Ex Parte Vaidya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2018

13397359 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/397,359 02/15/2012
20230 7590 11/09/2018
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
1909 K St., NW
9th Floor
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1152
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vinay Vaidya
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
062910. 000004 3444
EXAMINER
GO,JOHNP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINA Y VAIDYA and KELLY BASFIELD
Appeal2017-005520 1
Application 13/397 ,3592
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-63. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
August 4, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 14, 2017), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," December 14, 2016) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed October 2, 2015).
2 Appellants identify Phoenix Children's Hospital of Phoenix, Arizona as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants describe the claimed invention as "a prescription dosage
check system and method ... for ensuring safe and reliable prescription
ordering and filling for a medication prescribed by a caregiver" (Spec. 1 ).
Claims 1, 16, and 62 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of checking a
prescription dosage when ordering a prescription using a
physician order entry system having a data terminal, a central
processing unit, and a central server, comprising:
providing an electronic patient medical record database,
containing:
i) a plurality of electronic patient records each
corresponding to a particular patient; and
ii) historical drug ordering data;
providing an electronic drug reference database,
containing:
i) drug dosage values or limits from drug
manufacturers;
ii) analyzed and assembled drug dosage data
generated using the historical drug ordering data contained
in the electronic patient medical record database; and
iii) derived drug dosage values or limits derived
using the drug dosage values or limits from the drug
manufacturers stored in the electronic drug reference
database along with the analyzed drug dosage data stored
in the electronic drug reference database, a specificity and
sensitivity of the derived drug dosage values or limits
being set based on the number of physician alerts, the set
of derived drug dosage values or limits being validated
against the historical drug ordering data using at least in
part the analysis of the historical drug ordering data;
setting the specificity and sensitivity of the derived drug
dosage values or limits based on the number of physician alerts;
2
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
validating the set of derived drug dosage values or limits
against the historical drug ordering data using at least in part the
analysis of the historical drug ordering data;
entering an order by an authorized caregiver into the data
terminal, the order providing a prescribed dosage of a prescribed
medication for a particular patient to receive the prescribed
medication;
uploading the order to the central server;
updating an electronic patient record of the patient
contained in the electronic patient medical record database with
patient data in real time;
generating a dosage or dosage range using the derived
drug dosage values or limits from the electronic drug reference
database for the prescribed medication and at least one patient
parameter obtained from the electronic patient medical record for
the particular patient contained in the electronic patient medical
record database;
comparing the prescribed dosage with the generated
dosage or dosage range;
determining whether the prescribed dosage falls above or
below the generated dosage or outside the generated dosage
range; and
generating and outputting an alert if the prescribed dosage
falls above or below the generated dosage or outside the
generated dosage range prior to filling the prescribed medication
for the particular patient.
REJECTIONS
Claims 11-14, 16, and 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1-14 and 16-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 17, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bristol et al. (US 2002/0143580 Al, pub. Oct. 3, 2002)
3
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
("Bristol"), Mahran (US 2002/0165737 Al, pub. Nov. 7, 2002), Estes
(US 2009/0275887 Al, pub. Nov. 5, 2009), and Gelston
(US 2001/0050610 Al, pub. Dec. 13, 2001).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol, Mahran, Estes, Gelston, and Velarde (US 2009/0281836 Al, pub.
Nov. 12, 2009).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol, Mahran, Estes, Gelston, and Bailey et al. (US 2002/0040282 Al,
pub. Apr. 4, 2002) ("Bailey").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol, Mahran, Estes, Gelston, and Spector et al. (US 2004/0024616 Al,
pub. Feb. 5, 2004) ("Spector").
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18-28, 31, 44, and47 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Bristol, Mahran, Estes, Gelston, and
Howard et al. (US 2007/0213598 Al, pub. Sept. 13, 2007) ("Howard").
Claims 7, 10, 13, 29, 30, 32, 34--43, 45, 46, 48, 50, and 51 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Bristol, Mahran, Estes,
Gelston, Howard, and Mohapatra et al. (US 7,706,915 B2, iss. Apr. 27,
2010) ("Mohapatra").
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol and Estes.
Claims 33 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bristol, Mahran, Estes, Howard, Fischell et al.
(US 2007 /0093720 Al, pub. Apr. 26, 2007) ("Fischell"), and
Kountotsis et al. (US 2012/0272713 Al, pub. Nov. 1, 2012) ("Kountotsis").
4
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
Claims 52-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Bristol, Mahran, Estes, Gelston, Howard, Fischell, Kountotsis, and
Mohapatra.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol, Estes, and Bailey.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol, Mahran, and Estes.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Bristol, Mahran, Estes, and Brummel et al. (US 2006/0106647 Al,
pub. May 18, 2006) ("Brummel").
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
Appellants do not provide any response to the Examiner's rejection of
claims 11-14, 16, and 60-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
And, although the Examiner makes no mention of the rejection in the
Answer, we find no indication in the record that the rejection has been
withdrawn. Therefore, we summarily sustain the rejection.
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellants argue claims 1-14 and 16-63 as a group (App. Br. 7-10).
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101
to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
5
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
abstract ideas" are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If the
claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea,
the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where
the elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination'" to determine whether there are additional elements that
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id.
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. Therefore, the Federal Circuit has
instructed that claims are to be considered in their entirety to determine
"whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Addressing the first step of the Mayol Alice framework, Appellants
argue, and we agree, that an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent
simply because it involves an abstract concept. (App. Br. 7). Instead, the
6
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-
one filter to claims, considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on
whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."'
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Internet Patents Corp., 790 F.3d at 1346). It asks whether the focus of the
claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process
that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36.
Appellants criticize the Examiner's statement that the pending claims
are directed to an abstract idea "because an abstract idea is recited in the
claims," and charge that the rejection, at most, asserts that the claims may
involve an abstract concept (App. Br. 7 ( citing Final Act. 4)). Yet,
Appellants cannot reasonably deny that claim 1 is directed to
retrieving patient and medication information from databases
including specificity and sensitivity pertaining to dosage values,
utilizing the retrieved information to generate dosage values,
creating a prescription order for the patient and updating the
patient's record in real time, comparing a dosage value from the
prescription order to the generated dosage values and
determining whether the prescription order dosage value falls
above or below the generated dosage values[,]
i.e., the abstract idea that the Examiner determined is recited in the claim
(Final Act. 4 ).
This characterization of the concept to which claim 1 is directed is
fully consistent with the Specification, including the claim language
(see, e.g., claim 1; Spec. 3--4 ( disclosing a method of checking a prescription
dosage using a device having a data terminal, a central processing unit, a
central server, an electronic patient record database, and an electronic drug
reference database, comprising entering an order, comprising a prescribed
7
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
dosage of a medication for a patient, into the data terminal; uploading the
order to the central server; identifying a predetermined dosage or dosage
range using data from the electronic reference database and patient data
contained in the electronic patient record database; comparing the prescribed
dosage with the identified dosage or dosage range; determining whether the
prescribed dosage falls above or below the identified dosage or the
prescribed dosage falls outside of the identified dosage range; and
generating and outputting an alert if the prescribed dosage is above or below
the identified dosage or falls outside of the identified dosage range); see
also, e.g., id. at 27-29, 36). And, although articulated at a different level of
abstraction, it also is fully consistent with Appellants' characterization of the
claims as directed to "ensuring the administering of a correct dosage of a
prescription medication to a patient" (see Reply Br. 3). 3
Appellants assert that "[a]n 'abstract idea' refers to a quality or
concept generally, having no reference to material objects or specific
examples," and ostensibly maintain that the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea because the claims involve physical objects, e.g., a data
3 An abstract idea can be expressed at various levels of abstraction. See
Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As
the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as
generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first
menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described
in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from
restaurant customers on a computer."). That the Examiner articulates the
abstract idea at a different level of abstraction than do Appellants is an
insufficient basis for finding that the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea.
8
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
terminal, a central processing unit, a central server, an electronic patient
medical record database, and an electronic drug reference database (App.
Br. 8). Yet, as the court noted in In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), "not every claim that recites concrete,
tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry." Id.
at 611. Although claim 1 recites physical components, e.g., a data terminal,
a central processing unit, and a central server, it is clear from the
Specification that the recited physical components merely provide a generic
environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of ensuring the
administering of a correct dosage of a prescription medication to a patient,
i.e., determining whether a patient prescription order dosage value falls
above or below a dosage value or range of dosage values generated using
patient and medication information retrieved from an electronic patient
record database and an electronic drug reference database (see Spec. 3--4
( describing that a prescription order, comprising a prescribed dosage of a
medication for a patient, is entered into the data terminal and uploaded to the
central server)). The Specification's indication that the claimed invention is
intended to address the need for "a user-friendly, effective system for
ensuring the delivery of a safe and effective dosage of a prescribed
medication" (Spec. 1 ), as well as its indication that the system includes dose
range checking and an alert system to prevent filling of a prescription where
the prescribed dosage falls outside a dosage value or range for that
medication (id.), also underscore that the claims are directed to the abstract
idea identified by the Examiner, and not to an improvement in any physical
components and/or computer technology.
9
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
Appellants charge that the Examiner merely asserts that claims 1-14
and 16-63 are directed to an abstract idea and that "the rejection has not
substantiated or established that the claims as a whole are directed to an
abstract idea simply by stating that they are" (App. Br. 9). But, that
argument is not persuasive.
The Federal Circuit acknowledged in Amdocs that there is no single,
succinct, useful definition of "abstract idea," and the court suggested
examining earlier cases of a similar or parallel nature and the way those
cases were decided. Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d
1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Instead of a definition [for what an 'abstract
idea' encompasses], then, the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to
examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be
seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided.").
Consistent with that guidance, the Examiner articulated the abstract idea to
which the claims are directed, and also analogized the abstract idea to
concepts that the courts have previously identified as abstract, i.e.,
comparing new and stored information (i.e., patient and medication
information) and using rules to identify options (i.e., whether a prescribed
dosage value exceeds or falls below a generated dosage value); processing
information (i.e., patient and medication information) through a
clearinghouse (i.e. a computer); and using categories (i.e., patient records
versus medication information) to organize, store, and transmit information
(Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 3--4 (citing cases in which the courts have
identified these and other similar concepts as abstract ideas)). Appellants do
not contend that the Examiner's reliance on these cases is misplaced or that
the cases that the Examiner identified are otherwise inapposite.
10
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
Appellants charge in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has not
properly established that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and that
the Examiner improperly considers the claim as a listing of a series of
unrelated, disjointed and overgeneralized concepts (Reply Br. 1-2 ( citing
Ans. 3--4)). But, we cannot agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
overgeneralized the claimed invention as directed to
retrieving patient and medication information from databases
including specificity and sensitivity pertaining to dosage values,
utilizing the retrieved information to generate dosage values,
creating a prescription order for the patient and updating the
patient's record in real time, comparing a dosage value from the
prescription order to the generated dosage values and
determining whether the prescription order dosage value falls
above or below the generated dosage values[,]
or that the Examiner has, otherwise, failed to consider the claims as a whole
(id.).
In rejecting the claims under § 101, the Examiner analyzed the claims
using the Mayol Alice two-step framework, in accordance with the guidance
set forth in the USPTO's "2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), in effect at the time the
Final Office Action was mailed (Final Act. 4---6). And, as described above,
the Examiner's identification of the concept to which the claims are directed
is fully consistent with the Specification, including the claim language.
Appellants charge, as described above, that the Examiner has not
properly established that the claims are directed to an abstract idea (see
Reply Br. 1-3). And Appellants ostensibly maintain that the Examiner's
analogies are improperly drawn and/or unsupported (see id.). Yet, we fail to
see how or why, and Appellants do not adequately explain how or why, the
method, as recited in claim 1, for example, involves more than collecting
11
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
information (i.e., patient and medication information); analyzing the
information (i.e., to derive dosage values and limits); and displaying the
results of the collection and analysis (i.e., alerts), without any particular
inventive technology-which the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held is
within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp. LLC v.
Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims
focused on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis were directed to an abstract idea
because "[ t ]he advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and
analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and
not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those
functions.").
Appellants further argue that the Examiner failed to consider the
claims individually, as required by USPTO guidelines, and that Examiner
"improperly judged all of claims 1-14 and 16-63 to fall together as a group"
(App. Br. 9). Yet, we decline to find error in the Examiner's approach, as
claims 1-14 and 16-63 are all directed to the same abstract idea.
See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims
are directed to the same abstract idea) '"addressing each c1aim of the asserted
patents [is] unnecessarf'), Here, the Examiner explicitly noted that "[t]he
abstract idea for Claims 16 and 61 is similar to the abstract idea for the
Claims 1-14 and 1 7---60 except that Claims 16 and 61 do not require storing
a specificity and sensitivity in a database, or updating the patient record in
real-time" and that "[t]he abstract idea for Claims 62--63 is similar to the
abstract idea for ... Claims 1-14 and 17--60 except that Claims 62--63 do
12
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
not require updating the patient record in real-time" (Final Act. 4--5). It also
is telling here that, aside from asserting that the Examiner failed to consider
the limitations of claims 1-14 and 16-63 individually, Appellants offer no
separate arguments for the patent-eligibility of these claims but instead argue
the claims as a group.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the rejection
"confuses the concept of abstractness under 3 5 USC 101, with the concept of
novelty under 35 USC 102" (App. Br. 10). Contrary to Appellants'
suggestion, the Examiner did not determine that the claims, as a whole, are
directed to an abstract idea because "the 'additional limitations' represent
'generic computer structure' that performs functions 'that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities known to the pertinent
industry"' (id.). Nor did the Examiner refer to generic computer structure in
the context of a discussion of novelty. Instead, the Examiner determined
that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the
additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the
abstract idea, amount to no more than a recitation of "A) generic computer
structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that serve to
merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e.[,]
a computer)" and "B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e.
storing, processing (i.e. setting, validating, generating/computing),
receiving, and transmitting data)" (Final Act. 5---6) - a determination
fully consistent with the controlling precedent. See DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("And after Alice,
13
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does
not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.").
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-14 and 16-63,
which fall with claim 1.
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 17 and 60
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) at least because none
of the cited references, individually or in combination, discloses or suggests
"setting the specificity and sensitivity of the derived drug dosage values or
limits based on the number of physician alerts," as recited in claim 1 (App.
Br. 11-13). The Examiner cites Estes as disclosing the argued limitation
(Final Act. 11 (citing Estes ,r,r 81-83)). But we agree with Appellants that
there is nothing in the cited portions of Estes that discloses or suggests
setting the specificity and sensitivity of drug dosage values or limits based
on the number of physician alerts, as called for in claim 1.
Estes discloses an infusion pump system 10, with reference to
Figures 1 and 2, comprising a glucose monitoring device 50 in
communication with an infusion pump assembly 60 configured to supply
insulin or other medication to a user via an infusion set 70 (Estes ,r 27);
pump assembly 60 includes a pump device 100 that dispenses medicine from
a medicine cartridge 120 through a flexible tube 72 of the infusion set 70 to
a cannula housing 7 4 where the dispensed medicine enters through the user's
skin via a cannula 76 attached to the underside of cannula housing 74 (id.
14
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
,r 31 ). Estes discloses that in some embodiments, the infusion pump system
is configured to alert the user when an occlusion, e.g., a kink in the flexible
tube, is detected, so as to remedy the possible interruption of medicine
delivery to the user (id. ,r 80). And Estes further discloses that, in certain
situations ( e.g., when transient kinks occur that self-correct, i.e., without user
intervention, after a short period of time), it may be advantageous to detect a
pattern of high pressure signals in the medicine cartridge (indicative of a
kink) before communicating the alert to the user (id.).
Estes, thus, discloses in paragraphs 81-83, cited by the Examiner, that
the system can include an occlusion detection system with an adjustable
sensitivity value, e.g., the sensitivity value can be set such that an alert is not
issued, i.e., an occlusion is not determined to exist, until after a
predetermined time has elapsed or after a pressure sensor (sampling the
pressure in the medicine cartridge) outputs a predetermined number of
consecutive high pressure signals. However, we fail to see how, and the
Examiner does not adequately explain how Estes, by its disclosure of an
occlusion detection system, i.e., detecting an interruption in the delivery of
medicine caused by a kink in a flexible tube and issuing an alert, alone or in
combination with Bristol and Mahran, discloses or suggests setting the
specificity and sensitivity of derived drug dosage values or limits based on a
number of physician alerts, as called for in claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reason, we also do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 17 and 60. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent
claims from which they depend are nonobvious").
15
Appeal2017-005520
Application 13/397 ,359
Independent Claims 16 and 62
Independent claims 16 and 62 include language substantially similar
to the language of claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same rationale
with respect to Estes applied to claim 1 (see Final Act. 41--42, 52-53).
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 16 and 62
for the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-14, 17-61, and 63
The rejections of dependent claims 2-14, 17---61, and 63 do not cure
the deficiency in the rejections of independent claims 1, 16, and 62.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of these dependent claims for the same reason set forth above with
respect to the independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-14, 16, and 60-63 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 and 16---63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14 and 16---63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
16