10624098 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Bowman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 18, 2012

10624098 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte BRADLEY R. BOWMAN and PHILIP D. MARSHALL ____________________ Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-26. Claims 27-32 are withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF DECISION We Affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants claim a system and method for providing communication over a computer network and, in particular, to providing personalized communication between users according to personal health information about them. (Spec. 1 [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented communication method comprising: from each of a plurality of receiving users, receiving corresponding personal health message receiving criteria for determining messages to be received by that receiving user, the corresponding personal health message receiving criteria for each user including health categories that are relevant to that receiving user; from a transmitting user, receiving a message and personal health message transmitting criteria for directing the received message to other users, the personal health message transmitting criteria including health categories that are relevant to the received message or to the transmitting user; comparing the personal health message receiving criteria for each of the plurality of receiving users to the personal health message transmitting criteria to identify those users among the plurality of receiving users to whom the received message Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 3 should be transmitted; and transmitting the received message to the identified users among the plurality of receiving users. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Goodman US 5,827,180 Oct. 27, 1998 Brown US 5,960,403 Sep. 28, 1999 Brown US 6,334,778 B1 Jan. 1, 2002 PR Newswire. August 23, 2999. WellMed, Inc. "WellMed Introduces Industry's First Compreshensive Personal Health Management System Including Online Health Record." Press Release. February 22,1999. Apelon, Inc. "WellMed and Lexical Techno logy Announce Joint Development Agreement for Online consumer Health Records." The following rejections are before us for review. The Examiner rejected claims 1 - 5, 7, and 12 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WellMed in view of Goodman. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8 - 11, 17, and 19 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WellMed and Goodman, further in view of Lexical. The Examiner rejected claims 23 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodman in view of WellMed. Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 4 ISSUE The rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether WellMed meets the requirements of claim 1. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. WellMed discloses “WellMed will also be introducing a customized instant messaging system for people with specific ailments. Individuals diagnosed with certain conditions can opt to be anonymously connected with other individuals in similar situations via their personal homepage. This is beneficial in the same way systems that match patients to clinical trials have been useful for physicians.” (WellMed, ¶16). 2. “WellMed's Personal Health Manager collects and analyzes health information to determine an individual's unique health profile; filters and delivers tailored health information and recommendations according to that profile; and provides interactive, self-paced, self-care modules enabling individuals to monitor and manage specific disease or lifestyle risk factors.” (WellMed, ¶18). Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 5 ANALYSIS For the reasons that follow, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-26. Initially, we note that the Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of all claims on appeal. Correspondingly, all claims rise and fall with claim 1. The Examiner found that the limitation, comparing the personal health message receiving criteria for each of the plurality of receiving users to the personal health message transmitting criteria to identify those users among the plurality of receiving users to whom the received message should be transmitted, is disclosed by WellMed at ¶ 16. (Answer 4). Specifically, the Examiner found that because WellMed discloses “a customized instant messaging system for people with specific ailments so that individuals diagnosed with certain conditions can opt to be anonymously connected with other individuals in similar situations”, WellMed discloses “a system in which patients with the same or similar conditions can be connected.” (Answer 4). Concerning this passage in WellMed, Appellants however argue that this “…mechanism for identifying the intended recipient is the personal home page. It appears to suggest that a communication channel is opened up between the two users without either of them knowing who the other one is and that channel enables them to communicate with each other.” (Appeal Br. 11). In light of the breadth of the claim, the Appellants’ argument is not persuasive as to error in the rejection because the claim only generally requires a criteria to identify those users among the plurality of receiving Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 6 users to whom the received message should be transmitted, without requiring that either party know who the other is. We find that the user who customizes his/her instant messaging system to communicate with only those “in similar situations” in fact creates a criteria as required by the claims. We find that at the involved homepage server, a comparison as to which users are filtered for such communication would need to occur to effect such selective communication. See KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). (In making the obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”) Further, we find that because WellMed explicitly discloses customized instant messaging system connecting with only those persons who share similar specific aliments, WellMed meets the requirement of, from a transmitting user, receiving a message and personal health message transmitting criteria for directing the received message to other user. That is, we find that when the afflicted individual sets at the web page server a filter to connect via IM with only people having similar afflictions, he/she transmits from a user to the server a message and personal health message transmitting criteria for directing the received message to other user. Nothing in the claim requires the continued transmission of a personal health message transmitting criteria with each communication from one user to the other as Appellants’ argument suggests. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-007371 Application 10/624,098 7 DECISION No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED MP