Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019006452 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
14/803,963 07/20/2015 Neil G. Siegel 005997-US-CP 6599
149217 7590 03/02/2021
Burr Forman McNair
Northrop Grumman
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street, Suite 2610
Charlotte, NC 28280
EXAMINER
GONZALES, VINCENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2124
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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):
mcnairip@mcnair.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NEIL G. SIEGEL, SAM S. SHEKAR, JEFFREY C. YU,
SREELATHA GHANTA, SANJIV DESAI, H. MORGAN CRAFTS JR.,
and ROBERT MICHAEL LEFLER

Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963
Technology Center 2100

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention uses genomics data to customize healthcare.
Spec. ¶ 15. In an embodiment, a proteomic-based test provides
individualized medical data for predictive modeling of health. Id. ¶ 17.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed subject matter emphasized.
1. A personalized healthcare system, the system
comprising:
a data platform scalable to include a plurality of data sources,
the data sources including at least a clinical research database,
genomic data, and a patient health record database, the patient
health record database comprising a record for each of a
population of patients, a plurality of genetic markers, and a
plurality of clinical parameters associated with the patients;
an analytics platform comprising at least a statistical discovery
component and a natural language processing component
configured to interface with respective portions of the data
sources to selectively identify correlations based on analysis of
contents of the data sources responsive to a query;
a modeling component configured to apply a selected risk
model based on the query; and
a user interface component configured to enable a user to
provide the query, and to generate a response to the query, the
response providing information associated with clinical
decision support tailored to an identity of the user, the user
being a selected one of a patient, a researcher and a clinician,
wherein the user interface component defines visualizations
and results that are customized based on the identity of the
user to enable the researcher and the clinician to dynamically
update the data sources on the data platform, and enable the
clinician and the patient to receive the response based on
dynamically updated version of the data source in real time or
near real time.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963

3
Rejections2
Claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Loghmani (US 2012/0185275 A1; July 19, 2012),
Weiner (US 2006/0184489 A1; Aug. 17, 2006), and Official Notice.
Final Act. 7–13.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Loghmani, Weiner, Baker (US 2011/0123990 A1; May 26, 2011), and
Brown (US 2003/0124130 A1; July 3, 2003). Final Act. 13–14.
Claims 11–14 and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Loghmani, Weiner, and Dudley (US 2012/0101736 A1;
Apr. 26, 2012). Final Act. 14–15.
OPINION
Appellant addresses all rejections by arguing that the
above-emphasized subject matter of claim 1 is required by all claims and
patentably distinguishes over the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Loghmani, Weiner, and Official Notice. Appeal Br. 11–15. We address the
specific contentions with reference to claim 1. For the following reasons,
we are unpersuaded of error and therefore sustain all rejections.
Appellant contends the claimed “visualizations and results returned
are both customized based on the identity of the user to enable specific
users, namely patients, clinicians and researchers, to have specific
capabilities based on their identities.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant further
contends Loghmani teaches “identity-based access to heath related records
so that each patient can access [their] own health related records,” however,

2 The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn. See
Ans. 13.
Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963

4
“there is no disclosure of any identity-based functionality relating to a
researcher and clinician.” Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded
of error because the argument does not rebut the Examiner’s determinations.
The Examiner finds Loghmani teaches the claim’s second “enable”
feature: “visualizations and results . . . are customized based on the identity
of the user to . . . enable the clinician and the patient to receive the [query]
response.” Final Act. 8; Ans. 15. In doing so, the Examiner designates the
claimed patient as the user; i.e., such that the claimed visualizations/results
are based on the identity of the patient—and only the patient—to enable the
clinician and patient to receive the response. Id. The Examiner then reads
this claim interpretation on Loghmani’s Figures 20B and 21B. Id.
Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s above reading of the claim’s second
“enable” feature on Loghmani, much less show the Final Action and Answer
lack an adequate explanation or support. See Ex parte Frye, Appeal No.
2009-006013 (BPAI Feb. 26, 2010) (precedential) (explaining an appellant’s
burden of rebuttal), available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/
decisions/prec/fd09006013.pdf.
Appellant also contends Weiner teaches that “new or improved
treatments and responses” can be added to the database as they “become
available,” however, this “does not in any way indicate who would perform
such addition and integration.” Appeal Br. 13. We are unpersuaded of
Examiner error because the argument does not rebut the Examiner’s
determinations.
The Examiner finds Weiner teaches the claim’s first “enable” feature:
“visualizations and results . . . are customized based on the identity of the
user to enable the researcher and the clinician to . . . update the data sources
Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963

5
on the data platform.” Final Act. 8. In doing so, the Examiner determines
the claim does not restrict performance of the updates to researchers and
clinicians. See Ans. 13–14. The Examiner also determines that, even
assuming (arguendo) the claim restricts performance of the updates to
researchers and clinicians, common sense suggests such performance is
likely because researchers and clinicians are “the persons most likely to have
data on ‘new or improved’ medical treatments.” Id. at 14. Appellant does
not rebut the Examiner’s above reading of claim 1’s first “enable” feature on
Weiner, much less show the Final Action and Answer lack an adequate
explanation or support. For example, Appellant does not dispute that the
performance of Weiner’s cited updates by someone (which is implicit)
suggests the performance is enabled for researchers and clinicians. See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining how a claim’s
“intended use” limitation may read on prior art that does not disclose the
use). Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s “common sense”
determination.
Appellant also contends the Official Notice—“dynamic updating of
data was a known technique at the time of invention” (Appeal Br. 12
(addressing Final Act. 8))—is improper because “at least [the claimed]
genomic data and clinical research databases are not notoriously
dynamically updateable” Id. at 13. We are unpersuaded of error because the
argument does not rebut the Examiner’s determinations.
The Examiner interprets “dynamically updating” (claim 1) as meaning
the update can be changed. Ans. 14; accord Wisconsin Alumni Research
Found. v. Apple Inc., 905 F.3d 1341, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(characterizing “dynamic” data and “static” data as respectively capable and
Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963

6
incapable of being changed). The Examiner also, assuming (arguendo) a
narrower breadth for “dynamically updating,” takes Official Notice that
“dynamic updating of data” (Final Act. 8) was known. Ans. 14 (citing
Final Act. 8). Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s above findings,
much less show the Final Action and Answer lack an adequate explanation
or support for the Official Notice. For example, Appellant does not dispute
that the claimed “dynamically updating” can read on performance of a
changeable update (i.e., without permanence). See Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming because appellant “merely argued that the
claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious
explanation of this difference”). Nor does Appellant present evidence that,
as argued, genomic data and clinical research databases were not known to
be dynamically updateable.3 See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience
is . . . not the kind of factual evidence . . . required to rebut a prima facie
case of obviousness.”); In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971) (An
adequate challenge to official notice “creates a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying the . . . notice.”).

3 In the absence of such evidence, there is no indication that the Official
Notice is an “assertion[] of technical facts in the areas of esoteric
technology.” See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 2144.03.C (Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) at 2100–239. Rather, there is
Official Notice that “dynamic” updating of data was common. See id. (“In
appropriate circumstances, it might be reasonable to take official notice of
the fact that it is desirable to make something faster[.]”). And, there is no
evidence that the claimed databases were exceptions (e.g., a challenge to
dynamically update).
Appeal 2019-006452
Application 14/803,963

7
OVERALL CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1–20.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–10,
15, 16 103
Loghmani, Weiner,
Official Notice
1–6, 8–10,
15, 16
7 103 Loghmani, Weiner, Baker, Brown 7
11–14,
17–20 103
Loghmani, Weiner,
Dudley
11–14,
17–20
Overall
Outcome 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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