Ex Parte Angell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2016

11771860 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111771,860 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. END920070107US 1 8610 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 Appeal2014-003861 Application 11/771,860 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 THE CASE Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Stoodley,3 Roslak,4 and Papageorge. 5 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Aug. 22, 2013), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 18, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 18, 2013). 2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Stoodley et al., US 2004/0078236 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004. 4 Roslak et al., US 7,010,501 Bl, issued Mar. 7, 2006. 5 Papageorge, US 6,584,445 B2, issued June 24, 2003. Appeal2014-003861 Application 11/771,860 ST ATEivIENT OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. CLAIMED INVENTION The claimed invention relates to a computer implemented method, computer usable program product, and system "for utilizing digital video modeling to generate an optimal healthcare delivery model for providing healthcare services to patients based on patterns of events occurring in a medical care facility" (Spec. i-f 2). Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer implemented method for generating an optimized healthcare delivery model, the computer implemented method comprising: a computer recording video data of a set of methods or procedures for providing treatment to achieve a target outcome; the computer processing the video data using smart detection software to form event data, wherein the event data comprises metadata describing events associated with a medical care facility; the computer processing the event data by a set of data models to identify event patterns, wherein the set of data models includes one or more data models for mining event data, identifying events of interest, and identifying patterns between events of interest and identifying relationships between events of interest, wherein each pattern is related to one of the set of methods or procedures for providing treatment to achieve the target outcome, wherein the set of data models comprises a timeline data model; the computer associating the event of interest with the timeline data model to form a set of integrated events, wherein each of the set of integrated events comprises multiple sub- events; the computer identifying a subset of patterns of events from the patterns of events that achieves the target outcome to form a set of optimized patterns of events, wherein the optimized 2 Appeal2014-003861 Application 11/771,860 pattern of events is a method or procedure of providing treatment to achieve the target outcome for under a particular cost, wherein the optimized pattern of events achieves a patient rate of recovery equal to or greater than a patient recovery rate for others of the patterns of events, and the optimized pattern of events has a treatment cost less than others of the patterns of events; and the computer generating a healthcare delivery strategy using the set of optimized patterns of events to form an optimized healthcare delivery model for the medical care facility. Appeal Br. 18-19, Claims App. DISCUSSION Independent claim 1 Appellants contend that "[t]he cited art does not disclose, 'the computer processing the video data using smart detection software to form event data, wherein the event data comprises metadata describing events associated with a medical care facility"' (Appeal Br. 11 ). In particular, Appellants argue "contrary to the Examiner's assertions, Stoodley does not process video data using smart detection software to form event data" (id. at 13). The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Stoodley fails to teach smart detection software and rather relies on Roslak to cure this deficiency (Ans. 3--4; see also Ans. 9). Thus, Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's actual rejection. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error. Appellants also contend that "[t]he cited art does not disclose 'identifying a subset of patterns of events ... "' (Appeal Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 2--4). In particular, Appellants argue that Roslak "is unconcerned with" performing this limitation (Appeal Br. 16). 3 Appeal2014-003861 Application 11/771,860 The Examiner, however, relies on the combination of Stoodley and Papageorge for teaching this limitation (Ans. 3-5, 9-10). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify Stoodley to include "the ability to analyze the data input to generate treatment options as taught by Papageorge" (Ans. 5). Appellants' arguments regarding the disclosure in Roslak do not address the Examiner's proposed modification with respect to this contested limitation. Accordingly, we are not apprised of reversible error by Appellants' argument. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that "Stoodley's 'outcomes' does not make any determination relative to the cost of providing medical services" or "regarding whether one pattern of events is as effective as other patterns of events within Stoodley's database" (Reply Br. 5). The Examiner, however, relies on Papageorge for disclosing "wherein the optimized pattern of events is a method or procedure of providing treatment to achieve the target outcome for under a particular cost" and "achieves a patient rate of recovery equal to or greater than a patient recovery rate for other of the patterns of events" (Ans. 4). Thus, Appellants' arguments regarding Stoodley's outcomes do not address the Examiner's proposed modification of Stoodley according to the teachings in Papageorge. Appellants further argue that "Papageorge' s reported costs are not relative to the cost of providing medical services according to the optimized pattern of events" because "Papageorge's reported costs simply provide a listing of the potential negative outcomes of the particular associated treatments" (Reply Br. 6). However, as the Examiner finds (see Ans. 4--5), Papageorge is directed to a tool that helps patients and physicians decide between treatment options based on different financial costs, benefits, and 4 Appeal2014-003861 Application 11/771,860 effectiveness of treatment options by assessing each option in terms of patient specific data (see Papageorge, col. 3, line 66 - col. 4 line 3). Therefore, Papageorge is not limited to "simply provid[ing] a listing of the potential negative outcomes of the particular associated treatments" as argued by Appellants. Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error by Appellants' arguments. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants do not separately argue or contest the rejection of claims 2-20. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-20. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5