Ex Parte Wheeler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13049823 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/049,823 03/16/2011
29973 7590 09/02/2016
CRGOLAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Wheeler
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.
1301-017U 1443
EXAMINER
AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID WHEELER, CLINT ORAM, MAJED ITANI,
LAM HUYNH, and LILA TRETIKOV
Appeal2014-008808
Application 13/049,823
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEAP"--LTJ'.JG
Appellants requested a rehearing of our Decision dated June 2, 2016,
wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-11.
Appellants contend that the Board established four findings of fact
that amount to the teaching of a healthcare practitioner navigating a user
interface and building a history of navigation complete with a summary of
previously recorded patient events of a patient history (Req. Reh'g 6).
These findings of fact, though, according to Appellants, do not address the
crux of their argument: "Stein does not teach the determination of prior
use through the learning of a pattern of navigation events performed by
a particular user in prior interactions with the application" (Req. Reh'g
6).
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. As we previously stated
in our Opinion, in Stein, the user can see the summary previously traversed
and recorded and can select a relevant worliflow previously traversed for
the patient (see Dec. 4; see also Stein i-f 130). In other words, the application
allows the user to navigate through a pattern of navigation events based on
prior use. This is tantamount to the determination of prior use through the
learning of a pattern of navigation events performed by a particular user in
prior interactions with the application, and is consistent with Appellants'
specification (see Spec. 12:6-29). This is further supported by Stein's
teaching of guiding a user based on prior history use (see Stein i-f 62; Ans. 3).
Accordingly, Appellants' request for rehearing has been granted to the
extent that our decision has been reconsidered, but such request is denied
with respect to making any modifications to the decision.
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).
Appeal2014-008808
Application 13/049,823
REHEARING DENIED
3