Ex Parte Vanderveen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

10750032 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY W. VANDERVEEN
___________

Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Timothy W. Vanderveen (Appellant) seeks our review under
35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1 and 3-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.1

THE INVENTION
This invention is “systems and methods for monitoring, managing and
controlling medication orders and medication delivery from a central
location.” Spec. para [0001].
Claims 1, 17, and 25, the pertinent portions of which are reproduced
below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A patient care system, comprising:
. . .
wherein the first CPU is configured to
receive an alarm generated by one of the subset of
the plurality of medication administration devices
and broadcast the received alarm after a
predetermined period[.]

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Dec. 14, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 24,
2011).

Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

3
17. A computer-implemented method for
centralized monitoring of medication
administration for a plurality of patients,
comprising:
. . .
comparing, on a computer at the central
location, the parameter values to the acceptable
values for the parameters in the medication
administration guidelines, said acceptable values
comprising a soft limit and a hard limit;
operating a medication administration
device by issuing an alarm if one of said parameter
values contravenes its corresponding hard limit;
providing, using the computer at the central
location, a visual indication on a computer display
at the central location if one of the parameters
values contravenes its corresponding soft limit in
the medication administration guideline; and
requiring an acknowledgement from a user
before operating the medication administration
device using a medical administration parameter
contravening a corresponding soft limit.

25. A computer-implemented method of
administering medication to a patient in a hospital,
the method comprising:
. . .
verifying, at the pharmacy computer, the
medication delivery parameters; and
if verification passes, then administering the
medication order to the patient using the clinical
device according to the verified medication
delivery parameters; and
if the verification fails, then
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

4
sounding an alarm at the pharmacy
computer;
allowing a user to correct or override,
in real-time, the medication delivery
parameters; and
administering the medication order to
the patient using the clinical device
according to the corrected or overridden
medical delivery parameters.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Allen US 4,731,726 Mar. 15, 1988
Halvorson
Kaufman
Bui
US 4,847,764
US 5,267,174
US 2003/0140928 A1
Jul. 11, 1989
Nov. 30, 1993
Jul. 31, 2003
The Examiner took official notice that “it is old and well known in the
medical arts to provide services in a regulated and managed manner.”
Ans. 8. [Hereinafter, Official Notice.]

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and
Official Notice.
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

5
2. Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui2, Official Notice and
Kaufman.
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claims 1, 3-7, and 9-16 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice.
Specifically, whether Bui teaches “wherein the first CPU is configured to
receive an alarm generated by one of the subset of the plurality of
medication administration devices and broadcast the received alarm after a
predetermined period.” The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, Official Notice, and
Kaufman also turns on this issue.
The second issue is whether claims 17-21, 23, and 24 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice.
Specifically, whether Halvorson teaches “comparing, on a computer at the
central location, the parameter values to the acceptable values for the
parameters in the medication administration guidelines, said acceptable
values comprising a soft limit and a hard limit.” The rejection of claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui,
Official Notice, and Kaufman also turns on this issue.
The third issue is whether the Appellant has overcome the rejection of
claim 25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Halvorson,
Allen, Bui, and Official Notice.

2 The omission of Bui and Official Notice in the Examiner’s statement of the
rejection on page 23 of the Answer appears to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the findings of fact, which appear in the Analysis below,
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).

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-21, and 23-25 under §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice
Claim 1
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (Br. 10-12) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice. While
paragraphs [0048], [0112], and [0131]-[0137], cited by the Examiner (Ans.
7; see also Ans. 25), describe various types of alerts, these paragraphs do not
teach the claim 1 limitation of “wherein the first CPU is configured to
receive an alarm generated by one of the subset of the plurality of
medication administration devices and broadcast the received alarm after a
predetermined period.” The Examiner does not rely upon Halvorson, Allen,
or Official Notice to teach this limitation or provide any other reasoning as
to the obviousness of this limitation. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1, and claims 3-7 and 9-16,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Halvorson, Allen, Bui,
and Official Notice is reversed.

Claim 17
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

7
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (Br. 13-14) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice. We agree that
none of Halvorson’s column 2, lines 45-62; Figures 4-25; and column 5,
lines 30-35, cited by the Examiner (Ans. 16 and 26), teaches the step of
“comparing, on a computer at the central location, the parameter values to
the acceptable values for the parameters in the medication administration
guidelines, said acceptable values comprising a soft limit and a hard limit.”
While the cited portions of Halvorson do mention time or dosage limits (see
col. 2, ll. 45-62 and col. 5, ll. 30-35), Halvorson does not teach the claimed
comparison where the limits are soft and hard limits.
The Examiner does not rely upon Bui, Allen, or Official Notice to
teach this limitation or provide any other reasoning as to the obviousness of
this limitation. See Ans. 15-18.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17, and claims 18-21, 23, and 24,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice is reversed.

Claim 25
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument (Br. 14) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice. To contest the
rejection of claim 25, the Appellant argues that paragraphs [0048] and
[0049] of Bui do not teach “verifying medication delivery parameters at a
pharmacy computer and if the verification fails, then allowing a user to
correct or override the medication delivery parameters in real time.” Id.
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

8
However, the Examiner does not rely solely upon Bui to teach the
entirety of the limitation at issue. Bui is relied upon only to teach the “in
real-time” aspect of the limitation (Ans. 23). The Examiner relies upon a
combination of Halvorson and Allen to teach the remainder of the limitation
at issue. Ans. 21-23. The Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s
findings or conclusions with respect to the Halvorson or Allen references or
with respect to the Examiner’s combination of all the prior art relied upon.
Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle
an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a
rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments
on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a
particular rejection - the Board will not, as a
general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.... Thus, the
Board will generally not reach the merits of any
issues not contested by an appellant.
Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).

Accordingly, the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Halvorson, Allen, Bui, and Official Notice is
affirmed.

The rejection of claims 8 and 22 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Halvorson, Allen, Bui, Official Notice, and Kaufman
This rejection is directed to claims dependent on claims 1 and 21,
whose rejection we have reversed above. For the same reasons, we will not
sustain the rejections of claims 8 and 22 over the cited prior art. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are
Appeal 2011-009379
Application 10/750,032

9
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.").

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-24 is reversed
and to reject claim 25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

mls