Ex Parte Wolf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

13238677 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/238,677 09/21/2011
22242 7590 10/14/2016
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lex WOLF
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.
9330-100654-US 5459
EXAMINER
LONG,FONYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte LEX WOLF,
BARRY MATHEWS,
HOW ARD SCHECHTER,
and MADISON SAMPLE JR.
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Lex Wolf, Barry Mathews, Howard Schechter, and Madison Sample Jr.
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims
1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed November 25, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed March
10, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 10, 2014)
and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 23, 2013).
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
The Appellants invented a way of entering information pertaining to
anesthesiology-related events. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. An apparatus comprising:
an end-user interface;
a memory;
a control circuit operably coupled to the end-user interface and
the memory, the control circuit being configured to:
[1] receive a first input from an anesthesiologist
via the end-user interface
regarding at least one anesthesiology-related event
and
[2] storing [sic, store] information pertaining to that first input
in the memory;
[3] based upon the first input,
selectively characterize at least a second input
opportunity
by which the anesthesiologist can enter additional
information regarding the at least one anesthesiology-
related event.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
McLaren US 2010/0305973 Al Dec. 2, 2010
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
McLaren.
2
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
ISSUES
The issues of anticipation tum primarily on whether McLaren describes
the limitation of "based upon the first input, selectively characterize at least
a second input opportunity by which the anesthesiologist can enter
additional information regarding the at least one anesthesiology-related
event."
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art- McLaren
01. McLaren is directed to managing medical data, and more
specifically to managing medical case and chronology information
for one or more medical practices. McLaren para. 2.
02. McLaren describes a handheld apparatus with a user interface
for maintaining a medical information management application
and a practice location. The medical information management
application retrieves information, provides multiple display modes
including a case board display mode and a patient treatment
display mode, receives user input to select one of the display
modes, retrieves information from the medical information
management system based on the selected display mode, and
enters the selected display mode using the information retrieved
from the medical information management system. Patient
treatment records indicate one of multiple predefined phases of
3
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
care. The case board display mode has multiple first display sub-
modes, where the case board display mode displays one of the
first display sub-modes and visual indicators indicate the non-
displayed first display sub-modes. In addition, each of the first
display sub-modes corresponds to a respective predefined phase of
care and displays patient tracking records having information from
the patient treatment records that correspond to the respective
predefined phase of care. The patient treatment display mode has
multiple second display sub-modes, where the patient treatment
display mode displays one of the second display sub-modes and
visual indicators indicate the non-displayed second display sub-
modes. The first one of the second display sub-modes displays a
case chronology for the selected patient tracking records and
permits selection of one of the medical events in the case
chronology for updating of a time record associated with the
selected medical event. McLaren para. 5.
03. A patient treatment record may be accessed to display a
graphical representation of a sequence of steps or medical events
corresponding to the chronology of a medical procedure for a
particular case. For this purpose, a patient treatment record may
include a time record associated with each step or medical event
corresponding to a case chronology. Thus, medical personnel may
view and track billing-related events such as the performance of a
step in a medical procedure. For example, an anesthesiologist
may track the time spent attending to a patient or administering
anesthesia by recording anesthesia start and stop using a graphical
4
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
user interface on mobile devices. The entry of these events can
feed other aspects of the system, such as the tracking of patients
on electronic case boards. McLaren para. 45.
04. McLaren may also use a set of case checklist items and patient
information to track cases, including non-time specific billing
information, procedure and diagnostic codes, and information on
general quality of care rendered by one or more medical
professionals. In a similar fashion, other events and checklists
may be incorporated into the graphical user interface to implement
a set of institutional policies and procedures for delivering patient
care as required at a particular medical practice or facility. The
listed medical events and case checklist items can be based on
customized templates, potentially customized for individual
practice locations, such as for a specific hospital. McLaren
para. 46.
05. In addition to tracking medical cases, McLaren may use
medical information from medical information management
system to manage medical case assignments and roles among a
team of medical professionals. For example, a medical
professional may use features provided in a graphical user
interface to handoff or take over a medical role. In an anesthesia
setting, this may involve a first CRNA who is actively providing
care for a patient handing-off this management role to a second
CRNA when the first CRNA requires a break. Another example
may include an anesthesiologist who is supervising multiple
CRNAs handing-off his supervisory role to another
5
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
anesthesiologist when he can no longer act in that capacity. In
particular implementations, the role-handoff process may require
that the relieving party initiate the role-handoff process to take-
over a case role from another medical professional. Moreover,
this role-handoff process may work within constraints established
by institutional policies and procedures for a particular facility or
collection of facilities. For example, supervising anesthesiologists
may be prohibited from relieving other anesthesiologists when
they are already supervising a maximum of four CRNAs.
Similarly, CRNAs may be prohibited from relieving other CRNAs
when they are already providing care for another patient.
McLaren para. 4 7.
06. In operation, as a patient proceeds through medical phases of
care, patient tracking entries may transition from being listed
under the tab for one predefined phase of care to another. For
example, in an anesthesia practice, the event of a patient arriving
at a medical facility may cause a patient tracking entry to
transition from being listed under a "schedule" phase to a "pre-
operation" phase. Similarly, when an update indicating anesthesia
administration is started for a patient, the corresponding patient
tracking entry may transition from a "pre-operation stage" to an
"intra-operation phase." When an update indicating that
anesthesia administration has ended, the patient tracking entry
may transition from an "intra-operation" phase to a "post-
operation" phase. At some predetermined point in time, such as
midnight, all post-operation cases may be clear (with potentially
6
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
exceptions for cases completed within a set period of time near
midnight). Thus, the functionality provided by a graphical case
board interface can receive updates to track real-time transitions
between phases of medical care at a defined medical practice
location. McLaren para. 91.
07. McLaren's patient treatment tab provides a tabbed interface for
displaying case specific information. For example, the
information tab provides detailed information about the patient,
such as medical history and other identifying data along with
relevant medical events corresponding to the medical care being
provided. Another tab, shown as the checklist tab, lists specific
case items in a checklist format. These items correspond to
medical events that may be necessary on an as needed basis during
a medical procedure but do not have a time or duration associated
with them. Thus, for example, an anesthesiologist may record a
medical event that became necessary for a particular patient, such
as starting an extra intravenous line, which may not include a time
value or duration. Finally, the selected chronology tab displays
medical events for a particular medical procedure. The case
chronology events have timing associated with them, which may
be recording in an appropriate time record. McLaren para. 113.
ANALYSIS
Only claim 1 is argued as such. Claim 1 is an apparatus performing two
steps. The first step, receiving an input, is uncontested. The second step
7
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
presents the sole issue before us. That step recites "based upon the first
input, selectively characterize at least a second input opportunity by which
the anesthesiologist can enter additional information regarding the at least
one anesthesiology-related event." That is, the second step is not entering
additional information per se, but characterizing an opportunity, the
opportunity having something to do with entering information. The manner
or implementation of such basis and characterization is neither recited nor
narrowed. Claim 1 also recites performing such operations by an
anesthesiologist, which is neither a structural nor functional limitation and so
is worthy of little patentable weight, but as McLaren describes an
anesthesiologist entering data, this limitation is not at issue.
The issue is the characterization of an input opportunity based on the
first input. As any implementation of this is within the scope of the
limitation, the sole issue is whether McLaren describes something within the
breadth of this limitation.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the specification
describes an approach to data entry that differs from McLaren in these
regards. Appeal Br. 8.
Though understanding the claim language may be aided by
explanations contained in the written description, it is important
not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the
claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the
written description may not be read into a claim when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
8
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
[a ]t best, McLaren merely offers a first opportunity to input
information regarding an anesthesiology-related event (using,
for example, the suggested checklist-based data-entry
paradigm). To the extent that someone avails themselves of
that opportunity, however, McLaren makes no teaching or
suggestion that his device then proactively respond and utilize
that input to selectively characterize a second input opportunity
by which that person can enter additional information regarding
that previously-entered anesthesiology-related event.
Appeal Br. 9. First, the claim does not recite proactively responding.
Again, the limitation characterizes an opportunity, not an input. It is not the
operation of providing for input that is based upon the first input, but only
the characterization of an opportunity related to a second input. Thus, the
claim does not recite that the second input per se is dependent on the first
input, but only how the opportunity to make that input is characterized.
McLaren describes how entry of events can feed other aspects of the
system, such as the tracking of patients on electronic case boards. Thus,
entry of an event selectively characterizes the next entry as one following
that event.
McLaren describes how events and checklists may be incorporated into
the graphical user interface to implement a set of institutional policies and
procedures for delivering patient care as required at a particular medical
practice or facility. The listed medical events and case checklist items can
be based on customized templates. Thus, entry of events matched against
such checklists implement policies and procedures that characterize how
treatment and its attendant data entry are to proceed.
McLaren describes, in an anesthesia setting, a first CRNA who is
actively providing care for a patient handing-off this management role to a
9
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
second CRNA when the first CRNA requires a break. This role-handoff
process may work within constraints established by institutional policies and
procedures for a particular facility or collection of facilities. For example,
supervising anesthesiologists may be prohibited from relieving other
anesthesiologists when they are already supervising a maximum of four
CRNAs. Similarly, CRNAs may be prohibited from relieving other CRNAs
when they are already providing care for another patient. Thus, entry of one
role acquisition characterizes how subsequent role-handoff's are to be
entered.
McLaren describes the event of a patient arriving at a medical facility
causing a patient tracking entry to transition from being listed under a
"schedule" phase to a "pre-operation" phase. Similarly, when an update
indicating anesthesia administration is started for a patient, the
corresponding patient tracking entry may transition from a "pre-operation
stage" to an "intra-operation phase." When an update indicating that
anesthesia administration has ended, the patient tracking entry may
transition from an "intra-operation" phase to a "post-operation" phase.
Thus, an input ending one phase selectively characterizes the opportunity for
the next input as the start of the next phase.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
McLaren is proper.
10
Appeal2014-004796
Application 13/238,677
uECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 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)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
11