Ex Parte White et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2014

11586360 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER M. WHITE and THOMAS P. WHITE
____________

Appeal 2011-009465
Application 11/586,360
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: ALLEN R. MACDONALD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009465
Application 11/586,360

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-151. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates to systems and methods for managing clinical
information, such as critical test results, in a health care environment (Spec.,
Abstract).
Claims 1, 12, and 13, reproduced below, are further illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A method for communicating given clinical
information in a communication system, comprising:
having a first entity generate a message in the
communication system comprising a result associated with a
given clinical test;
providing, via a communication network apparatus, a
second entity the message including a test attribute, the result
associated with the test attribute, and a prompt to enter the
result using an input device;
upon confirmation that the second entity has provided the
result, notifying, via the communication network apparatus the
first entity that the second entity has received and understood
the result.

12. A method for communicating given clinical test
result data, comprising:
providing, via a communication network apparatus a
receiving entity a voice message including a test attribute, a
result associated with the test attribute, and a prompt to enter
the result using an input device;
upon confirmation that the receiving entity has provided
the result, notifying, via the communication network apparatus,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed August 30, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
February 16, 2011).
Appeal 2011-009465
Application 11/586,360

3
an entity that created the voice message that the receiving entity
has received and understood the result, and prompting the
receiving entity to determine whether the result is to be
forwarded; and
upon confirmation that the result is to be forwarded,
forwarding, via the communication network apparatus, at least
the result to another entity.

13. A computer-readable medium having computer-
executable instructions for performing the method steps of
claim 12.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Eisenberger (US 2006/0178910 A1, pub. Aug. 10, 2006),
Wagner (US 6,092,102, iss. Jul. 18, 2000), and Libbey
(US 2004/0199597 A1, pub. Oct. 7, 2004).
We AFFIRM.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Libbey
1. Libbey discloses a test that requires user verification of content
(Abs.).
2. Libbey discloses showing a user displayed text, and then
prompting the user to enter the displayed text in a box (¶ [0018]).
Eisenberger
3. Eisenberger discloses a system for receiving patient healthcare
data from a plurality of data input sources, and storing the data in a database
(Abs.).
4. The system includes a web portal that controls participant
access and communicates with a message flow server (¶ [0094]).
Appeal 2011-009465
Application 11/586,360

4
5. The system allows participants to define data sharing rules,
select what data to share, and decide with whom to share, and monitor, alert,
notify, and report on selected topics and provide account activity (¶ [0094]).
6. Different message types flowing between the system and the
message flow server include, but are not limited to command and control
messages, clinical or target data publication messages, notification
messages, and alert messages (¶¶ [0042], [0094]).
7. The terms “healthcare data” and “clinical data” are used
interchangeably and include any and/or all of a treatment, medicinal, drug or
prescription use, laboratory tests and/or results, and diagnostic information
(¶ [0044]).
Wagner
8. Wagner discloses a communications channel manager accepting
an acknowledgement of receipt of a message from a user so as to ensure a
user received the message (14:39-42).
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 12
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Libbey, Eisenberger, and Wagner discloses or suggests “a
prompt to enter a result,” as recited by independent claim 1 (App. Br. 12-
15). Specifically, Appellants assert that the prompt in Libbey requires
entering distorted displayed text, and not “a result associated with a given

2 Appellants do not set forth additional arguments for claims 2-15. We
select independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1-15. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-009465
Application 11/586,360

5
clinical test,” as recited by independent claim 1. Appellants’ assertion is
misplaced, as the fact that Libbey alone does not disclose the recited claim
limitation is not persuasive, because non-obviousness cannot be established
by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated
upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Eisenberger, and not Libbey, is cited for
disclosing healthcare data, including laboratory tests. One of ordinary skill
would have replaced the distorted displayed text in the prompt of Libbey
with the laboratory test result of Eisenberger, so as to require the user to
verify the contents of the prompt, which would meet the recited “a prompt to
enter a result.”
We are also not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Libbey, Eisenberger, and Wagner discloses or suggests
“upon confirmation that the second entity has provided the result, notifying,
via the communication apparatus the first entity that the second entity has
received and understood the result,” as recited by independent claim 1 (App.
Br. 14-15). Specifically, Appellants assert that Wagner merely discloses an
acknowledgement that an entity receiving a message has received a message,
but says nothing about verifying that the receiving entity has “received and
understood the message,” as recited by independent claim 1. Appellants’
assertion is misplaced. As set forth above, the combination of Libbey and
Eisenberger prompts user entry of laboratory results. User entry of the
laboratory results would then serve as an indication that the user “received
and understood the message.” Wagner discloses a communications channel
manager accepting an acknowledgement of receipt of a message from a user
so as to ensure a user received the message (14:39-42). Accordingly, based
Appeal 2011-009465
Application 11/586,360

6
on Wagner and the aforementioned indication from the user entry of the
laboratory results, one of ordinary skill would have known to send an
acknowledgement of receipt of the laboratory results, from the user to the
message flow server of Libbey, so as to ensure that the user received the
laboratory results.
We are also not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Libbey, Eisenberger, and Wagner discloses or suggests
“providing a second entity the message including a test attribute, the result
associated with the test attribute, and a prompt to enter the result,” as recited
by independent claim 1 (App. Br. 15). Specifically, Appellants assert that
Libbey requires a prompt before allowing a user to send a message, whereas
independent claim 1 requires a prompt after receipt of a message.
Appellants’ assertion is misplaced. Eisenberger, and not Libbey, is cited for
disclosing sending and receiving messages. Libbey is merely cited for the
verification prompt, which one of ordinary skill would have known could be
applied to both the sending and receipt of messages.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is AFFIRMED.
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

mls