Budhrani, Sunil et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2020

14101290 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2020)

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.
14/101,290 12/09/2013 Sunil Budhrani CC01 1479
7590 01/30/2020
Shahin Korangy
6830 Elm St.
Mclean, VA 22101
EXAMINER
MATTER, KRISTEN CLARETTE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SUNIL BUDHRANI and SHAHIN KORANGY
__________________

Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, JAMES P. CALVE, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–7 and 13–16. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Messrs. Sunil Budhrani and Shahin Korangy as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent, with claim 1 reproduced below.
1. An apparatus for providing services between a recipient
and a provider via a server over a communication network, the
apparatus comprising:
a computer implemented processor configured for:
establishing a recipient session connection between a first
terminal and said processor, over the communication network;
receiving recipient information from the first terminal,
via the recipient session connection;
receiving scheduling information from the first terminal
for scheduling an appointment for a provider session;
storing said scheduling information in a data storage
device;
establishing said provider session connection between a
second terminal and said processor, over the communication
network;
receiving provider information from the second terminal,
via the provider session connection;
establishing an examination session connection by
connecting the recipient session connection with the provider
session connection;
storing the recipient information in a first database
record, as stored recipient information, in the data storage
device;
storing the provider information in a second database
record, as stored provider information, in the data storage
device;
transmitting the stored recipient information to the
second terminal via the examination session connection;
displaying selective recipient information selected from
the stored recipient information, in a first graphical user
interface (“GUI”) at the first terminal and in a second GUI at
the second terminal; and
displaying selective provider information selected from
the stored provider information, in the first GUI and in the
second GUI,
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

3
wherein said recipient information comprises information
received at the first terminal including audio-video data,
wherein said provider information comprises information
received at the second terminal including audio-video data,
wherein the recipient session connection comprises a
virtual private network between the processor and the first
terminal,
wherein the provider session connection comprises a
virtual private network between the processor and the second
terminal,
wherein the examination session connection comprises a
virtual private network between the first terminal and the
second terminal via said processor,
wherein the provider information in the second database
record comprises information of a type of provider.

REJECTION2
Claims 1–7 and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sadler (US 2009/0240525 A1, pub. Sept. 24, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–5
Appellant argues claims 1–5 together. Br. 15–18. We select claim 1
as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the
Examiner finds that Sadler disclosing a computer and processor to establish
a session between first and second terminals over a communication network,
store patient and provider information in first and second database records,
and schedule appointments. Ans. 5. The Examiner also determines it would
have been obvious to receive and store scheduling information so that each
participant knows when to attend the virtual conference. Final Act. 11–13.

2 A rejection of claims 1–7 and 13–16 as directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 was withdrawn. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

4
Provider information in a second database record
Appellant raises two arguments. First, Appellant argues that Sadler
only describes one database for storing a patient archive and fails to disclose
a second database record that stores provider information such as a medical
provider or doctor’s information. Br. 16. Appellant also argues that Sadler
only stores patient information in the archive database. Id.
The Examiner has the better position. The Examiner correctly finds
that claim 1 only requires a single data storage device. Claim 1 recites “a
data storage device” for “storing the recipient information in a first database
record . . . in the data storage device” and “storing the provider information
in a second database record . . . in the data storage device.” Br. 20 (Claims
App.). The Examiner correctly finds that Sadler discloses a data storage
device as data storage unit 34. Final Act. 12; Sadler ¶ 18, Fig. 1.
Sadler receives information from a patient at terminal 18 and stores
the information in electronic health record 72 in database 34, which is a
database record for storing “recipient information” as claimed. Sadler ¶¶ 17,
18, 22, Figs. 1, 2. Appellant does not dispute this finding. Br. 16 (“Sadler
only describes a general database for storing only patient information.).
In addition to storing patient information, Sadler also stores provider
information in a second database record as claimed. Sadler stores provider
data generated by a medical provider such as medical images, physician’s
notes, video, audio, and text of telemedicine virtual visits (conferences) so
future caregivers may review this material. Sadler ¶¶ 22, 23, 26, 28, 44.
Sadler stores a physician’s name and identification number (id. ¶ 23) as well
as consultation information (id. ¶ 44) and templates 82, 84 (id. ¶ 25). This
information is received from consultant’s computer 26. Id. ¶ 44; see Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

5
Sadler teaches that provider information of a caregiver or consultant
may be stored in a patient file 72 or under a unique identifier assigned by
tracking application 62. Id. ¶¶ 22, 44. In the former case, Sadler stores the
provider information in a patient’s medical file 72. Sadler ¶ 17. Even so,
file 72 corresponds to “a second database record” when interpreted in light
of paragraph 58 of the Specification, which Appellant cites as support for
this feature. See Br. 5 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter). Paragraph 58
discloses that “a doctor at the provider terminal can make notes” and the
notes “are stored in the patient’s EMR [electronic medical record] database
at the server.” Spec. ¶ 58; see id. ¶¶ 8 (information from healthcare services
is stored in a patient’s EMR), 47 (exam results recorded in patient’s EMR).
Because Sadler stores medical provider data (e.g., physician’s notes,
recorded video, audio, and text) in a patient’s electronic medical record 72 in
database 34 (Sadler ¶¶ 22, 28), Sadler thus stores provider information in “a
second database record” as claimed interpreted in view of the Specification.
The Specification also discloses that provider information is saved in
a provider database on the server. Spec. ¶ 75. Even if we limit claim 1 to
this embodiment, Sadler discloses this feature as well. Sadler discloses that
provider information (medical images, physician’s notes, video, audio, and
text) “may be stored within (or in conjunction with) each patient’s record.”
Sadler ¶ 22 (emphasis added). Thus, provider information may be stored as
a separate record with a patient’s record. See id. ¶¶ 22, 23 (medical records
including physician personal information and notes and conference sessions
are stored in secure data base 34 with provider authentication information).
Provider (consultant) information may be saved in database 34 separately
under a unique identifier assigned by application 62. Id. ¶¶ 35, 44; Ans. 4.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

6
Sadler also stores medical provider information as documentation
templates 82, 84 (e.g., procedural notes, vital sign diagnostic flow sheets,
graphs, summaries and care plans) for using during conferences. Id. ¶ 24.
Sadler thus stores provider information of a physician or consultant in
“a second database record.” The provider information may be stored within
patient file 72 or “in conjunction with” patient file 72 (see id. ¶¶ 22, 23) or it
may be stored separately from patient’s medical file 72 as a separate record
in database 34 and/or under a unique identifier (see id. ¶¶ 23, 26, 44). When
stored in patient file 72, the provider information satisfies paragraph 58 of
the Specification. When stored “in conjunction with” patient file 72, or as a
separate record in database 34, or under a unique identifier, the provider
information satisfies the embodiment of paragraph 75 of the Specification,
which also allows patient data to be stored in a provider’s record.
Receiving and Storing Scheduling Information
Appellant also argues that Sadler fails to disclose receiving scheduling
information from a first terminal for scheduling an appointment and storing
that scheduling information in the storage device as claimed. Br. 16. In
particular, Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to do so in
Sadler because Sadler’s teleconference sessions are arranged in real time and
are not scheduled, and scheduling information is not stored. Br. 17.
We agree with the Examiner that Sadler discloses that teleconferences
“typically” involve providing a number to call into the conference and this
information is a type of scheduling information so participants know when
to attend a virtual meeting. Ans. 5 (citing Sadler ¶ 4). The Examiner also
finds that Sadler records the starting and ending times of meetings and this
process involves storing “scheduling information.” Id. (citing Sadler ¶ 44).
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

7
In addition, the Examiner finds that Sadler receives scheduling
information for scheduling an appointment for a provider of services by
sending an invitation to a consultant to join a conference. Id. (citing Sadler
¶¶ 33–37). Appellant’s Specification discloses an appointment process in
which an authorized user of the healthcare server uses their graphical user
interface to make an appointment by invoking an appointment function on
their respective GUI via the appointment module 245, which can store data
from each appointment. Spec. ¶ 73. Sadler allows a user to schedule an
appointment with a consultant by selecting a consultant from a menu on the
system and activating an invite softkey that opens a viewing window and
sends a message to website 16 in database 34 to activate a conference
handling application 56, 58 for each consultant invited. Sadler ¶ 34. A
tracking application 62 of database website 16 maintains a tracking list 64 of
consultants and assigns a unique identifier to the conference and patient
identifier. Id. ¶ 35. A user schedules a conference (appointment) with a
consultant by sending a message to website 16, which opens an appointment
window to conference with the consultant. Id. ¶¶ 33, 34. The consultant
accepts the appointment by sending an acceptance message to website 16,
which notifies the caregiver’s computer 18 of the acceptance of the
appointment request. Id. ¶ 36. Sadler stores data from each appointment
(conference) as discussed above. See id. ¶ 44; Ans. 5 (citing id. ¶¶ 33–37).
Sadler’s use of WebX (Webex) conferencing procedures to schedule
conferencing appointments with medical care consultants (see Sadler ¶ 33)
corresponds to the appointment scheduling and storage recited in claim 1 as
interpreted in light of the Specification, which describes a similar process in
paragraph 73. If other features are involved, they are not recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

8
We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require an
appointment to be scheduled at a certain time before the appointment occurs
or in a particular format that excludes the appointment procedure of Sadler.
See Ans. 5. Appellant’s argument that “nothing is scheduled and scheduling
information is not stored” (Br. 17) does not address the Examiner’s findings
and does not apprise us of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
(the Appeal Brief “shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by appellant.”); In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (noting the Board’s long-standing practice under its rules “to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in an examiner’s
rejections”).
Sadler’s disclosure of receiving and storing scheduling information
for appointments with consultants renders obvious the claimed appointment
system because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. See Realtime
Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019); In re McDaniel,
293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (same); see also In re Gleave, 560
F.3d. 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that a prior art reference does not
have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to disclose claim limitations).
A recipient registers with system 10, signs into system 10, creates an
electronic health record 72, and is recognized (Sadler ¶¶ 14–17, 22). Then,
conferencing applications 42, 44 allow the recipient to schedule a conference
(appointment) with healthcare consultants (e.g., physicians) to consult about
a medical issue. Id. ¶ 21. The recipient uses an invite softkey to schedule a
conference. Id. ¶¶ 31–34. System 10 receives the scheduling information
from terminal 18 as claimed. Id. ¶¶ 26–41. The conference occurs in real
time, but its appointment is “scheduled” by terminal 18.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

9
The consultant may accept the appointment to schedule a conference
by sending an acceptance message from the consultant to website 16, which
sends the message to recipient’s terminal 18. Id. ¶ 36. Claim 1 does not
recite how a meeting is scheduled, when it is scheduled, or how physicians
accept an appointment. Ans. 5. Sadler’s tracking application also records
starting and ending times of appointments (conferences). Sadler ¶¶ 26, 44.
Thus, Sadler’s system 10 stores scheduling information as claimed. Ans. 5.
Appellant has not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Br. 17.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–5.
Independent Claim 6
Claim 6 recites a method for providing healthcare delivery services
over a communication network with similar features as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner makes similar findings regarding Sadler’s disclosure of these
features as for claim 1 above. See Final Act. 12–13. Appellant argues that
claim 6 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 1, and Sadler’s system is
used by a patient alone or with a caregiver and thus lacks a network between
two healthcare providers that handles scheduling information. Br. 18.
Appellant’s reliance on arguments presented above for claim 1 are not
persuasive for the rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons discussed above
for claim 1. Furthermore, Sadler discloses system 10 being used to establish
telemedicine sessions (video and audio teleconferences) between caregiver
computer 18 (a first healthcare provider terminal) and consultant computer
26 (a second healthcare provider terminal) via website 16 in system host 24.
System 10 allows scheduling of conference(s) 108 between a first healthcare
provider (caregiver) at computer 18 and a second healthcare provider(s)
(consultant(s)) at computer 26). Sadler ¶¶ 12–15, 21, 22, 26–41, 44, Fig. 1.
Appeal 2019-003841
Application 14/101,290

10
Appellant is correct that caregiver computer 18 may be shared by a
patient and a caregiver; however, Sadler discloses caregiver computer 18
being used by a patient and/or by healthcare providers. Id. ¶¶ 13, 31, 33. In
either case, system 10 uses a communication network (VPN 12) to schedule
and conduct conferences between a healthcare provider at terminal 18 to
receive advice from a consultant (healthcare provider) at computer 26 as
discussed above for claim 1. Id. ¶¶ 14–16, 21, 22, 26–41, 44, Fig. 1.
System 10 also allows a healthcare provider(s) at computer 18 to schedule
an appointment with a healthcare provider(s) at computer 26 and conduct
audio and video conferences, as discussed above for the rejection of claim 1,
to establish an examination session as recited in claim 6. See Id.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Independent Claim 7 and Claims 13–16
Appellant asserts the same arguments for claim 7 as were asserted for
claim 1. Br. 18. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as
discussed above for claim 7. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 and
its dependent claims 13–16, which are not argued separately. See id.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 13–16 103(a) Sadler 1–7, 13–16

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED