Ex Parte Walter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2012

09821615 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERVIN DENNIS WALTER, MUKESH ALLU, SCOTT
ANDREW LORDI, GARY STANTON HOLMES, CARL DAVID
DVORAK, JOEL ERICK ROD, SUMIT SINGH RANA, and SAMIT
GOVIND SUREKA
___________

Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ervin Dennis Walter et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35
U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 71-88. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE. 1

THE INVENTION
This invention is a system that provides patients with secure, real-time
access to their Personal Health Record and an Enterprise Health Information
System. Spec. 3:14-15.
Claim 71, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
71. A computer system allowing patient-sourced data to
be added to a clinical medical record system comprising:
a computer-implemented clinical medical record database
created by and accessible to healthcare providers and holding
clinical information generated by the healthcare providers
during the provision of healthcare, wherein the healthcare
providers have write access to a clinical medical record and a
patient described in the clinical medical record does not have
write access to the clinical medical record;
a computer-implemented personal health record database
holding patient-sourced medical data entered by the patient; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jul. 15, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov.
8, 2011).
Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

3
a computer-implemented Web portal configured to
control access to both of the clinical medical record database
and the personal health record database and operating in one of:
(1) a first mode in which the patient is provided with
access to the patient-sourced medical data in the personal health
record database but not data of the clinical medical record when
the patient provides basic identification information including a
user name and password that are not linked to the clinical
medical record; and
(2) a second mode in which the patient is provided with
access to the patient-sourced medical database and read-only
access to the data of the clinical medical record based on a prior
determination that the user is a patient of the healthcare
provider and creation of a computer- implemented link between
the user name and password and the clinical medical record.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Goldenberg US 2002/0065682 A1 May 30, 2002
Wilkins US 6,523,009 B1 Feb. 18, 2003
Hacker US 6,988,075 B1 Jan. 17, 2006

The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph, as
being indefinite.
2. Claims 71-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hacker, Goldenberg, and Wilkins.

Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

4
ISSUES
The first issue is whether claim 71 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
2nd paragraph. Specifically, the issue is whether the claim is ambiguous as
to whether more than one user name and password is recited.
The second issue is whether Hacker, Goldenberg, and Wilkins render
claims 71-88 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Specifically, did the
Examiner err in finding that Hacker teaches the recited two databases in
combination with the Web-portal that is configured to control access in the
second mode.

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. Hacker describes a system that stores patient medical records in a
central database for patient-controlled remote access by the patient
and medical providers. Col. 6, ll. 14-17.
2. Hacker describes the system as having one central medical
information database 110. See Figs. 1 and 5 and col. 7, ll. 49-56.
3. Hacker is silent as to the use of multiple databases in the system.
4. Hacker states:
The primary difference between
prior art medical information systems
and the present invention is the ability
of the patient to access and control
their medical data. Additionally, by
Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

5
implementing the system on the
Internet, remote access is provided
anywhere with Internet access and no
specialized software other than a
browser client is required by patients
and medical providers.
Col. 5, ll. 59-65.
5. Hacker describes a patient updating the electronic medical record,
including by manual input. Col. 10, ll. 54-59.
6. Hacker describes using a Web browser to access their medical data
using hyperlinks to view patient records in the medical database.
Col. 8, l. 45 – 9, l. 25 and Figs. 2-4.
7. Wilkins describes an individualized patient electronic medical
record that is stored on a mobile electronic storage device kept by
the patient. See col. 1, ll. 7-11; col. 4, ll. 5-8; and col. 6, ll. 7-9 and
47-49.
8. Wilkins is silent as to the use of multiple databases in the system.
9. Wilkins describes that both the patient and medical care providers
can read and write to the mobile electronic storage device. See col.
2, l. 66 – col. 3, l. 1; col. 3, ll. 32-33; col. 4, ll. 27-29.
10. Wilkins describes that a patient viewing the medical care
provider’s inputted data in read-only format. Clms. 42 and 51. See
also col. 4, ll. 50-52.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claim 71 under § 112, 2nd paragraph as being indefinite
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument (see App. Br. 8) that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 71 as indefinite. We see nothing
Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

6
ambiguous in the claim regarding whether the claim requires one or two sets
of user names and passwords. As the Appellants argue, the same user name
and password is being used in the recited first and second modes.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd
paragraph, as being indefinite.

The rejection of claims 71-88 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hacker, Goldenberg, and Wilkins
Claim 71
Claim 71 recites a clinical medical record database and a personal
health record database which is accessed through a Web-portal that is
configured to control access by a patient to both of these two databases
differently in two different modes. In a second mode, the patient is only
allowed read-only access to the data in the clinical medical record database
but is allowed to access the personal health record database. To contest the
Examiner’s rejection, the Appellants argue:
None of Hacker, Goldenberg, or Wilkins teaches or
suggests two databases including a clinical medical record that
features write access by a healthcare provider and not the
patient and a personal health record including patient-sourced
medical data. Further, none of the references teach[] such a
system and method where access to the clinical medical record
portion is read only but still requires that the user be registered
and access is only allowed after associating the registration
information with the clinical medical record.

App. Br. 10-11. See also App. Br. 8-11. We find these arguments
persuasive as to error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

7
First, we note that in the rejection, the Examiner cites Hacker as
teaching the clinical medical record database and cites Wilkins as teaching
the personal health record database. Ans. 5-6. However, both Hacker and
Wilkins describe using one database, which contains all of the patients’
health records whether entered by a patient or a medical professional. See
FFs 2 and 7. Both Hacker and Wilkins are silent as to the use of a
combination of the databases of the types recited in claim 71. FFs 3 and 8.
Apparently recognizing this lack of teaching in the prior art, in their
response, the Examiner now states that Hacker teaches the use of two
databases. Ans. 11. The Examiner states: “Hack[er] provides hyperlinks to
various portions of the electronic medical record (column 8, lines 61 – 65) in
which the hyperlinks are interpreted to be tied to multiple databases in the
system such as physicians and prescriptions.” Id. However, we see nothing
in Hacker to support the Examiner’s finding that the hyperlinks are tied to
multiple databases. The hyperlinks in the viewing screen of Hacker are links
to the records in Hacker’s electronic medical record database. FF 6.
Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred as to this finding. We note that
the Examiner relies upon no other evidence and provides no other rationale
to teach this limitation.
Further, claim 71 recites a Web-portal that is configured to operate in
the recited second mode where the patient’s access to the data in the clinical
medical records database is read-only. Again, the Examiner relies upon
Hacker to teach this limitation. See Ans. 5, 10. In their response, the
Examiner states:
The Examiner submits that Hacker discloses a patient can
access records from various medical events or procedures by
Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

8
selecting hyperlinks to view portions of their record (column 8,
line 59 through column 9, line 11). The term view is
interpreted by the Examiner to be a read only function as
supported by Claim 1 of Hacker where Hacker discloses
“means for patients to allow medical provider[s] computers to
access patient selected portions of the patient’s medical record
for viewing and adding to the patient’s medical record.” Thus,
the Examiner submits that viewing is a read only function and
adding is a write function.
Ans. 10.
We find the Examiner’s interpretation of the “viewing” to be read-
only is unsupported, and, in fact contrary, to the teachings of Hacker, as,
Hacker describes that, like a medical professional, a patient can update their
electronic medical record themselves with patient acquired hard copies of
medical records. FF 5. See also FF 4. Therefore, we find that the Examiner
also erred as to this finding.
Finally, we note that the Examiner found that Wilkins teaches
restricting a patient’s access to medical professional based input to be read
only (Ans. 6, 11, and 13; see also FFs 9-10) and, in the rejection, the
Examiner seemingly used this finding to teach the recited clinical medical
records database (Ans. 6). However, the Examiner does not rely upon this
teaching with regards to the claimed Web-portal. Id.
Independent claims 77 and 83 recite similar limitations and were
rejected using the same rationale. See Ans. 9. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 71, 77, and 83, and claims 72-76, 78-82, and 84-88,
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hacker, Goldenberg, and Wilkins.

Appeal 2012-004676
Application 09/821,615

9
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 71-88 is reversed.

REVERSED

hh