10140635 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

Ex Parte Saalsaa

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 22, 2012

10140635 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 22, 2012)

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. 10/140,635 05/07/2002 Richard Saalsaa 23517/4.13 7889 32642 7590 08/22/2012 STOEL RIVES LLP - SLC 201 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 1100 ONE UTAH CENTER SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 EXAMINER MORGAN, ROBERT W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RICHARD SAALSAA ___________ Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Richard Saalsaa (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 27-39 and 46-55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is “a method and system for interfacing an emergency medical dispatch system with a nurse triage system.” Spec. 4. Claim 27, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 27. A computer system for integrating an emergency medical dispatch system and a nurse triage system, comprising: [A] an emergency medical dispatch system (EMDS) configured to receive health information collected by an EMDS operator and originating from an individual responding to one or more questions asked by the EMDS operator, the questions provided to the EMDS operator by the EMDS computer according to a pre-scripted protocol; and 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 12, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 26, 2010). Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 3 [B] a nurse triage system (NTS) configured to receive health information collected by an NTS operator and originating from an individual responding to one or more questions asked by the NTS operator, the NTS comprising a test to determine if the received health information reflects an emergency situation; and [C] an information interface system in communication with the EMDS and the NTS, wherein if the test of the NTS determines the received health information reflects an emergency situation said information interface system provides an automated interface between the EMDS and the NTS by automatically routing the health information received by the NTS to the EMDS to enable use of the health information by the EMDS and eliminate redundant collection of the received health information. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Krebs Tallman Clawson Rappaport US 5,850,611 US 5,964,700 US 6,106,459 US 2006/0178908 A1 Dec. 15, 1998 Oct. 12, 1999 Aug. 22, 2000 Aug. 10, 2006 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 27-31, 33-37, 39, and 46-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson and Tallman. Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 4 2. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson, Tallman, and Rappaport. 3. Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson, Tallman, and Krebs. ISSUE The issue is whether claims 27-31, 33-37, 39, and 46-55 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Clawson and Tallman. Specifically, whether the combination of the prior art teach the step of claim 27 marked C above. The rejection of claim 32 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson, Tallman, and Rappaport and the rejection of claim 38 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson, Tallman, and Krebs also turn on this issue. FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). 1. Tallman describes a medical network management system (NMS), where health plan beneficiaries can be connected to health care professionals over the telephone to assess their health needs and select appropriate care. Col. 3, ll. 46-51. 2. Tallman describes that the NMS system “uses complaint-specific” algorithms to determine by telephone the appropriate ‘next medical step’ for a caller.” Col. 8, ll. 55-57. Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 5 3. Tallman describes that one of the next steps is an “Initiate Emergency Procedures” step where the NMS nurse connects a caller to a local EMS Dispatcher operator. Col. 11, ll. 25-30. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 27-31, 33-37, 39, and 46-55 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson and Tallman The Appellant argues that the combination of Clawson and Tallman do not teach all the limitations of claim 27. App. Br. 5-9. Specifically, the Appellant argues that Tallman does not teach the claimed information interface system that provides an automated interface between the EMDS and the NTS by automatically routing the health information received by the NTS to the EMDS because Tallman only describes a single system and transferring a caller between medical providers. Id. We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument on pages 5-9 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner erred. Initially, we note that the Examiner admits Clawson does not teach the claimed information interface system (Ans. 4-5). In the rejection, the Examiner cites Tallman’s column 11, lines 20-37 and column 12, lines 33-40, which describes the Tallman’s medical network management system NMS to cure this deficiency. Ans. 5-6. Tallman describes a medical network management system (NMS), where a caller can be connected to a nurse over the telephone to assess their health needs and select appropriate care, using a complaint-specific algorithm to determine by telephone the appropriate next medical step for the caller. FF 1-2. Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 6 The pertinent cited portion of Tallman teaches that the result of the algorithm can be a determination to initiate emergency procedures and for the nurse to connect the caller to local EMS Dispatchers. FF 3. The cited portions of Tallman do not teach the claimed automated interface which automatically routes health information between an EMDS and a NTS. We note that the Examiner cites no other evidence or rationales to cure this deficiency nor does the Examiner respond directly to the substance of this argument (See Ans. 16-18). Independent claim 33 recites similar limitations and is rejected using the same rationale (see Ans. 7-9). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 27 and 33, and claims 28-31, 34-37, 39, and 46-55, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson and Tallman. The rejection of claim 32 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson, Tallman, and Rappaport and the rejection of claim 38 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clawson, Tallman, and Krebs These rejections are directed to claims dependent on claims 27 and 33, whose rejection we have reversed above. For the same reasons, we will not sustain the rejections of claims 32 and 38 over the cited prior art. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.") Appeal 2010-011601 Application 10/140,635 7 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-39 and 46-55 is reversed. REVERSED JRG