KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2021

2020005095 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/365,184 06/13/2014 William Palmer Lord 2011P01863WOUS 4196
24737 7590 01/15/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
TIEDEMAN, JASON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM PALMER LORD
____________

Appeal 2020-005095
Application 14/365,184
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JAMES P. CALVE, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 8, 10–13, 15, 17, and 21. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed April 2, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 29, 2020), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 1, 2020) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed November 4, 2019). Appellant identifies
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-005095
Application 14/365,184

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention is “related to systems and methods for
transforming clinical guideline documents into computer interpretable
guidelines (‘CIGs’)” (Spec. 4).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
[(a)] prompting a user, via a graphical user interface
(“GUI”), for a plurality of clinical guideline entry steps;
[(b)] receiving, via the GUI, clinical guideline data;
[(c)] providing, via the GUI, context-sensitive menus;
[(d)] converting, via the context-sensitive menus, the
clinical guideline data into a plurality of formal expression entry
steps, wherein only syntactically and semantically correct text
entry options are available to the user to build the formal
expression entry steps;
[(e)] receiving, via the GUI, a formal representation of
the clinical guideline data;
[(f)] identifying, via the GUI, at least one step of the
formal expression entry steps as being incorrect;
[(g)] displaying, via the GUI, an alert related to the at
least one step identified as incorrect;
[(h)] prompting the user, via the GUI, for context-
specific data related to a clinical decision support (“CDS”)
system at a clinical site, wherein the GUI displays fields
associated with known properties of the CDS system;
[(i)] receiving, in the displayed fields, the context-
specific data related to the CDS system at the clinical site;
[(j)] mapping the formal representation of the clinical
data to a computer interpretable guideline (“CIG”) based on a
CIG model and the context-specific data related to the CDS
system, wherein the CIG provides computer-executable
instructions to the CDS system to execute a CDS application in
Appeal 2020-005095
Application 14/365,184

3
accordance with the clinical guideline data wherein the context-
specific data customizes the CIG for a specific location; and
[(k)] receiving a modification to the CDS application
based on a change of one of a protocol or a policy of the specific
location wherein the CIG adapts the CDS application based on
the change to the one of the protocol or policy.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 10–12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Robert Kosara et al., Tools for Acquiring
Clinical Guidelines in Asbru, INTEGRATED DESIGN AND PROCESS
TECHNOLOGY (June 2002) “Kosara”), Childress (US 4,646,250, issued
Feb. 24, 1987), Eggena et al. (US 2010/0211402 A1, published Aug. 19,
2010) (“Eggena”), and Ram et al. (US 2005/0108049 A1, published May 19,
2005) (“Ram”).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kosara, Childress, Eggena, Ram, and Paul A. de Clercq et al.,
Approaches for creating computer-interpretable guidelines that facilitate
decision support, 31 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN MEDICINE 1 (2004)
(“de Clercq”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kosara, Childress, Eggena, Ram, and Vandanacker (US 2007/0078497 A1,
published Apr. 5, 2007).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 and Dependent Claims 3–5, 10–12, and 17
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Ram, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest “receiving
Appeal 2020-005095
Application 14/365,184

4
a modification to the CDS application based on a change of one of a
protocol or a policy of the specific location wherein the CIG adapts the CDS
application based on the change to the one of the protocol or policy,” i.e.,
limitation (k), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15
(Appeal Br. 6–8).
Ram discloses a clinical practice guideline implemented using a
guideline execution engine, and describes that the engine interprets the
clinical practice guideline, obtains medical data stored in a clinical
information system (“CIS”), and implements an action in response to
execution of the clinical practice guideline based on medical data for a
patient obtained from the CIS (Ram Abstract). Ram discloses that this is
accomplished (i.e., the guideline execution engine executes the clinical
practice guideline and implements an action responsive to execution of the
guideline) by running, on a processor, one or more interpreted or compiled
computer programs representative of the guideline (id. ¶ 22).
Further describing the guideline, Ram discloses that a reading module
receives the guideline, in an encoded or representation form, and translates it
into a form that is executable by the guideline execution engine (Ram ¶ 56).
Ram describes that “[t]he encoded guideline, in activity graph or other
representational form, may be edited, revised, or otherwise ‘localized’ to
conform to local organizational and clinical policies” (id. ¶ 58), and explains
that, if it has not yet been provided to the execution engine, “the localized
encoded guideline can then be delivered, on a CD or other medium that can
be loaded onto or read by the engine” (id.). Ram, thus, discloses, with
reference to Figure 5, that, in accordance with an embodiment of the
invention, “[p]rior to deployment of the guideline, the guideline may be
Appeal 2020-005095
Application 14/365,184

5
localized” to make it confirm to the policies in place at a local clinical
organization; the guideline is then deployed in the guideline execution
engine by a deployment module (id. ¶ 82).
In rejecting independent claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the Examiner cites paragraphs 22, 58, and 82 of Ram as disclosing the
argued limitation (Final Act. 9). We, however, agree with Appellant that
there is nothing in the cited portions of Ram that discloses or suggests
customizing a computer interpretable guideline (“CIG”) for a specific
location such that the CIG can adapt to modifications (i.e., based on changes
in the protocol or policy of the location) to the clinical decision support
(“CDS”) application that employs the CIG, as called for in the independent
claims (Appeal Br. 7).
In other words, Ram discloses localizing an encoded guideline, prior
to deploying the guideline, to make it conform to the policies in place at the
local clinical organization. The argued feature, on the other hand, requires
customizing a CIG such that the CIG is capable of adapting to new CDS
applications at the specific location at which it is deployed, as changes in the
protocol and policies of the location occur (Appeal Br. 7).
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent 1, 8, and 15. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3–5, 10–12, and 17. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious”).
Appeal 2020-005095
Application 14/365,184

6
Dependent Claims 6, 13, and 21
Claims 6 and 21 depend from independent claim 1. And claim 13
depends from independent claim 8.
The rejections of these dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies
in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 6, 13, and 21 for
the same reason set forth above with respect to the independent claims.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 8,
10–12, 15,
17
103(a) Kosara, Childress,
Eggena, Ram
1, 3–5, 8,
10–12, 15,
17
6, 13 103(a) Kosara, Childress,
Eggena, Ram,
de Clercq
6, 13
21 103(a) Kosara, Childress,
Eggena, Ram,
Vandanacker
21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–6, 8,
10–13, 15,
17, 21
REVERSED