Ex Parte Kohli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2007

09619957 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES F. KOHLI
____________________

Appeal 2006-2577
Application 09/619,957
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Decided: July 24, 2007
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, STUART S. LEVY and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1 to 37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appellant invented method for generating reports for management of
a medical facility (Specification 1).

Appeal 2006-2577
Application 09/619,957

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for generating reports for management of a
medical facility, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) storing data representative of operation of a medical facility in a data
repository operative in a first processing space;
(b) accessing data from the repository to populate a report;
(c) transmitting the accessed data to a second processing space separated
from the first processing space by a security device; and
(d) generating the report in the second processing space based upon the
transmitted data.

The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wong in view of Montagna.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Montagna et al. 4,899,292 Feb. 6, 1990
Wong et al. 6,260,021 Jul. 10, 2001
The Examiner contends that Wong discloses the invention as claimed
except that Wong does not disclose:
(b) assessing data from the repository to populate a report,
(c) transmitting the accessed data to a second processing space
separated from the first processing space, and
(d) generating the report in the second processing space based upon
the transmitted data.
The Examiner relies on Montagna for teaching the steps not disclosed
by Wong. In particular, the Examiner is of the opinion that the step of
transmitting the accessed data to a second processing space separated from
the first processing space is met by transmission of data from the Montagna
2
Appeal 2006-2577
Application 09/619,957

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DRAM/SRAM (second processing space) to the central computer (437,
Figure 4) (first processing space).
Appellant contends that Montagna does not disclose transmitting
accessed data from a first processing space to a second processing space. In
particular, the Appellant contends that the DRAM/SRAM disclosed in
Montagna is not a processing space.

ISSUES
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
DRAM/SRAM space disclosed in Montagna is a processing space.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants disclose that data is transferred from a second processing
space 56 to a first processing space 58 (Specification p. 7). The first
processing space 58 contains applications 62 which store, associate, analyze
and extract data from database 60 (Specification pages 7 to 8). Second
processing space 56 contains applications 68 which format and process
reports for the data received from processing space 58 (Specification, p 8).
The processing of the data by spaces 56 and 58 is also described in the
specification as accessing, analyzing and reporting (Specification, p. 7).
First and second processing spaces 56 and 58 do more than merely store the
data. The first and second processing spaces 56 and 58 manipulate the data.
Independent claims 1, 12, 19, 23, 29, 35 and 37 each recite
transmission of data from a first processing space to a second processing
space.
3
Appeal 2006-2577
Application 09/619,957

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Montagna discloses a computerized system for storing and retrieving
document text, worksheets and associated graphics (col. 1, lines 6 to 8).
Montagna discloses a first processing space in the form of central computer
437. DRAM 72 and SRAM store worksheets. The worksheets are
transmitted to central computer 437 which processes the data on the
worksheets to estimate the cost of repairs based on the number of labor
hours, discount etc. (col. 14, line 50 to col. 15, line 2). DRAM and SRAM
are storage devices and do not process data.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the phrase
“processing space” to be a space where data is manipulated.

DISCUSSION
The DRAM and SRAM memory devices are not processing spaces
because data is merely stored rather than manipulated. Appellant clearly
discloses, and in our view a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand a processing space to be a space where data is manipulated not
merely stored.
As Montagna does not disclose first and second processing spaces, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. The decision of the Examiner is
reversed. 20
21
22
23
24
25
REVERSED
JRG

4
Appeal 2006-2577
Application 09/619,957

1
2
3
4
Patrick S. Yoder
Suite 330
7915 FM 1960 West
Houston, TX 77070
5