CERNER INNOVATION, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 5, 202014584689 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation