medical
findings and measurement values.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues
[t]he window [of Figure 2] does not display a set of logical
reporting elements. The window displays nodes which display
the action, instruction, or analysis that occurs at each node.
This is not a set of logical reporting elements. Furthermore, the
nodes do not display medical findings, measurement values, or
patient demographics.

Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3 (“Paragraph [0068] does not teach that
any of the nodes of Fig. 2 display serum calcium.”). Appellant contends that
“[a] node in Fig. 2 is part of a displayed rule and displays the function
performed by the node.” Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, the relied
upon portions of Parkhurst “do not teach Fig. 2 is an interactive graphical
user interface with a logical reporting element window displaying a medical
finding, a measurement value or a patient demographic, as purported by the
Office.” Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s argument
that “the nodes do not display medical findings, measurement values, or
patient demographics” (Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added)), is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim, which only requires that the
logical reporting elements be “from a group consisting of a medical finding,
a measurement value, and a patient demographic” without requiring that
they display this information. Moreover, Appellant does not point to a
definition of logical reporting elements or identify a description in the
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831

6
intrinsic record that limits the scope of the term consistent with this
argument.
Instead, as explained in Parkhurst, the decision nodes in Figure 2
“check information provided about a patient, a specimen from the patient,
one or more test results from a laboratory analyzer, or other information.”
Parkhurst ¶ 35. We agree with the Examiner that “information provided
about a patient” and “test results” (Parkhurst ¶ 35) disclose the claimed
“medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic” and
thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, nodes that check such
information disclose the claimed “logical reporting elements [that] are from
a group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient
demographic.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 22–41 for which Appellant does not make any separate arguments for
patentability.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 22–26,
28–41
102 Parkhurst 1, 22–26,
28–41

27 103 Parkhurst 27
Overall
Outcome
1, 22–41

Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
1
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte
ROBERT STANLEY ARLING and JOSEPH ERNEST ROCK
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
Technology Center 3600
Before
JEFFREY S. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, and 22–41. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1.A method, comprising:
displaying, with a display monitor, an interactive
graphical user interface, including:
one or more logical reporting element
windows, each displaying a different set of logical
reporting elements, wherein the different sets of
logical reporting elements are from a group
consisting of a medical finding, a measurement
value, and a patient demographic; and
first and second ruleset creation windows;
receiving, with an input device, a first input
identifying a ruleset type from a group consisting of
mutual exclusion, exclusion and implication;
receiving, with the input device, a second input
identifying a logical reporting element of the different sets
of logical reporting elements displayed in the one or more
logical reporting element windows;
populating, with a processor, the first ruleset
creation window with the identified logical reporting
element, wherein the identified logical reporting element
includes a clause of one or more logical statements that
evaluate to true or false;
populating, with the processor, the second ruleset
creation window based on the identified logical reporting
element and the identified ruleset type to create a ruleset,
wherein the content populated in the first and second
ruleset creation windows formalizes a relationship
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
3
between the logical reporting elements;
populating, with the processor, fields of an
electronic medical report for a medical study of interest
with user input;
evaluating the ruleset for the medical report;
in response to a result of the evaluating indicating a
logical reporting element violation in the medical report,
displaying the logical reporting element violation in an
evaluation window;
receiving, with the input device, a third input
resolving the logical reporting element violation in the
medical report; and
generating, with the processor, a final electronic
medical report that mitigates the violation.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Parkhurst US 2008/0186133
Al
Aug. 7, 2008
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 22–26, and 28–41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipate over Parkhurst. Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Parkhurst. Final Act. 5–6.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Figure 2 and paragraph 35 of Parkhurst
as disclosing “an interactive graphical user interface, including: one or
more logical reporting element windows, each displaying a different
set of logical reporting elements, wherein the different sets of logical
reporting elements are from a group consisting of a medical finding, a
measurement value, and a patient demographic.” Final Act. 2.
Figure 2 of Parkhurst is reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
4
Figure 2 of Parkhurst depicts an exemplary autoverification process
in the form of a flowchart. Parkhurst ¶ 18. Paragraph 35 of
Parkhurst, which describes Figure 2, states:
Decision nodes 112 are those nodes where a decision is
made to proceed to one of a plurality of other nodes
based on an input. For example, a decision node may
check information provided about a patient, a specimen
from the patient, one or more test results from a
laboratory analyzer, or other information. After analyzing
the input, the node determines a process flow based on
the input information. Accordingly, each decision node
includes two or more output edges 106b.
Relying on the above disclosure from Parkhurst, the Examiner
finds that “a node checking information provided about a patient
corresponds to a patient demographic and one or more test results
corresponds to medical findings and measurement values.” Ans. 4.
Appellant argues
[t]he window [of Figure 2] does not display a set of logical
reporting elements. The window displays nodes which
display the action, instruction, or analysis that occurs at
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
5
each node. This is not a set of logical reporting elements.
Furthermore, the nodes do not display medical findings,
measurement values, or patient demographics.
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3 (“Paragraph [0068] does not teach
that any of the nodes of Fig. 2 display serum calcium.”). Appellant
contends that “[a] node in Fig. 2 is part of a displayed rule and
displays the function performed by the node.” Reply Br. 3. According
to Appellant, the relied upon portions of Parkhurst “do not teach Fig. 2
is an interactive graphical user interface with a logical reporting
element window displaying a medical finding, a measurement value
or a patient demographic, as purported by the Office.” Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s
argument that “the nodes do not display medical findings,
measurement values, or patient demographics” (Appeal Br. 6
(emphasis added)), is not commensurate with the scope of the claim,
which only requires that the logical reporting elements be “from a
group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and a
patient demographic” without requiring that they display this
information. Moreover, Appellant does not point to a definition of
logical reporting elements or identify a description in the intrinsic
record that limits the scope of the term consistent with this argument.
Instead, as explained in Parkhurst, the decision nodes in Figure
2 “check information provided about a patient, a specimen from the
patient, one or more test results from a laboratory analyzer, or other
information.” Parkhurst ¶ 35. We agree with the Examiner that
“information provided about a patient” and “test results” (Parkhurst
¶ 35) disclose the claimed “medical finding, a measurement value,
and a patient demographic” and thus, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, nodes that check such information disclose the claimed
“logical reporting elements [that] are from a group consisting of a
medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic.”
Appeal 2020-001166
Application 13/990,831
6
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
of claims 22–41 for which Appellant does not make any separate
arguments for patentability.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Ba
sis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 22–26,
28–41
102 Parkhurst 1, 22–26,
28–41
27 103 Parkhurst 27
Overall
Outcome
1, 22–41
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED