AirStrip IP Holdings, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 11, 2021

2019005322 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 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. 13/863,840 04/16/2013 Stephen Trey Moore 23956-0027001 9738 26201 7590 03/11/2021 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU) P.O BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER ELBINGER, STEVEN Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2021 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN TREY MOORE, THOMAS SCOTT WADE, LLOYD KORY BROWN, WILLIAM CAMERON POWELL, DANIEL LEE BLAKE, NEIL R. MCQUEEN, AUGUSTINE VIDAL PEDRAZA IV, and ALAN WILLIAMS PORTELA Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 Technology Center 2600 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AirStrip IP Holdings, LLC. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below. 1. A computer-implemented method executed using one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors from a data management system, patient data retrieved by the data management system from a facility system based on a user- facility index that maps an identifier associated with a user of a computing device to the facility system that the user is associated with as a healthcare provider, the data management system comprising a data cache module configured to selectively operate in a pass-through mode and a reposed mode to improve performance of retrieval of the patient data, the pass-through mode enabling real-time mode retrieval of the patient data from a plurality of data sources by using data identifiers and passing the patient data onward for responding to a user request; processing, by the one or more processors, the patient data to generate one or more graphical representations of the patient data, the patient data reflective of one or more physiological characteristics of a patient, at least one graphical representation of the one or more graphical representations comprising a waveform; displaying, by a display of the computing device, at least one waveform segment of the waveform; displaying, by the display of the computing device, a plurality of calipers associated with the at least one waveform segment, each caliper of the plurality of calipers being associated with an interval of the at least one waveform segment, wherein a first of the plurality of calipers is dependent on a second of the plurality of calipers, such that an endpoint of a first interval of the at least one waveform segment, corresponding to the first of the plurality of calipers, and a beginning point of a second interval of the at least one waveform segment that succeeds the first interval, corresponding to the second of the plurality of calipers, is aligned with the first interval and displaying the plurality of calipers comprises, for each caliper: Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 3 receiving a measurement value of the interval associated with the caliper; determining, relative to the at least one waveform segment, respective positions of a first handle and a second handle of the caliper based on the measurement; and displaying the first handle and the second handle in the respective positions relative to the at least one waveform segment; receiving user input, the user input being input to the first waveform segment displayed on the display of the computing device and indicating an adjustment of a position of the first of the plurality of calipers based on user contact with the display of the computing device; and in response to receiving the user input, determining, by the computing device, the first interval and the second interval associated with the first of the plurality of calipers and the second of the plurality of calipers, respectively that is dependent on the first of the plurality of calipers. REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 3–7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Powell (US 2010/0235782 A1, Sept. 16, 2010), Ramanathan (US 2012/0101398 A1, Apr. 26, 2012), Satin (US 2006/0264769 A1, Nov. 23, 2006), Hoium (US 2009/0076402 A1, Mar. 19, 2009), Sundarrajan (US 2007/0156966 A1, July 5, 2007), and Jeh (US 2007/0162424 A1, July 12, 2007). Final Act. 3–13. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Powell, Ramanathan, Satin, Hoium, Sundarrajan, Jeh, and Freeman (US 2012/0123223 A1, May 17, 2012). Final Act. 13–14. Claims 8 and 10–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Powell, Beasley (US 7,227,549 B2, June 5, 2007), Mirow Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 4 (US 2009/0292180 A1, Nov. 26, 2009), Sundarrajan, and Jeh. Final Act. 14–23. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Powell, Beasley, Mirow, Sundarrajan, Jeh, and Goossens (US 2012/0131495 A1, May 24, 2012). Final Act. 23–25. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1). OPINION Independent claim 1 is directed to “[a] computer-implemented method executed using one or more processors,” and the first step recites the following: receiving, by the one or more processors from a data management system, patient data retrieved by the data management system from a facility system based on a user- facility index that maps an identifier associated with a user of a computing device to the facility system that the user is associated with as a healthcare provider, the data management system comprising a data cache module configured to selectively operate in a pass-through mode and a reposed mode to improve performance of retrieval of the patient data, the pass-through mode enabling real-time mode retrieval of the patient data from a plurality of data sources by using data identifiers and passing the patient data onward for responding to a user request. Appeal Br. 23 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in concluding that the italicized recitation would have been obvious. Appeal Br. 18–20; Reply Br. 3–4. Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 5 At the outset, we note the claimed method is “executed using one or more processors,” but the “data management system” is not affirmatively claimed. Rather, it is recited as being the device from which “the one or more processors that execute the method” retrieve patient data. Thus, absent some affirmative recitation claiming the “data management system,” it is unclear how the disputed recitation limits the claimed method. The same issue applies to the other independent claims. In any event, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the disputed recitation would have been obvious, as discussed below, and, therefore, we affirm the rejection. In the Final Action, the Examiner found that Sundarrajan’s disclosure of retrieving data with no stated delay from multiple data sources teaches a “pass-through mode enabling real-time mode retrieval of the . . . data from a plurality of data sources,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Sundarrajan ¶¶ 36, 101, Fig. 6). The Examiner found Jeh’s disclosure of a cache server that stores data (search queries and search results) teaches operating in a “reposed mode,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 11 (citing Jeh ¶ 44); see also Jeh ¶ 53 (disclosing “a cache server 134 for increasing search efficiency by temporarily storing previously submitted search queries and corresponding search results”). In the Answer, the Examiner concluded that, in light of the Specification, “pass-through mode” means “retrieving patient data from servers, and not from the data cache module” and “reposed mode” means “retrieving patient data from the data cache module.” Ans. 3– 4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 49–50, Fig. 3). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s interpretations of “pass- through mode” and “reposed mode.” See Reply Br. 3–4. Rather, Appellant Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 6 argues that Sundarrajan’s disclosure of invalidation commands to selectively invalidate objects in cache does not teach selectively operating in a pass- through mode and a reposed mode or retrieving patient data from a plurality of sources. Appeal. Br. 18–19 (citing Sundarrajan ¶¶ 74, 101); Reply Br. 3– 4. Appellant’s focus on Sundarrajan’s invalidation commands ignores Sundarrajan’s disclosure of retrieving data from multiple sources, such as servers 106a-106n. Sundarrajan ¶¶ 36, 101, Fig. 6. For example, Sundarrajan discloses that a cache “appliance 104 monitors object requests made by clients 102a-102n to any of the servers 106a-106n” and returns objects from the servers to the clients. Sundarrajan ¶ 36; see also Sundarrajan ¶ 32 (explaining that “appliance 104 . . . may also referred to as a cache appliance, device, or cache”). Thus, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Sundarrajan teaches operating in a “pass-through mode” and retrieving data from multiple sources. Appellant also argues that Sundarrajan does not relate to “patient data.” Appeal Br. 18–20 (emphasizing “patient data” recited in claim 1); Reply Br. 3–4. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on Powell to teach “patient data,” which Appellant does not dispute. Final Act. 3 (citing Powell ¶ 43, Fig. 2). Thus, Appellant is arguing the references individually. The Examiner further finds that, “[a]lthough Sundarrajan is silent as to the retrieval of patient data, there is no cited distinction for retrieval of patient data that would prevent Sundarrajan from managing a cache management system for patient data.” Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that the particular type of data is not a distinguishing feature over Sundarrajan’s disclosure of handling data in general. Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 7 Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s “Answer appears to ignore relevant portions” of the claims, such as claim 1’s recitation that “the pass- through mode enabl[es] real-time mode retrieval of the patient data from a plurality of data sources by using data identifiers and passing the patient data onward for responding to a user request.” Reply Br. 4–5. We disagree. The Examiner made findings showing how Sundarrajan’s disclosure of retrieving data “with no stated delay” teaches “real-time” retrieval and how Sundarrajan’s use of object determinants as references to objects teaches using “data identifiers.” Final Act. 9–10 (citing Sundarrajan ¶¶ 36, 101, Fig. 6). Appellant does not specifically address these findings, and we see no error in them. Appellant argues that Jeh does not disclose operating in both a pass- through mode and a reposed mode (Appeal Br. 19–20), but, in the Final Action, the Examiner relies on Sundarrajan rather than Jeh for teaching a pass-through mode (Final Act. 9–10 (citing Sundarrajan ¶¶ 36, 101, Fig. 6)). The Examiner relies on Jeh for teaching a reposed mode based on Jeh’s disclosure of storing data at the cache server. Final Act. 11 (citing Jeh ¶ 442). In light of the Examiner’s undisputed interpretation of a “reposed mode” as meaning retrieving data from the data cache module (Ans. 3–4), we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Jeh teaches such a mode because Jeh discloses storing search results in the cache for increased search efficiency in case those results can be used for future searches. Jeh ¶ 53. Thus, Appellant’s argument that Jeh does not disclose 2 The cited disclosure of a cache server that stores queries and search results appears in a separately-labeled paragraph of Jeh (paragraph 53), which is grammatically part of paragraph 44 (cited by the Examiner). Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 8 both recited modes is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and, therefore, is not persuasive. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that Sundarrajan also discloses a “reposed mode.” Ans. 4. Appellant argues that “Sundarrajan’s cache at best operates in an aggregated pass-through mode by identifying that the object has been simultaneously requested by multiple clients and sending the response received from the originating server to the multiple clients.” Reply Br. 4. Although Sundarrajan has this simultaneous response capability, it also discloses storing data at the cache for later retrieval: Objects returned from servers 106a-106n in response to these object requests are stored in the cache memory by appliance 104. Subsequent requests for the same object from any of clients 102a-102n are intercepted by appliance 104, which attempts to deliver the object from the cache rather than passing the request on to servers 106a-106n. This provides the dual benefit of reducing both the time required to respond to requests from clients 102a-102n and the load on the infrastructure supporting servers 106a-106n. Sundarrajan ¶ 36 (emphasis added), cited in Final Act. 9 & Ans. 5. Thus, Sundarrajan discloses retrieving data from the cache (where it is stored), i.e., a “reposed mode.” Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the combined teachings of Powell, Ramanathan, Satin, Hoium, Sundarrajan, and Jeh. Appellant does not address the remaining claims separately, and, therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–16. Appeal 2019-005322 Application 13/863,840 9 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–7 103(a) Powell, Ramanathan, Satin, Hoium, Sundarrajan, Jeh 1, 3–7 2 103(a) Powell, Ramanathan, Satin, Hoium, Sundarrajan, Jeh, Freeman 2 8, 10–16 103(a) Powell, Beasley, Mirow, Sundarrajan, Jeh 8, 10–16 9 103(a) Powell, Beasley, Mirow, Sundarrajan, Jeh, Goossens 9 Overall Outcome 1–16 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