Ex Parte Hazumi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2010

09864261 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHIHIRO HAZUMI
____________

Appeal 2009-010370
Application 09/864,261
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and JOSEPH A.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-010370
Application 09/864,261

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 2, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18,
22, 25, 26, and 28-30. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35
U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to electronic medical information
managements systems and related methods in which a medical practitioner
and a small hospital, which have some difficulty to organize introducing and
operating a large electronic medical record information management system,
can use an electronic medical record in high security (Spec. 1:2-7). Claim 2,
reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
2. An electronic medical record information management
system, comprising:
at least one electronic medical record information
managing means;
a plurality of electronic medical record showing means;
and a communication network that connects the at least one
electronic medical record information managing means to said
plurality of electronic medical record showing means,
wherein:
each of said plurality of electronic medical record
showing means comprises:
a first communication unit for connecting to said
communication network; and
at least one first electronic medical record terminal that
makes electronic medical records of patients and transmits said
electronic medical records to said electronic medical record
information managing means through said first communication
unit and said communication network, and makes a request to
transmit one or more of said electronic medical records stored
in said electronic medical record information managing means,
and transmits said request to said electronic medical record
information managing means through said first communication
unit, and shows one or more of said electronic medical records
transmitted from said electronic medical record information
Appeal 2009-010370
Application 09/864,261

3
managing means, and
said electronic medical record information managing
means comprises:
a second communication unit for connecting to said
communication network;
an electronic medical record storer that stores said
electronic medical records that were transmitted from said
electronic medical record showing means; and
a control server that obtains one or more of said
electronic medical records stored in said electronic medical
record storer, and transmits the obtained one or more of said
electronic medical records to said electronic medical record
showing means through said second communication unit,
wherein:
said at least one first electronic medical record terminal
further includes means for adding information to each of said
electronic medical records and means for transmitting said
electronic medical records having the added information to said
electronic medical record information managing means through
said first communication unit, and said control server further
makes said electronic medical record storer store said electronic
medical records received from said electronic medical record
showing means through said second communication unit, and
said control server judges whether a user who transmitted
said request is a user who has a second access right or not, and
when said user has said second access right, said control server
makes said electronic medical record storer store said electronic
medical records.
The references of record relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Ross US 5,823,948 Oct. 20, 1998
Wallace US 6,564,121 B1 May 13, 2003
Appeal 2009-010370
Application 09/864,261

4
Claims 2, 8, 10, 14, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ross; and claims 18, 28, and 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ross in view of Wallace.
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Ross anticipates the subject
matter of claims 2, 8, 10, 14, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 30?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that a combination of Ross and
Wallace renders obvious the subject matter of claims 18, 28, and 29?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s Findings of Fact, as set forth on pages 5-19
of the Examiner’s Answer.

ANALYSIS
For the reasons set forth on pages 14-17 of the Examiner’s Answer,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that Ross
anticipates the subject matter of claims 2, 8, 10, 14, 16, 22, 25, 26, and 30
(App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 4-6). Additionally, Appellants assert that Ross
does not disclose that “the user must first transmit the request, and only
then the user's access rights are determined” (App. Br. 12, 13). However,
there is no such temporal limitation in the claim. See CollegeNet, Inc. v.
ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the
specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations
from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Appeal 2009-010370
Application 09/864,261

5
For the reasons set forth on pages 17-19 of the Examiner’s Answer,
we are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Ross and Wallace renders obvious the subject matter of
dependent claims 18, 28, and 29 (App. Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 6-8). Wallace is
only cited for encryption. While Wallace may not favor centralized systems,
there is nothing in Wallace to suggest that the use encryption on centralized
systems such as Ross would not be technically feasible. We also agree with
the Examiner that the stated rationale for adding encryption to the identity
verification system of Ross, to further the secure transmission of patient data
over a network, would outweigh any minimal efficiency losses due to
encryption/decryption processes.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a)
rejections.
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037