Ex Parte Ellis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 1, 2012

11119462 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 1, 2012)

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.
11/119,462 04/29/2005 Linda Shipman Ellis 050704/306292 1599
99434 7590 03/02/2012
McKesson Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon St., Suite
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
SEOH, MINNAH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2012 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 LINDA SHIPMAN ELLIS, DAVID PAUL CARLSON, and
SHERRY DEAN
____________

Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-29. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to the management of beds and
other resources in a health care facility (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter
(numbered bracketing has been added).
1. An apparatus comprising a processor configured to
cause the apparatus to generate a bed board, the bed board
comprising:
a plurality of graphical representations of bed cells, each
graphical representation of a bed cell having associated
therewith a bed and a set of bed attributes; and
a plurality of graphical representations of patient cards,
each patient card having associated therewith a set of patient
attributes, each patient card displayed as either assigned to a
bed cell or unassigned;
[1] wherein each patient card comprises a container for
the set of patient attributes associated therewith and is
assignable to a bed cell by dragging and dropping the patient
card onto a bed cell, and wherein each patient card assigned to a
bed cell is displayed within a respective assigned bed cell.

Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-20, 22-23, and 28-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nacey (US 2002/0158919 A1, pub.
Oct. 31, 2002) in view of Schoenberg (US 6,322,502 B1, iss. Nov. 27,
2001); claims 5, 12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nacey in view of Rosow (US 2003/0074222 A1, pub.
Apr. 17, 2003); and claims 24-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nacey in view of Rosow and Schoenberg.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Nacey and
Schoenberg renders obvious aspect [1] of independent claim 11?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Nacey and
Schoenberg renders obvious “wherein the bed board additionally comprises
a graphical representation for grouping graphical representations of bed cells
associated with beds that are in the same room,” as recited in dependent
claim 42?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Nacey and
Schoenberg renders obvious “wherein said bed cells are organized by
nursing station” as recited in dependent claim 73?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Nacey and
Schoenberg renders obvious “wherein said set of patient attributes is
comprised of gender, patient type, age, whether has alert, whether currently
selected, whether enabled for use inside a room cell, and whether enabled
for use inside a holding area,” as recited in dependent claim 28?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Nacey and
Schoenberg renders obvious “wherein each patient card comprises a
container for the set of patient attributes associated therewith that is
configured for passing the set of patient attributes associated therewith to
another application,” as recited in dependent claim 29?

1 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of independent claims 1,
8, and 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
2 We choose dependent claim 4 as representative of dependent claims 4, 11,
and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3 We choose dependent claim 7 as representative of dependent claims 7, 14,
and 23. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

4
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Nacey,
Schoenberg, and Rosow renders obvious independent claim 244? The issue
turns on whether overflow beds 198 of Rosow correspond to the recited
holding area.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 4-29
of the Examiner’s Answer.

ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Nacey and Schoenberg renders obvious independent claim 1
(App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 3-7). Appellants assert that a combination of
Nacey and Schoenberg does not render obvious aspect [1]. We agree with
and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales concerning independent
claim 1, as set forth on pages 16-19 of the Examiner’s Answer. Nacey
discloses three levels of attributes for each bed, some of which are related to
the patient (paras. [0019], [0022], [0025]). Schoenberg discloses a drag-
and-drop function (col. 6, ll. 37-51). The Examiner asserts it would have
been obvious to combine these disclosures to render obvious dragging-and-
dropping patient attributes so as to “allow[ ] for a more intuitive control of
the bed board system [which] would reduce training time for medical

4 We choose independent claim 24 as representative of claims 24-27. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

5
personnel to learn the new bed board system” (Exam’r’s Ans. 5). We find
no error in the Examiner’s reasoning.

Dependent Claim 4
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Nacey and Schoenberg renders obvious dependent claim 4
(App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 7-8). Appellants assert that a combination of
Nacey and Schoenberg does not render obvious “wherein the bed board
additionally comprises a graphical representation for grouping graphical
representations of bed cells associated with beds that are in the same room.”
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales concerning
dependent claim 4, as set forth on pages 19-20 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Nacey discloses viewing all patients with a similar focus (para. [0034]).
Paragraph [0033] of Nacey discloses interest in a particular room, which
would be such a focus.

Dependent Claim 7
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Nacey and Schoenberg renders obvious dependent claim 7
(App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 8-9). Appellants assert that a combination of
Nacey and Schoenberg does not render obvious “wherein said bed cells are
organized by nursing station.” We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
findings and rationales concerning dependent claim 7, as set forth on pages
20-21 of the Examiner’s Answer. Nacey discloses viewing all patients with
a similar focus (para. [0034]). The Examiner asserts that “nursing stations
are a standard unit of organization in hospitals,” which would be such a
Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

6
focus. Indeed, paragraphs [0002] and [0003] of the Background section of
the Specification disclose that bed boards depicting nursing wings are
known.

Dependent Claim 28
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Nacey and Schoenberg renders obvious dependent claim 28
(App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 9-11). Appellants assert that a combination of
Nacey and Schoenberg does not render obvious “wherein said set of patient
attributes is comprised of gender, patient type, age, whether has alert,
whether currently selected, whether enabled for use inside a room cell, and
whether enabled for use inside a holding area.” We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and rationales concerning dependent claim 28, as set
forth on pages 22-24 of the Examiner’s Answer. Paragraph [0022] of Nacey
discloses that “[a] user defined attribute may be any attribute which is
important to a user of the present invention,” showing that almost any
patient attribute would have been obvious.

Dependent Claim 29
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Nacey and Schoenberg renders obvious dependent claim 29
(App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 11). Appellants assert that a combination of
Nacey and Schoenberg does not render obvious “wherein each patient card
comprises a container for the set of patient attributes associated therewith
that is configured for passing the set of patient attributes associated
therewith to another application.” We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s
Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

7
findings and rationales concerning dependent claim 29, as set forth on pages
24-26 of the Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner has used Schoenberg to
modify Nacey’s static display into a dynamic display, placing Nacey’s
patient attributes into an exportable format.

Independent Claim 24
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Nacey, Schoenberg, and Rosow renders obvious independent
claim 24 (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 11-14). Appellants assert Rosow does
not disclose “a holding area… [with] [p]atient cards not assigned to a bed
cell.” We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales
concerning independent claim 24, as set forth on pages 26-28 of the
Examiner’s Answer. Rosow discloses overflow beds 198 that are separate
from “normal” beds 178, 180, 182, 184, 186 (Fig. 19; para. [0099]). A
broadest reasonable construction of holding area constitutes any area other
than the bed cells (e.g., “normal” beds 178, 180, 182, 184, 186), making
irrelevant whether overflow bed 198 is actually a bed. See In re Am. Acad.
of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[d]uring
examination [of a patent application, a pending claim is] given [the] broadest
reasonable [construction] consistent with the specification, and . . . claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art”) (internal citation and
quotations omitted).

Appeal 2010-011774
Application 11/119,462

8
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-29 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

hh