Ex Parte McLaren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2016

12789858 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121789,858 05/28/2010
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
03/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Lee McLaren
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
080415.0103 9410
EXAMINER
HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY LEE MCLAREN, WILLIAM DYER RODES II,
and JOHN MALCOLM TOUPS
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,8581
Technology Center 3600
Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A handheld apparatus comprising:
a user interface comprising a display and capable of receiving
user input;
1 Appellants identify Medaxion, LLC as the real party in interest. (Appeal
Br. 3).
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
a wireless network interface capable of coupling to a central
medical information management system, the central medical
information management system maintaining a plurality of case
chronology templates, each of the case chronology templates
corresponding to a particular one of a plurality of practice locations
and defining a series of medical events customized for the particular
location, and a plurality of patient treatment records for patients
receiving care at the practice locations, each of the patient treatment
records linked to one of the practice locations and corresponding to a
patient treatment record having a time record associated with each of
the medical events defined by the case chronology template
corresponding to the location;
a memory maintaining a medical information management
application; and
a processor operable, when executing the medical information
management application:
to identify a selected one of the practice locations;
to display a list of patient treatment records, received
from the medical information management system, that
correspond to the selected location;
to identify a selected one of the patient treatment records
based on user input;
to receive a patient treatment record corresponding to the
selected patient treatment record from the medical information
management system;
to display the medical events defined by the case
chronology template corresponding to the selected location and,
for each of the medical events, a current value of the time
record associated with the medical event as indicated by the
received patient treatment record;
to receive input of a time update indicating a time for a
selected one of the medical events for the received patient
treatment record;
to communicate the time update to the medical
information management system;
to receive updated information for the received patient
treatment record from the medical information management
system, the updated information incorporating the time update;
and
2
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
to update the display of the medical events to reflect the
updated information.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Morgan
Alban
US 2007/0192133 Al
US 2007 /0233524 Al
REJECTION
Aug. 16, 2007
Oct. 4, 2007
The following rejection is before us for review. The Examiner
rejected claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morgan
and Alban.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Morgan discloses a patient records system in which a central computer
system "controls the operation of the perioperative process, for each
patient" by communicating with the various PDA input/output devices.
(Para. 63).
2. Morgan discloses PDA devices located at practice locations, in that in
"the present system, four such input/ output devices are illustrated, a
tablet 17 for use in a secretarial area, a tablet 18 for use in a ward, a
tablet 19 for use in an anaesthetics room, and a tablet 20 for use in an
operating theatre." (Para. 57).
3. Morgan discloses displaying a series of customized medical events for
the nursing ward at Figure 5, below:
3
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
~~~ -~~ Nurse -~.T--10<3
I -------~- m_; :
v=~( n ')L rm) . I " \ ___ ___,
·-~·- ---...._________).
Morgan's Figure 5 showing a customized list of
medical events for the ward
4. Morgan discloses displaying a series of customized medical events for
the "operating theatre" location at Figure 7, below:
Surgeons POA
Morgan's Figure 7 showing a customized list of medical events
for the "operating theatre"
5. Morgan discloses displaying a series of customized medical events for
the anesthetics room at Figure 9, below:
4
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
Anaesthetist PDA
Morgan's Figure 9 showing a customized list of medical events
for the anaesthetics room
6. Morgan discloses a variety of medical events for the anesthesiologist
that the PDA indicates from the template, such as:
checking that the patient has been starved, checking patient
blood test results, checking patient ECG results, checking any
previous diagnostic results e. g. X-rays, checking patient blood
transtus10n. The screen of the anaesthetist PUA is provided
with tick boxes 91, which may each have a drop down list of
options 92a, 92b, 92c, 92d, 92e. The anaesthetist selects from
the lists of options, for example from options 1,2, 3, or 4 in the
'ASA' box 92a, from the option of a general anaesthetic (GA)
or local anaesthetic (LA) in the 'Anae' box 92b, and from the
options of proceed or reason for cancelling (not starved, no
bloods, no ECG, no X-rays, no transfusion, not arrived, not fit)
in the 'cancel' box 92c and the record, for example, did not
arnve (DNA), refuses operation, not stored, operation
unnecessary. The fourth box 92d of the screen of the
anaesthetist PDA indicates whether or not the surgery is to be
delayed and the reason for delay include not stored, no blood
tests, no ECG, no X-rays, no transfusion, did not arrive (DNA).
(Para. 79).
5
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10, 12-18, and 20-24
Initially, we note that the Appellants argue independent claims 1, 9,
and 17 together as a group. (Appeal Br. 16). Correspondingly, we select
representative claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining
claims 9 and 1 7 standing or falling with claim 1. Appellants do not provide
a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 2, 4--10, 12-
16, 18, and 20-24 that depend from claims 1, 9, and 17. Thus claims 2, 4--8,
10, 12-16, 18, and 20-24 stand or fall with claim 1. See, 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Appellants argue "Morgan's description of tracking a patient within a
medical facility does not teach or suggest selecting one of multiple practice
locations and then displaying a list of patient treatment records that
correspond to the selected practice location." (Appeal Br. 14--15; see also
Reply Br. 5---6).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because Morgan
discloses a medical records system that uses personal digital assistant
input/output devices in a variety of practice locations, such as a "a ward, ...
an anaesthetics room, and ... an operating theatre." (FF 1, 2). Each of
these locations is a practice area, because nurses practice in a ward,
anesthesiologists practice in an "anaesthetics room," and surgeons practice
in an "operating theatre."
Appellants argue Alban discloses "sorting and filtering of information
about a single patient, and fail[ s] to teach or suggest a case chronology
template." (Appeal Br. 15-16; see also Reply Br. 6-7).
6
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The term "case
chronology template" is recited in claim 1 as "defining a series of medical
events customized for the particular location." Morgan discloses this in that
its central computer sends screens to each input/output PDA based on
practice location that displays a series of medical events as part of managing
patient care. (FF 1, 2). Examples of medical events thus displayed from the
template include patient preparation, document handling, and imaging for
the nursing ward location (FF 3), consent, documentation, imaging, and
operative site identification for the surgical location (FF 4), and various
anesthesiology tasks (FF 5, 6).
Morgan's displayed medical events from the central computer for
each practice location thus meets the claim language "the central medical
information management system maintaining a plurality of case chronology
templates, each of the case chronology templates corresponding to a
particular one of a plurality of practice locations and defining a series of
medical events customized for the particular location," and also "to display
the medical events defined by the case chronology template corresponding
to the selected location."
Because Morgan discloses the claim language, the disclosure of Alban
is cumulative. As our rationale for this rejection differs from that set forth
by the Examiner, we denominate it a NEW GROUND of rejection pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
7
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Appellants argue dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 together as a group
(Appeal Br. 17), so we selected claim 3 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Dependent claim 3 recites
wherein displaying the medical events defined by the case
chronology template corresponding to the selected location
comprises organizing and displaying the medical events based
on predefined relationships between the medical events defined
by the case chronology template, wherein organizing the
medical events further comprises nesting the medical events
within a related one or more other medical events and visually
emphasizing the nested medical events to convey the predefined
relationships.
Appellants argue Alban does not disclose the claim language. (Appeal Br.
10-11, 16-17; Reply Br. 2-3, 7-8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Morgan discloses
nested medical events in the pull-down menus; such as on the anesthesiology
display, where, for example, "general" or "local" anesthesia is listed as
nested optional events. (FF 5, 6). The nested options are visually
emphasized with the downward-pointing arrow to indicate there are
additional items associated with the top-level displayed event, thus meeting
the claim language.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8
Appeal2013-010845
Application 12/789,858
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 is
AFFIRMED.
We enter a NEW RATIONALE of rejection of claims 1-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as set forth above.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2010). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of
the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in
which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
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; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9