Ex Parte Coffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2016

13185427 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/185,427 07/18/2011
80236 7590 10/17/2016
McDermott Will & Emery LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Damon J. Coffman
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.
080625-0059 2258
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2016 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):
mweipdocket@mwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAMON J. COFFMAN,
TIMOTHY W. VANDERVEEN, BRADFORD A. LEE, and
DAVID L. SCHLOTTERBECK
Appeal2014-004125 1
Application 13/185,427
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MICHAEL W. KIM, and AMEE A. SHAH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 76, 78-80, and 83-
87. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to managing information with respect
to medical care, medication delivery, asset identification, and verification of
drug delivery. Spec., 1 :6-7.
1 The Appellants identify "CareFusion 303, Inc." as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004125
Application 13/185,427
Claim 76 is illustrative:
7 6. A system for managing information relating to the
delivery of medical care to a patient, comprising:
a care facility information system comprising a memory
that comprises a medical order for the patient;
a first medical transaction carrier (MTC) comprising a
machine-readable label coupled to a container of a medication,
the label comprising information related to the medical order;
a second MTC comprising an electronic message that the
information of the first MTC has been received; and
a patient specific asset (PSA) configured to retrieve the
information from the first MTC, store the retrieved information,
and transmit the second MTC to the care facility information
system over a network.
Claims 76, 78-80, and 83-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by White (US 6,519,569 Bl, iss. Feb. 11, 2003).
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that White discloses
"a second MTC comprising an electronic message that the information of the
first MTC has been received; ... transmit the second MTC to the care
facility information system over a network," as recited in independent claim
76. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2--4. As an initial matter, the Examiner
asserts that bar code label 66 of medication container 12, a message from a
pumping device 10, and central computer network of White correspond,
respectively, to the recited "first MTC," "second MTC," and "care facility
information system." The Examiner then cites the following disclosures of
White as corresponding to the aforementioned claim limitation: column 1,
lines 59---65; column 6, lines 1-20; column 8, lines 25--45. Ans. 3--4.
2
Appeal2014-004125
Application 13/185,427
Of those, we determine that only column 1, lines 59---65 is relevant, insofar
as it is the only cited disclosure of the central computer network of White.
To that end, White discloses the following:
In order to facilitate management and accuracy of infused
medication, various systems have been devised for purposes of
providing certain drug information and/or patient
information, either directly to the pump from the container of
the medicinal fluid or to the pump from a central computer
network to be interconnected with all infusion pumps
throughout the medical institution or hospital.
White, 1 :59-65; emphases added. In other words, White only discloses
transmitting information to the pump from the central computer network,
while the aforementioned claim limitation recites the opposite, i.e., "transmit
the second MTC to the care facility information system over a network."
Emphasis added.
To that end, the Examiner does assert additionally the following:
White teaches the pump is interconnected with the central
computer network that is capable of providing accuracy of
infused medication (i.e. drug information and/or patient
information); the pump is able to send scanned information to the
central computer who correlates the information for accuracy
(White: col. 1, 59-65). Examiner states that White teaches the
central computer network to be interconnected to the infusion
pumps; providing sending and receiving from infusion pumps to
the central computer.
Ans. 4; emphases added. As set forth above, we are unpersuaded that the
cited portions of White disclose explicitly the above-referenced capability.
And as this is an anticipation rejection, we are confined to the four comers
of White, especially where the aforementioned limitation recites that a
specific type of message is sent, i.e., "a second MTC comprising an
electronic message that the information of the first MTC has been received."
3
Appeal2014-004125
Application 13/185,427
We are unpersuaded that the cited portions of White disclose sending a
specific type of message from the pump to the central computer network,
when it does not even disclose explicitly sending any message from the
pump to the central computer network.
Independent claim 83 recites limitations similar to the aforementioned
limitations of independent claim 7 6, namely, "a second MTC comprising an
electronic message that the medication has been delivered per the
information of the first MTC; ... transmit the second MTC to the care
facility information system over a network." We are persuaded of Examiner
error for the same reasons.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 7 6 and 83, or
claims 78-80 and 84--87, each of which depend ultimately from one of
independent claims 7 6 and 83.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 76, 78-80, and 83-87.
REVERSED
4