Ex Parte White et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201411586360 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation