Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

11771884 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111771,884 0612912007
37945 7590 04/27/2016
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Lee Angell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
END920070290US 1 8650
EXAMINER
RAPILLO, KRISTINE K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT LEE ANGELL and JAMES R. KRAEMER
Appeal2013-008312
Application 11/771,884
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claimed invention relates to a computer implemented method,
computer usable storage medium, and system "for utilizing digital video
modeling to generate a patient risk assessment model for identifying
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Nov. 30,
2012), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed March 21, 2013).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation (Br. 2).
Appeal2013-008312
Application 11/771,884
morbidity and mortality based on events occurring in a medical care facility"
(Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
monitoring a patient in real time with a video camera to
produce video data, wherein the video data includes images
showing a behavior or an appearance of the patient;
retrieving, by a physical processor in communication with
the video camera, event data for the patient, wherein the event
data is derived from the video data, and wherein the event data
further comprises metadata describing events affecting the
patient in a medical care environment, wherein the metadata
further describes contents of the video data, and wherein the
event data is derived from the video data by converting the
images to dynamic data such that the event data is ready for
processing or analysis in a set of pre-generated data models;
parsing, by the physical processor, the event data to form
assessment data;
generating, by the physical processor, a risk assessment
model using the assessment data, wherein generating comprises
analyzing the dynamic data using one or more of the set of pre-
generated data models to identify events affecting the patient;
and
determining, by the physical processor, in real time
whether the patient is responding to a particular form of
treatment or a type of medication using the risk assessment
model.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7-11, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stoodley (US 2004/0078236 Al, published Apr. 22,
2
Appeal2013-008312
Application 11/771,884
2004), Shen (US 2003/0212580 Al, published Nov. 13, 2003), and Renzi
(US 2007/0050828 Al, pub. Mar. 1, 2007). 3
Claims 2---6 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stoodley, Shen, Renzi, and Papageorge (US
6,584,445 B2, issued June 24, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stoodley, Shen, and Renzi (Ans. 3-5). Without further
explanation, the Examiner indicates that the limitation reciting "wherein the
event data is derived from the video data by converting the images to
dynamic data such that the event data is ready for processing or analysis in a
set of pre-generated data models" is found in paragraphs 56, 57, 64, 102, and
137 of Stoodley (see id. at 3).
Appellants argue that "[t]he Office Action failed to state a primafacie
obviousness rejection against claim 1 because the cited combination,
considered as a whole, fails to disclose 'the event data is derived from the
video data by converting the images to dynamic data ... for processing or
analysis in a set of pre-generated data models,' as in the claim" (Br. 14 ). We
agree.
We fail to see in the relied upon paragraphs and the Examiner does
not explain how Stoodley teaches this disputed limitation as required by
claim 1. For instance, paragraph 56 provides a listing of data acquisition
equipment and photographic devices. Paragraph 57 describes data collection
3 We note that the statement of the rejection inadvertently omits claim 7
(Ans. 3), however, the Examiner rejects claim 7 as unpatentable in further
view of Stoodley in the body of the rejection (see Ans. 6).
3
Appeal2013-008312
Application 11/771,884
and automatic updating of patient data to obviate the need for re-entering
data already available. Paragraph 102 discloses that Figure 9 illustrates one
type of a graphic data screen for the results of ultrasound studies on specific
vessels. Paragraph 13 7 is directed to assessments for quality improvement
involving mortality and morbidity reviews and departmental audits. Thus,
none of the relied upon paragraphs in Stoodley appear to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1. Moreover, in response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner takes the position that a prima facie case "has been
clearly set forth" and fails to explain how the relied upon paragraphs in
Stoodley teach this contested limitation (see Ans. 13-14).
Accordingly, because all the claim features are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, we find that a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established in the first instance. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner relies on the
same findings as in claim 1 to reject independent claims 11 and 20 (Ans. 6).
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 20 for the same
reasons as claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims
2-10 and 12-19. 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").
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4