Ex Parte Cox

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2013

11890544 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2013)

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.
11/890,544 08/07/2007 INV001James Cox 0696-7005 7827
31780 7590 03/22/2013
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C.
3975 Fair Ridge Drive
Suite 20 North
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
FUELLING, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES COX
___________

Appeal 2011-010127
Application 11/890,544
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI and
MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Request for Rehearing
(filed Feb. 11, 2013, “Request”) and the BPAI Decision (mailed Dec. 11,
2012, “Decision”).
Appeal 2011-010127
Application 11/890,544

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
James Cox (Appellant) filed a Request for Rehearing of the Decision
affirming the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eisenberg and Myers.
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), the Request includes
certain points, in particular, that the Appellant believes the Board
misapprehended or overlooked in reaching its Decision.
The Appellant believes that the Board misapprehended the
Appellant’s argument due to incorrectly construing claim 1. The
Appellant’s argument rests upon an assumption that because a typographical
error occurs in the reproduction of claim 1 in “THE INVENTION” section
of our Decision that the Board applied an incorrect construction of claim 1 in
the “ANALYSIS” section of our Decision.
We have reviewed the Request in its entirety but do not find that the
Appellant has shown that the Board misapprehended or overlooked points in
affirming the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eisenberg and Myers.

DISCUSSION
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments on pages 1-9 of
the Request that we misapprehended or overlooked the Appellant’s
argument in reaching our Decision.
For clarity, claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computerized system for tracking, managing
and analyzing hospital privileges through the use
of specifically researched content in conjunction
with medical billing codes comprising:
Appeal 2011-010127
Application 11/890,544

3
privilege information stored on a computer
readable medium identifying at least one medical
procedure permitted for a healthcare worker to
perform;
billing code information stored on the
computer readable medium, said billing code
information including at least one medical billing
code;
relational information stored on the
computer readable medium identifying a
relationship between said at least one medical
procedure and said at least one medical billing
code; and
a privileging computer for generating a
privilege determination using said privilege
information, said billing code information and said
relational information.

First, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the
Board misconstrued claim 1 (Request 1-5). The Appellant’s argument that
the Board applied a misconstruction of the relational information limitation
of claim 1 in our analysis because of a typographical error in the
reproduction of the billing code information limitation in “THE
INVENTION” section of our Decision is only an assumption. Our statement
that “the claimed relational information identifies a relationship between a
medical procedure and at least one medical billing code and not between the
claimed privilege information and the medical billing codes” (Decision 5-6)
is not affected by this typographical error.
Second, we are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (Request
5-9) that the Board’s conclusion that the combination of Eisenberg and
Myers renders obvious the system of claim 1 is merely conclusory. We are
Appeal 2011-010127
Application 11/890,544

4
not persuaded by this argument as our Decision provides an articulated
rationale with logical underpinnings in our Decision (See Decision 6-7
“simple substitution” or “accurate and efficient.”) Further, we fail to see
how differences in the timing of when “the information identifying treatment
services” is entered (i.e., before the healthcare worker sees the patient) in
Eisenberg and when the “billing codes” are entered by the physician (i.e.,
contemporaneously or after the physician sees the patient) in Myers renders
non-obvious the substitution of one type of information identifying treatment
services for another type. Further, we note that, as we found in our
Decision, “Myers states that their system could be linked to a physician’s
scheduling program so that the input can be applied to future scheduling
activities [, such as lab work-ups].” See Myers, para. [0188]. This suggests
that the input (e.g., the billing codes) can be applied to future (i.e., before the
healthcare worker sees the patient) activities.

CONCLUSION
We have carefully considered the arguments that the Appellant has
set forth in the Request but, for the foregoing reasons, we do not find them
persuasive as to our affirmance of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eisenberg and Myers.
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).

DENIED
hh