Ex Parte Tenarvitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12622959 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/622,959 11120/2009
22045 7590 04/01/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henry J. Tenarvitz
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.
VERS 0182 PUS 5352
EXAMINER
LONG,FONYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENRY J. TENARVITZ, H.T. SNOWDA Y, and
SETH TABBERER
Appeal2013-010956
Application 12/622,959
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14, which are all of the pending claims. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is "Versus Technology, Inc."
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2013-010956
Application 12/622,959
Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to a real-time method and system for
controlling healthcare delivery processes within a clinical environment.
Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A real-time method of controlling
healthcare delivery processes within a clinical
tracking environment monitored by real-time
locating apparatus including auto-ID tags, the
method comprising:
providing a set of rules which are clinical
process profiles associated with workflow within
the environment, wherein the rules are predefined in
terms of conditional results and are derived from a
combination of location-based event data and
patient-specific subject data values occurring when
the healthcare delivery processes are performing
optimally, wherein specific tag IDs or tag type
groups are represented by the rules and wherein at
least one corrective action is indicated by the rules;
wirelessly transmitting signals utilizing the
auto-ID tags each of the tags wirelessly transmitting
the signals both periodically and immediately when
activated;
receiving the transmitted wireless signals via
a receiver;
processing the received wireless signals via a
control computer subsystem including at least one
processor to obtain real-time event data which
represents the locations of mobile tag-wearing
subjects within the clinical tracking environment
and events which occur within the environment;
collecting subject data via the control
computer subsystem, wherein the subject data is
2
Appeal2013-010956
Application 12/622,959
directly or indirectly related to the tag-wearing
subjects;
continually evaluating in real-time the set of
rules via the control computer subsystem using the
most current values of event data and subject data
to measure perfonnance of each process
corresponding to each rule in order to measure the
workflow within the environment; and
performing at least one corrective action via
the control computer subsystem indicated by the
rules being evaluated to improve the performance of
any process of the processes having a measured
performance less than optimal and unacceptable in
order to improve the workflow within the
environment, the step of performing including the
step of generating at least one of a signal, an alert, a
report and a message.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Pulkkinen US 2002/0165733 Al Nov. 7, 2002
Rodgers US 2007/0136102 Al June 14, 2007
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pulkkinen and Rodgers. Final Act. 3 (mailed Jan.
29, 2013).
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argued claims 1, 3-8, and 10-14 as a group.
Appeal Br. 4. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group,
and the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2007).
3
Appeal2013-010956
Application 12/622,959
Pulkkinen teaches a system and method in which infrared or radio
frequency ID tags may be used to track patients in a healthcare environment.
Pulkkinen Abstract, i-f 20. The disclosed system and method collect activity
data and process this data in order to update the status of performance of a
schedule of events. Id. i-f 19. The processing of data includes "evaluation of
whether events of the schedule were performed or not based on
predetermined schedule criteria" and "identification of detected variances
from the event schedule .... " Id. (emphasis added). If a variance is
identified, a controller causes an interface to generate an audible or visual
alarm to cause a caregiver to perform additional care actions. Id. i-f 24.
The Examiner finds that the evaluation of data in accordance with
predetermined schedule criteria, as disclosed in Pulkkinen, teaches "rules
[that] are predefined in terms of conditional results and are derived from a
combination of location-based event data and patient-specific subject data
values," as recited in independent claims 1 and 8. See Final Act. 3 (citing
Pulkkinen Abstract, i-fi-11, 19, 21, 24, 29).
Appellants argue that Pulkkinen does not teach a "rule-based system,"
but instead "is focused on updating a schedule." Appeal Br. 5. In
particular, Appellants argue the term "rules," as recited in the claims, only
encompasses criteria defined by "predefined, rigid, fixed events ... that
either occur or do not occur." Id. Appellants contend that the schedule of
Pulkkinen "continuously changes based on certain activity," and that the
criteria used to analyze variances from this schedule thus does not constitute
a "predefined rule" of the type required by the claims. Id. at 6. Appellants'
argument is not persuasive.
4
Appeal2013-010956
Application 12/622,959
Pulkkinen discloses that the schedule criteria used to identify
variances from the event schedule are "predetermined." Pulkkinen i-f 19.
The processor of Pulkkinen uses these predetermined criteria to determine
whether a variance from the event schedule has occurred. Id. i-f 24. The fact
that the schedule of Pulkkinen is variable does not change the fact that the
disclosed criteria (i.e., the rules) are predetermined.
The claims do not recite that rules must be applied to predefined,
rigid, fixed events, as Appellants assert. See Appeal Br. 5. The claims also
do not recite that rules must be horizontal in nature. See id. at 7. Appellants
have not identified a lexicographic definition or clear and unambiguous
disclaimer in the Specification that would limit the construction of the claim
term "rules" in the manner Appellants advocate. Thus, we are not persuaded
that the claim term "rules" excludes the predetermined criteria of Pulkkinen.
Appellants do not make any other separate, substantive arguments
concerning the patentability of any challenged claim.
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 10---14.
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
5