Ex Parte Graves et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2013

10813230 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013)

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.
10/813,230 03/31/2004 Alan Frank Graves 14659 3858
293 7590 03/15/2013
DOWELL & DOWELL P.C.
103 Oronoco St.
Suite 220
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
COUPE, ANITA YVONNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2013 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 ALAN FRANK GRAVES, JEFFREY FITCHETT,
STEPHEN ELLIOTT, and DANY SYLVAIN
____________

Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-411. Claims 42-
95 are withdrawn (App. Br. 29-40). We have jurisdiction to review the case
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to communications architectures and,
in particular, to a secure, integrated architecture for the delivery of health
care services to healthcare users at the point of care (POC) and non-
healthcare services to non-health care users in a hospital (Spec. 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. An architecture for delivery of
communications services within a hospital,
comprising:
a set of health care data processing resources
for providing healthcare communications services
to users at a plurality of delivery points throughout
the hospital;
a set of non-healthcare data processing
resources for providing non-healthcare
communications services to the users at the
plurality of delivery points;
a data routing entity connected to the health
care data processing resources and to the non-
healthcare data processing resources;
a common access infrastructure connected
between the data routing entity and the plurality of
delivery points, for supporting both the health care
communications services and the non-healthcare
communications services;

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 27, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 10,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 9, 2010).
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

3
the data routing entity being operative to
control access by the users at the plurality of
delivery points to the health care data processing
resources and to the non-healthcare data
processing resources.

Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 20-21,23-24, and 30-40 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Drapeau (US 2004/0068421 A1,
publ. Apr. 8, 2004) in view of Ballantyne (US 5,867,821, iss. Feb. 2, 1999).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drapeau, Ballantyne, Weiss (US 2002/0144144, iss. Oct.
3, 2002).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Drapeau, Ballantyne, and Jan Metzger and Fran Turisco, Computerized
Physician Order Entry: A Look at the Vendor Marketplace and Getting
Started, First Consulting Group, (December, 2001) (“Metzger”).
Claims 10-19 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Drapeau, Ballantyne, and Blakley, III (US
6,067,623 iss. May 23, 2000).
Claims 22 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Drapeau, Ballantyne, and Official Notice.
We AFFIRM and enter a NEW GROUND of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Drapeau and
Ballantyne discloses or suggests “the data routing entity being operative to
control access by the users at the plurality of delivery points to the health
care data processing resources and to the non-healthcare data processing
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

4
resources,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Drapeau and
Ballantyne discloses or suggests “wherein the non-healthcare data
processing resources comprise a non-healthcare authentication entity for
authenticating users at the delivery points claiming to be non-healthcare
users,” as recited in dependent claim 9?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that various combinations of
Drapeau, Ballantyne, Weiss, Metzger, Blakley, and Official Notice render
obvious claims 2-8 and 20-41?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that various combinations of
Drapeau, Ballantyne, and Blakley render obvious claims 10-19?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Ballantyne
1. Ballantyne discloses that it relates to a method and apparatus
for distribution and administration of medical services, entertainment
services, electronic health records, and educational information useful in
hospitals, other types of health care facilities, and patients’ homes (1:12-16).
2. Ballantyne discloses a security process based on identification
and authentication of individuals requesting access to a health record
database (7:67-8:2).
3. This access can be requested internally or from external sources
(8:2-3).
4. The Patient Care Station (hereinafter “PCS”) and its associated
monitor/TV displays on the screen a simplistic graphical interface which
categorizes the user as a “patient” or as “medical personnel” (9:54-56).
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

5
5. When the user is classified as a patient, a sub-menu appears
identifying all the services that are available at the bedside (9:57-59).
6. The sub-menu may include an entertainment option (9:59-62).
7. If the user has been classified as “medical personnel,” they
initially enter their unique ID number to further classify them as nursing
staff, or practicing physician (10:10-12).
8. If the user has been identified as a physician, the entire medical
record is made available for viewing at the bedside through the PCS (10:18-
20).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Drapeau and Ballantyne discloses or suggests “the data
routing entity being operative to control access by the users at the plurality
of delivery points to the health care data processing resources and to the
non-healthcare data processing resources,” as recited in independent claim 1
(App. Br. 11-17; Reply Br. 2-6). Appellants assert that
Ballantyne’s system does not control access by users to the
“health care services” and to the “entertainment services”, as
the Examiner appears to contend. Rather, Ballantyne’s system
controls access to the “health care services” but does not control
access to the “entertainment services”.

(App. Br. 12-13; Reply. Br. 2-4). Even if Appellants are correct,
Ballantine discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art knew how to
restrict access to a health record database via an authentication and
identification system (7:67-8:2). It would have required no more than
such ordinary skill to also restrict access to the entertainment option
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

6
(9:59-62) of the PCS (9:54-56), especially where Ballantine discloses
that the same PCS can be used to access entertainment options and
medical records (10:18-20). The rationale to modify would have been
self-evident: to restrict access to the entertainment options.
Insofar as our rationale differs from that set forth by the Examiner, we
denominate it a NEW GROUND of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
Appellants assert that such a modification would not have been
obvious, because requiring a patient to enter password would have rendered
unsatisfactory Ballantyne’s intended purposes of providing a patient direct,
simple, and immediate access to the services displayed on the PCS screen
(App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 4-6). However, after reviewing the portions of
Ballantyne cited by Appellants, we are unable to ascertain such an intended
purpose. Indeed, Ballantyne discloses that its “present invention relate[s] to
a method and apparatus for distribution and administration of medical
services, entertainment services, electronic health records, and educational
information useful in hospitals, other types of health care facilities, and
patients’ homes” (1:12-16), which would not have been rendered
unsatisfactory by restricting access to entertainment options.

Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claim 9
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Drapeau and Ballantyne discloses or suggests “wherein the
non-healthcare data processing resources comprise a non-healthcare
authentication entity for authenticating users at the delivery points claiming
to be non-healthcare users,” as recited in dependent claim 9 (App. Br. 21-22;
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

7
Reply Br. 7). Appellants assert that
while it authenticates a user classifying himself/herself as
“medical personnel”, Ballantyne’s system does not authenticate
a user classifying himself/herself as a “patient”; rather,
Ballantyne’s system immediately displays to a user classifying
himself/herself as a “patient” a menu allowing the user to freely
select services of his/her choice. Clearly, therefore, there is no
“non-healthcare authentication entity” in Ballantyne’s system

(Reply Br. 7). However, Ballantyne discloses restricting access to medical
records based on classification of various medical personnel, such as nursing
staff and practicing physician (10:10-12). Ballantyne also discloses
categorizing users as “patients” or “medical personnel” (9:54-56).
Accordingly, as Ballantyne discloses that one of ordinary skill knew how to
create restricted access classes for “nursing staff” and “practicing
physician,” one of ordinary skill would also have known how to create
another restricted access class for “patients.”
Insofar as our rationale differs from that set forth by the Examiner, we
denominate it a NEW GROUND of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).

Obviousness Rejections of Dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-41
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that various
combinations of Drapeau, Ballantyne, Weiss, Metzger, Blakley, and Official
Notice render obvious claims 2-8 and 20-41 (App. Br. 15-17). Appellants
assert that these claims are patentable for the same reason that independent
claim 1 is patentable, and that none of Weiss, Metzger, Blakley, and Official
Notice remedies the deficiencies of Drapeau and Ballantyne with respect to
independent claim 1. For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

8
persuaded us of any deficiencies in the Examiner’s proffered rejection of
independent claim 1.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that various
combinations of Drapeau, Ballantyne, and Blakley render obvious claims
10-19 (App. Br. 21-22). Appellants assert that these claims are patentable
for the same reason that independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9 are
patentable, and that Blakley does not remedy the deficiencies of Drapeau
and Ballantyne with respect to independent claim 1 and dependent claim 9.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of any
deficiencies in the Examiner’s proffered rejections of independent claim 1
and dependent claim 9.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-41 is AFFIRMED.
Regarding the affirmed rejections, 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
"Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision of the Board."
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we designate certain rejections as
NEW GROUNDS of rejection. Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review.”
Section 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an
appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or
new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
Appeal 2011-007069
Application 10/813,230

9
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be
remanded to the examiner . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the
proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board
upon the same record . . .
Should Appellant elect to prosecute further before the Examiner
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek
review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection,
the effective date of the affirmance will be deferred until the prosecution
before the Examiner concludes unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does not
result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, this
case should be returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for final action
on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof.
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; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

Klh