Ex Parte Hunkeler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

14589342 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

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.
14/589,342 01/05/2015 Enid M. Hunkeler 8176PMG0001C1 3571
121159 7590 03/02/2018
Kacvinsky Daisak Bluni PLLC-Boston
Scott T. Bluni
50 Doaks Lane
Marblehead, MA 01945
EXAMINER
LAM, ELIZA ANNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
docketing @ kdbfirm. com
bbonneville @ kdbfirm .com
msartori@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ENID M. HUNKELER and JOSEPH F. TERDIMAN
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/5 89,3421
Technology Center 3600
Before BETH Z. SHAW, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 19—28, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is The Permanente
Medical Group, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed January 20, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 25, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed July 5, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed September
30, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed January 5, 2015
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention is directed to a “method and [individualized healthcare
management] system [shown in Figure 1] for providing individualized healthcare to a
patient having a chronic disease over the Internet.” Spec., Abstract. The “method
. . . includes providing individualized web pages for interacting with the patient,
monitoring signs and symptoms of the chronic disease using inputs provided by the
patient, and administrating an individualized treatment of the chronic disease
according to the signs and symptoms provided by the patient.” Spec. 1 6.
Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below.
PDA
-'V
\
DIAL-UP OR
\ BROADBAND
TELEVISION
WORKSTATION
INTERNET HOME
Figure 1 illustrates an interactive web-based patient care system (102, 104, 110,
118) for providing individualized healthcare management to patients via remote
devices (120, 122, 124).
2
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
Claim 19, which is the only independent claim on appeal, is
representative and is reproduced below, with disputed limitations in italics:
19. A system for providing patient-specific healthcare to
a patient having a chronic disease, medical condition, or health risk,
the system comprising:
a computer server configured for creating one or more web
pages comprising (i) a predefined list of symptoms or early
warning signs relating to the patient's chronic disease, medical
condition, or health risk, (ii) input fields configured to receive
from the patient additional symptoms or early warning signs
relating to the patient’s chronic disease, medical condition, or
health risk, and (iii) input fields configured to receive from the
patient as to whether the patient is experiencing a listed symptom or
early warning sign;
a patient computer configured for (i) receiving, from the
computer server via the internet or a network, the one or more
web pages; (ii) displaying the one or more web pages on a
graphical display; (iii) receiving, from the patient, input as to
whether the patient is experiencing the predefined symptoms or
early warning signs; (iv) receiving, from the patient, additional
symptoms or early warning signs relating to the patient’s chronic
disease, medical condition, or health risk, (v) receiving, from the
patient, additional input as to whether the patient is experiencing
one of the additional symptoms or early warning signs; and (vi)
transmitting, via the internet or the network, the input and
additional input to the server computer; and
a database server configured for storing patient-specific
and patient-identifiable information comprising the input and
additional input,
wherein the server computer automatically sends to the
patient computer a patient-specific treatment recommendation
for the patient based at least in part on the input and additional
input.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).
3
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 19-28 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to non-statutory subject. Final Act. 2—3.
(2) Claims 19-22 and 24—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Quintanilla et al. (US 2003/0023461
Al; published Jan. 30, 2003; “Quintanilla”). Final Act. 3—6.
(3) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quintanilla and Mclvor (US 2004/0059599 Al; Mar. 25,
2004). Final Act. 6-7.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
In support of the anticipation rejection of method claim 19, the
Examiner finds Quintanilla discloses the “system for providing patient-
specific healthcare to a patient having a chronic disease, medical condition,
or health risk” equipped with “a computer server,” “a patient computer,” and
“a database server” configured to perform ah the claimed functions. Final
Act. 3^4 (citing Quintanilla ]Hf 24, 28, 33—35).
Appellants argue Quintanilla does not disclose the following
limitations of claim 19:
“a computer server configured for creating one or more
web pages comprising . . . (ii) input fields configured to receive
from the patient additional symptoms or early warning signs
relating to the patient's chronic disease, medical condition, or
health risk,” and
“a patient computer configured for . . . (iv) receiving, from
the patient, additional symptoms or early warning signs relating to
the patient’s chronic disease, medical condition, or health risk.”
App. Br. 8—14; Reply 7—11. Appellants acknowledge Quintanilla teaches a
patient interface screen 100 displayed at patient computer 16, shown in
4
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
Figure 4, to allow a patient to enter health data corresponding to hemophilia
treatment (i.e., bleed entries), including (i) the date and time of a bleed, (ii)
the severity of a bleed, and (iii) the location of a bleed 110, 112, 118 as well
as additional symptoms 116 associated with the health data.
Quintanilla’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.
FIG. 4
J HELP I PRIVACY
ADD A BLEED ENTRY FOR JANE DONOR
BLEED
' DATE AND TIME OF BLEED:?
I'D
"V.RTY 2
'"1 S-' .-11?
,__ -H4
' CAUSE OF BLEED: '■
f ['select j E
COMMENTS:
' LOCATION OF BLEED ( CHOOSE ONE.
JOINT: ):2 E5it ....... ...JED
PAW: @Q>) @ ® @ (§) #2
SCALE: O O G O O O ©
-120
;SYMPTOMS {SELECT All THAT APPLY) ?□ SWELLING
□ LIMITED RANSE OF MOTION / MOVEMENT i 11f
□ BRUISING \
VISIBLE BLEED
I WARMTH i
MY GUIDE
FILL OUT YOUR BLEED ENTRY
INFORMATION HERE. YOUR
INFORMATION WILL Bt KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL, YOU CAM 30 BACK
AND EDIT TRiS ENTRY AT ANY TIME.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
HOWTO FILL OUT THIS ENTRY.
VISIT THE
TREATMENT LOG TUTORIAL
REQUIRED FIELD
CLICK FOR HELP
,____________________
Quintanilla’s Figure 4 illustrates “apatient entry record interface
screen.” Quintanilla 113 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that in
Quintanilla, however:
only the health provider determines the symptoms or early
warning signs that are queried and responded to by the patient,
whereas in the Applicant’s system the patient also personally
determines and inputs his or her own additional symptoms and
early warning signs that are also queried and responded to by him
or her.
App. Br. 2.
5
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
Appellants also argue Quintanilla’s “heath data” cannot be both the
“predefined list of symptoms or early warning signs” and the “additional
symptoms or early warning signs,” as recited in claim 19. Id. at 12—13.
According to Appellants, “Quintanilla fails to receive from the patient
additional symptoms or early warning signs relating to the patient’s chronic
disease, medical condition, or health risk that are separate and distinct from
the ‘predefined list of symptoms or early warning signs.’” Id. at 13. In
addition, Appellants argue “Quintanilla fails to disclose that the server
computer automatically sends to the patient a patient-specific treatment
recommendation based at least in part on the input and additional input” as
recited in claim 19. Id. at 13—14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Instead, we find
the Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
and establishes the claims are anticipated or are obvious. Ans. 5—9. As
such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations. Id. In particular,
as recognized by the Examiner, Quintanilla discloses the following:
patient entry record 100 [shown in Figure 4] allows a patient to
enter health data corresponding to hemophilia treatment (i.e.,
bleed entries). In particular, the entry record 100 allows a patient or
a patient’s care giver to enter the date and time of a bleed, the
severity of a bleed and the location of a bleed in respective entry
fields 110, 112, 118 of the entry record 100. The entry record 100
also allows a patient or care giver to select from a list of
predetermined symptoms 116 that may be associated with the
health data being monitored.
Ans. 6 (citing Quintanilla 133) (emphasis added). Quintanilla also allows
a patient to enter multiple fields [shown in Figure 4] of symptoms
of a hemophilia bleed including “selecting] from a list of
predetermined symptoms 116 that may be associated with the
health data being monitored” and additional symptoms such as
“date and time of a bleed, the severity of a bleed and the location
6
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
of a bleed.”
Id.
As recognized by the Examiner, the entered health data may include
the “predefined list of symptoms or early warning signs” 116, as shown in
Quintanilla’s Figure 4, as well as the “additional symptoms or early warning
signs” 110, 112, 118. Ans. 8. In turn, “a health provider can make a
therapy recommendation concerning a patient’s bleed log record or
treatment regimen.” Id. (citing Quintanilla 128).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ argument that
Quintanilla does not teach a computer formulating the treatment
recommendation (App. Br. 14) relates to a feature that is not claimed.
Ans. 9. This argument is therefore not commensurate in scope with the
claim. Moreover, paragraph 28 of Quintanilla discloses that therapy
recommendations are made “via the computer program.”
Appellants additionally argue that Quintanilla’s health data and
symptoms queried of a patient must be predetermined “solely” by the health
provider. Reply Br. 11. As explained by the Examiner, claim 19 merely
recites “input fields configured to receive from the patient additional
symptoms,” which is disclosed by Quintanilla (Ans. 7) as discussed above.
Appellants’ argument is therefore not commensurate in scope with the claim.
Although we interpret the claims in light of the specification, we decline to
read the argued limitation into the claim.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 19 and dependent claims 20-22 and 24—28, which
Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 15. With respect to
dependent claim 23, Appellants present no additional arguments. App. Br.
7
Appeal 2016-007963
Application 14/589,342
15. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 23.
Because we affirm the rejections of claims 19-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§§102 and 103, we need not reach the § 101 rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 19—28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8