Ex Parte Anuszewski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201311556356 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/556,356 11/03/2006 David Anuszewski 2005P20180 US01 8521 28524 7590 06/13/2013 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER KANAAN, MAROUN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2013 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 DAVID ANUSZEWSKI and OLADIMEJI OKEWOLE ____________________ Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to a context information processing system for the acquisition and characterization of medical data (Spec. 1:5-8). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A context information processing system used for accessing medical data, comprising: an acquisition processor for acquiring configuration information indicating a type of a particular patient identification tag reader device for a plurality of different types of tag reader device and a format of patient identification data used by said particular patient identification tag reader device; an interpreter for using the acquired configuration information in selecting a data decoding protocol from a plurality of different decoding protocols used for decoding data from a corresponding plurality of different types of patient identification tag reader device and using the selected decoding protocol for processing patient identification data received from said particular patient identification tag reader device using said acquired configuration information to provide a particular patient identifier; and a context processor for updating a record indicating a current patient context comprising a patient identifier to be compatible with said particular patient identifier. Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 3 Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Condurso (US 2006/0047538 A1, pub. Mar. 2, 2006) and Yarin (US 6,380,858 B1, iss. Apr. 30, 2002). FACTUAL FINDINGS We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. The Specification describes receiving a first information about device type data as follows: The acquired metadata 12 includes first information regarding a method of raw data 8 transfer from the identification device 3 to the computer workstation 4 from the metadata repository 12. This first information indicates to the interpreter 2 that a particular type of a patient identification tag reader device 3 is connected to the computer workstation 4. Spec., 9:2-6. 2. The Specification describes receiving a second information about data structure as follows: The metadata 12 also contains second information regarding a structure of the raw data 8 transferred from the patient identification device 3 to the computer workstation 4 from the metadata repository 12. This second information indicates to the interpreter 2 a format of patient identification data used by said particular patient identification tag reader device 3 that is connected to the computer workstation 4. Spec., 9:6-10. 3. The Specification describes that “interpreter 2 selects a raw data 8 decoding protocol based on the first and second information described above. The interpreter 2 uses the selected raw data decoding protocol to decode the raw data 8.” Spec., 9:18-21. Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 4 4. Condurso discloses different implementations of a bar code identification system that read and decode bar codes, or, alternatively, magnetic stripes or programmed punched holes. Para. [0095]. 5. Yarin discloses identifying radio-frequency (RFID) “electromagnetic tags resonating within a range of about 55 kHz to about 85 kHz” and, alternatively, tags resonating at other frequencies. Col. 6, ll. 56-60. 6. Yarin discloses alternative embodiments utilizing “optical, magnetic, and capacitive sensors.” Col. 6, ll. 64-66. 7. Condurso discloses “IR or RF transceivers may be incorporated into medication database carriers or other identification devices that are capable of interfacing and communicating with the therapy management system.” Para. [0098]. 8. Yarin discloses implementation-specific configuration of an RFID tag reader, stating: An RF coil (39, FIG. 6) associated with a respective receptacle 32 is configured to detect the presence of a medicine container 34 disposed therein via the RFID tag 50. In addition, an RF coil is also configured to interrogate the circuitry of the RFID tag 50 to obtain information therefrom. Col. 8, ll. 9-14. 9. The Specification describes that “[t]here exists today no standard format for the raw data 8 written and read by the various external scanning devices 3.” Spec., 5:22-23. 10. The Specification describes, in the background section, problematic situations where “the customer either targets a specific patient selection technology or incurs the cost of an alternative implementation.” Spec., 2:1-3. Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 5 11. The Specification describes the interpreter as device-independent interface software, stating, “interpreter 2 acts as an interface and does not distinguish between the actual type of device 3 connected to the workstation 4. The interpreter 2 is a generic component, unaffected by the specific type of reader or scanner 3 attached to the computer 4.” Spec., 5:23-27. 12. The Specification describes “adaptive patient selection using different technologies such as (a) a radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, (b) bar code labels, (c) wireless tags, (d) smart cards and/or (e) other similar types of technologies.” Spec., 4:10-13. 13. The Specification describes a plurality of different types of tag reader devices as including “(a) an RFID tag compatible reader device, (b) a bar code tag compatible reader device, and/or (c) a wireless tag compatible reader device.” Spec., 7:7-9. ANALYSIS Independent claims 13 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations to that of claim 1’s limitation of “an interpreter for using the acquired configuration information in selecting a data decoding protocol from a plurality of different decoding protocols used for decoding data from a corresponding plurality of different types of patient identification tag reader device and using the selected decoding protocol for processing patient identification data received.” We construe these substantially similar limitations as acquiring device-specific information (FF 1) and data used to determine data format (FF 2), so that an appropriate decoding protocol can be selected based on both the type of device from among a plurality of Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 6 different possible types and the determined data format (FF 3), using device- independent interface software. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “Yarin and Condurso nowhere shows, suggest or provides any enabling description of a system that identifies the type of tag reader device and the decoding protocol to use in decoding data from the particular type of tag reader ....” App. Br. 9. See also App. Br. 15-16, 17. For the limitation at issue, the Examiner variously directs us to paragraph [0095] of Condurso (Ans. 4, 8-9, for claims 1 and 13, and Ans. 12, responding to argument) and Yarin column 6, last paragraph (Ans. 10- 11, for claim 18). We find that paragraph [0095] of Condurso discloses that different types of identification systems could be used, specifically mentioning bar code, magnetic stripes, and programmed punched holes. FF 4. We find that Yarin, column 6, discloses using radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and readers (FF 5), as well as embodiments that instead use “optical, magnetic, and capacitive sensors” (FF 6). However, Condurso appears to disclose that alternative technologies can be utilized, but only if they “are capable of interfacing and communicating” with the existing system. FF 7. Also, Yarin appears to disclose that the data decoding method is manually configured, based on the particular device implemented. FF 8. Based on the cited portions of Condurso and Yarin, we agree with the Appellants that the combination does not disclose “using the acquired configuration information in selecting a data decoding protocol” as required, because neither Condurso nor Yarin discloses the need to have an interpreter perform this “selecting” function. The systems of Yarin and Condurso are Appeal 2011-008315 Application 11/556,356 7 manually configured for use with only one particular device at a time. No selection is performed after the identification data is acquired, as recited in the independent claims, as none is necessary: each device is only capable of decoding one format of data. This is exactly the type of situation Appellants describe in background (FF 9, 10) that led to the claimed device-independent interface software to make the one system “adaptive” to data acquired from various types of devices operating on various protocols/formats (FF 11-13). For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1, 13, and 18, and their dependent claims. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-20. REVERSED dm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation