2020001166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

Robert Arling et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 2021

2020001166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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. 13/990,831 05/31/2013 Robert Stanley Arling 2010P00751WOUS 4174 24737 7590 03/18/2021 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus Avenue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 EXAMINER LAM, ELIZA ANNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT STANLEY ARLING and JOSEPH ERNEST ROCK Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 Technology Center 3600 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, and 22–41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: displaying, with a display monitor, an interactive graphical user interface, including: one or more logical reporting element windows, each displaying a different set of logical reporting elements, wherein the different sets of logical reporting elements are from a group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic; and first and second ruleset creation windows; receiving, with an input device, a first input identifying a ruleset type from a group consisting of mutual exclusion, exclusion and implication; receiving, with the input device, a second input identifying a logical reporting element of the different sets of logical reporting elements displayed in the one or more logical reporting element windows; populating, with a processor, the first ruleset creation window with the identified logical reporting element, wherein the identified logical reporting element includes a clause of one or more logical statements that evaluate to true or false; populating, with the processor, the second ruleset creation window based on the identified logical reporting element and the identified ruleset type to create a ruleset, wherein the content populated in the first and second ruleset creation windows formalizes a relationship between the logical reporting elements; populating, with the processor, fields of an electronic medical report for a medical study of interest with user input; evaluating the ruleset for the medical report; Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 3 in response to a result of the evaluating indicating a logical reporting element violation in the medical report, displaying the logical reporting element violation in an evaluation window; receiving, with the input device, a third input resolving the logical reporting element violation in the medical report; and generating, with the processor, a final electronic medical report that mitigates the violation. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Parkhurst US 2008/0186133 Al Aug. 7, 2008 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 22–26, and 28–412 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipate over Parkhurst. Final Act. 2–5. 2. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Parkhurst. Final Act. 5–6. OPINION The Examiner relies on Figure 2 and paragraph 35 of Parkhurst as disclosing “an interactive graphical user interface, including: one or more 2 The Office Action Summary of the Final Rejection lists claim 41 as rejected. The Examiner, however, does not include any substantive discussion of claim 41 in the Final Rejection, nor list claim 41 in any of the subheadings of the rejection. Because claim 41 recites a limitation identical to one found in claim 1 (with the exception of the recitation of a “non- transitory computer readable storage medium”), however, we hold this omission to be harmless error and include claim 41 as anticipated over Parkhurst. Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 4 logical reporting element windows, each displaying a different set of logical reporting elements, wherein the different sets of logical reporting elements are from a group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic.” Final Act. 2. Figure 2 of Parkhurst is reproduced below: Figure 2 of Parkhurst depicts an exemplary autoverification process in the form of a flowchart. Parkhurst ¶ 18. Paragraph 35 of Parkhurst, which describes Figure 2, states: Decision nodes 112 are those nodes where a decision is made to proceed to one of a plurality of other nodes based on an input. For example, a decision node may check information provided about a patient, a specimen from the patient, one or more test results from a laboratory analyzer, or other information. After analyzing the input, the node determines a process flow based on the input information. Accordingly, each decision node includes two or more output edges 106b. Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 5 Relying on the above disclosure from Parkhurst, the Examiner finds that “a node checking information provided about a patient corresponds to a patient demographic and one or more test results corresponds to medical findings and measurement values.” Ans. 4. Appellant argues [t]he window [of Figure 2] does not display a set of logical reporting elements. The window displays nodes which display the action, instruction, or analysis that occurs at each node. This is not a set of logical reporting elements. Furthermore, the nodes do not display medical findings, measurement values, or patient demographics. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3 (“Paragraph [0068] does not teach that any of the nodes of Fig. 2 display serum calcium.”). Appellant contends that “[a] node in Fig. 2 is part of a displayed rule and displays the function performed by the node.” Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, the relied upon portions of Parkhurst “do not teach Fig. 2 is an interactive graphical user interface with a logical reporting element window displaying a medical finding, a measurement value or a patient demographic, as purported by the Office.” Reply Br. 3. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant’s argument that “the nodes do not display medical findings, measurement values, or patient demographics” (Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis added)), is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which only requires that the logical reporting elements be “from a group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic” without requiring that they display this information. Moreover, Appellant does not point to a definition of logical reporting elements or identify a description in the Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 6 intrinsic record that limits the scope of the term consistent with this argument. Instead, as explained in Parkhurst, the decision nodes in Figure 2 “check information provided about a patient, a specimen from the patient, one or more test results from a laboratory analyzer, or other information.” Parkhurst ¶ 35. We agree with the Examiner that “information provided about a patient” and “test results” (Parkhurst ¶ 35) disclose the claimed “medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic” and thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, nodes that check such information disclose the claimed “logical reporting elements [that] are from a group consisting of a medical finding, a measurement value, and a patient demographic.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 22–41 for which Appellant does not make any separate arguments for patentability. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 22–26, 28–41 102 Parkhurst 1, 22–26, 28–41 27 103 Parkhurst 27 Overall Outcome 1, 22–41 Appeal 2020-001166 Application 13/990,831 7 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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