Ex Parte Friedlander et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2013

11349408 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT R. FRIEDLANDER
and JAMES R. KRAEMER
____________

Appeal 2011-005852
Application 11/349,408
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005852
Application 11/349,408

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 1-30 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to providing a level of
anonymity to patient records information (Spec. [3]). Claim 1, reproduced
below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.

1. A method of providing a level of anonymity to patient records
information, the method comprising:
receiving a unique user identification (ID) associated with a
current user at an interface of a computer database environment;
receiving a first role code associated with a first role of the
current user at the interface of the computer database environment;
[1] allowing access to a defined set of patient records
information in the computer database environment, wherein said
access provides at least a threshold level of anonymity within records
information retrieved from the defined set of patient records
information based on the user ID and the first role, and wherein the
defined set of patient records information are defined based on the
user ID and the first role code of the current user.

Appeal 2011-005852
Application 11/349,408

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Worth US 5,881,225 Mar. 9, 1999
Felsher US 2002/0010679 A1 Jan. 24, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, 21-23, and 25-27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Worth.
2. Claims 4, 8-10, 14, 18-20, 24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Worth and Felsher.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the findings of fact used in the Analysis section below
are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.1

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
Worth fails to disclose portions of claim limitation [1] that “provides at least
a threshold level of anonymity within records/information retrieved” (Br.
10-13).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that cited claim limitation
[1] is shown by Worth at column 2, lines 44-46, column 3, line 66 – column

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-005852
Application 11/349,408

4
4, line 10, column 4, lines 17-21, and column 4, line 65 – column 5, line 4
(Ans. 4).
We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitation [1] requires:
[1] allowing access to a defined set of patient records information in
the computer database environment, wherein said access provides at
least a threshold level of anonymity within records information
retrieved from the defined set of patient records information based on
the user ID and the first role, and wherein the defined set of patient
records information are defined based on the user ID and the first role
code of the current user. (Claim 1, emphasis added).

Thus, claim 1 requires in part that access is allowed to patient records
based on a user ID that but the claimed method also “provides at least a
threshold level of anonymity within records/information retrieved.” Here,
the rejection of record cites to Worth at column 2, lines 44-46, column 3,
line 66 – column 4, line 10, column 4, lines 17-21, and column 4, line 65 –
column 5, line 4 to show the cited claim limitation [1]. While these cited
portions of Worth do show that access can be restricted based on the user
they do not specifically show what is restricted and that there is provided
any of the required claimed threshold level of anonymity within records
information retrieved from the defined set of patient records information
based on the user ID as claimed. The Examiner has cited to the Appellants’
Specification at paragraph [0030] as providing a broader interpretation of the
claimed “threshold level of anonymity” to refer to the user and not the
patient (Ans. 12-13) but we disagree with this contention. The Specification
makes clear at paragraphs [0029]-[0030] that the level of anonymity refers to
the patient records. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar
Appeal 2011-005852
Application 11/349,408

5
limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained for these same
reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls