CERNER INNOVATION, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 5, 2020

14584689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020)

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.
14/584,689 12/29/2014 Alan Harris Staples II 27098.216710 6730
46169 7590 08/05/2020
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(CERNER CORPORATION)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
LAM, ELIZA ANNE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2020 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):
BPARKERSON@SHB.COM
IPDocket@shb.com
docket.shb@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ALAN HARRIS STAPLES II, KAREN KAYE RAMSEY, and
JASON SACHAN
________________

Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the final rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention relates to:
[m]ethods, systems, and computer-readable media are provided
for blending data. The system may identify user behavior patterns
such that relevant correlations are learned by the system and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Cerner Innovation, Inc. is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689

2
suggested to a user automatically. The system may also analyze each
available data set to identify both present and potential correlations to
suggest to a user. This provides an efficient means for the system to
automatically narrow a compilation of data sets into a filtered group
of suggested data sets for a user. Put another way the system gathers
data on user behavior and known correlations and uses various
methodologies to generate new data sets to be automatically compared
and catalogued.

See Abstract.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A computerized method, carried out by at least one server having
one or more processors, the method comprising:

receiving an indication of a first data set from a user;

automatically evaluating a plurality of data sets, wherein evaluating
the plurality of data sets comprises:

employing a plurality of agents, the plurality of agents employing
strategies comprising two or more of machine learning, expert system,
neural network, and big data, to identify one or more data sets of the
plurality of data sets that include a correlation with the first data set; and

filtering the plurality of data sets identified by the plurality of agents
based on behavior patterns of the user; and

providing the one or more data sets having a correlation with the first
data set with an indication that the one or more data sets having a correlation
with the first data set has been identified to include said correlation.

Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0099140 A1; published Apr.
28, 2011 to Ridgeway in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication
2012/0036523 A1; published Feb. 9, 2012 to Weintraub in view of U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2008/0201280 A1; published Aug. 21, 2008
to Martin et al.

ANALYSIS
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Appeal Brief.2 Arguments Appellant could have made in the
Appeal Brief, but chose not to make, are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Except as noted below, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal
is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.

Appellant argues that:
Weintraub is different from Appellant[’s] claimed invention because
the creation and use of a user profile in a recommendation engine for
content management in televisions is not the same as filtering the
plurality of data sets identified by the plurality of agents based on
behavior patterns of the user in the medical and healthcare context.

2 Claims 2–20 are not argued separately from claim 1 in Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (Appeal Br. 9–12) and will not be separately addressed.
Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689

4
Weintraub does not disclose the same structure and function as
Appellant[’s] claimed invention. Therefore, Weintraub is not an
analogous reference.

Appeal Br. 10–11. (Original emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added).

A reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention to be
proper for use in an obviousness rejection. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Two criteria have evolved for answering the question: “(1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id. (citing In re Deminski, 796
F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA
1979)). Further, “[u]nder the correct [obviousness] analysis, any need or
problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007) (emphasis added).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that “Weintraub and Applicant's
invention are both directed to data blending and are therefore in the same
field of endeavor,” because Weintraub explicitly teaches blending (see
Weintraub, ¶¶ 11, 12) Final Act. 4–5, (emphasis omitted).
Notably, the Examiner determines “Weintra[u]b and Appellant[’s]
invention are both directed to data blending, and content delivery using
computing devices, while Weintraub discusses content management for
television and Appellant[’s] invention uses healthcare data the structure, a
computing device, and the function, data blending and content delivery are
Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689

5
the same.” Ans. 3.
Because we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Weintraub is
analogous art, we conclude, per the KSR guidance above, that Weintraub is
properly combinable with Ridgeway and Martin.
Appellant’s next argument is that “Weintraub does not disclose any
feature regarding the filtering of data sets identified by agents.” Appeal Br.
11.
In response, the Examiner determines, and we agree “Weintraub
teaches that the content is delivered in view of the user profile (selecting
certain content from a database to deliver is filtering a data set) and that the
user profile is created based on a plurality of agents, in particular, explicit
and implicit (behavior patterns) data.” Ans. 4. In other words, the Examiner
equates Weintraub’s selection of certain content to meet the filtering
limitation.
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations . . . limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term “must be
sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage
would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the
invention.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip.,
Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A patentee may act as its own
lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from
its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly
express that intent in the written description.” (citation omitted)). Absent an
Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689

6
express “intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are
presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them
by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
In the present case, Appellant has not cited to an explicit definition of
“filtering” in the Specification that is inconsistent with or otherwise would
preclude the Examiner’s construction of the term “filtering.”
Next, claim 1, recites, inter alia “employing a plurality of agents, the
plurality of agents employing strategies comprising two or more of machine
learning, expert system, neural network, and big data. “ Appellant argues
that Martin does not teach the claimed “two or more of machine learning,
expert system, neural network, and big data” or the “agents” limitations.
Appeal Br. 11–12.
The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Martin and has
provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts
of the reference for disclosing the disputed limitations. Final Act. 3. In
particular, the Examiner finds paragraphs 26 and 27 in Martin for the
explicit teaching of machine learning, expert knowledge and data mining
(for big data). Ans. 4. Also, the Examiner interprets “agents” in this context
to include software that is met by the programing for machine learning,
mapping ontology, and data mining taught in Martins. Id.
The Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, has properly found that Martin discloses
the “two or more of machine learning, expert system, neural network, and
big data” and the “agents” limitations, as explained above.
Appeal 2020-001327
Application 14/584,689

7
We note that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s
responses to Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive
rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–20.
Consequently, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Ridgeway,
Weintraub, Martin
1–20