Ex Parte Jagannathan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2014

12752043 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VASUDEVAN JAGANNATHAN, HENRY WARE,
SANDY J. LEONARD, and BRIAN ELLENBERGER
____________________

Appeal 2011-012582
Application 12/752,043
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
HYUN J. JUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012582
Application 12/752,043

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 to 12, and 14 to 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A method of abstracting and coding information by a
computer including: a processor, an information storage device,
a display device, and a user-input device, said method
comprising:
extracting by the processor information from a record
based on extraction rules stored in the information storage
device, said extraction rules corresponding to an identified
record type selected based on keywords in the record;
determining by the processor a plurality of codes
corresponding to the information extracted from the record, said
codes belonging to one or more sets of codes stored in the
information storage device;
presenting on the display device the determined
correspondence between the extracted information and the
codes;
receiving from the user-input device a validation of the
determined correspondence between the extracted information
and one of the codes; and
outputting by the processor a report including the validated
correspondence between the extracted information and the code.
Appeal 2011-012582
Application 12/752,043

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 18, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Jamieson (US 7,610,192 B1; iss.
Oct. 27, 2009).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jamieson and Pollard (US 2002/0147616 A1; pub. Oct.
10, 2002).

Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31
because:
Jamieson . . . lacks receiving "from the user-input device
a validation of the determined correspondence between the
extracted information and one of the codes," as recited by
claims 1 and 11. Jamieson looks up matching codes, and then
displays the results for the user - but does not receive user input
on the matching. Jamieson, col. 17, ll. 3-6.
(App. Br. 6).
Appellants also contend that:
The section of Jamieson that is new[ly]-cited in the
Answer discloses that a coder can determine whether a code is
part of the semantic analysis. Jamieson, col. 15, ll. 38-40.
Presumably, if a code were not included in the semantic
analysis, then free text could not be matched to the excluded
code. This newly-cited section is not directed to validation and
does not deal with a correspondence between extracted
information and a code.
(Reply Br. 3).

Appeal 2011-012582
Application 12/752,043

4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 to 12, and 14 to 20 as
being anticipated or obvious because the cited references fail to suggest the
argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contention, we agree. In this regard, we find
that the disclosure in Jamieson relied on by the Examiner relates to creating
codes and forming a table of the codes and to the ability of the coder to
include or exclude codes in the table. There is no disclosure of receiving
validation of correspondence between extracted information and the codes
from the user as required by independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in
independent claim 11. The Examiner cites Jamieson column 15, lines 28-43,
referring to the user interface window in Jamieson Figure 7, which allows an
operator to choose to include or exclude each code. Jamieson does not
describe this choice as a form of validation, and even if such a choice were
within the scope of the recited validation, Jamieson does not describe a
report showing the results of the choices as to which propositions were
included or excluded to read on the last limitation of claim 1 of a report
including the validated correspondence.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 1 and 11 and claims 2, 4 to 8, 10, 12, 14 to 18, and 20 dependent
thereon.
Appeal 2011-012582
Application 12/752,043

5
We will also not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 19
because each of these claims by virtue of their dependence on independent
claims 1 and 11 require the subject matter found lacking in Jamieson, and
the Examiner relies on Jamieson to teach this subject matter in the
obviousness rejection.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh