Ex Parte Barber-Mingo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13484367 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/484,367 05/31/2012
56102 7590 05/02/2016
IBM (ROC-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
8601 Ranch Road 2222
Ste. 1-225
AUSTIN, TX 78730
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cynthia E. Barber-Mingo
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.
RPS920100073US2 1244
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CYNTHIA E. BARBER-MINGO, ANGELA RICHARDS JONES,
and RUTHIE D. LYLE
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a method for administering a patient in a hospital.
(Spec. 1, 11. 13-14).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer implemented method for administering a patient
in a hospital, the method comprising:
identifying, by a room optimizer module of a computer,
upon the patient checking into the hospital, a set of patient
attributes, each patient attribute describing an aspect of the
health of the patient;
establishing, by the room optimizer module, desired
room attributes that correspond to the patient attributes;
in dependence upon the patient attributes, the desired
room attributes, and a set of room attributes of a plurality of
available rooms, selecting, by the room optimizer module, an
optimized room for the patient;
receiving, from a sensor, an identification of an object
that is predicted to enter the optimized room; and
determining that the identification corresponds to a type
of object that upon entering the optimized room would conflict
with the desired room attributes of the patient.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shusterman
Ro sow
Allen
US 6,471,087 Bl
US 2008/0065430 Al
US 8, 179,257 B2
2
Oct. 29, 2002
Mar. 13, 2008
May 15, 2012
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1--4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the ground
of statutory type double patenting over claims 8-11, 12-18, and 20 of co-
pending Application No. 12/942,227.
Claims 1--4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosow and Allen.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rosow, Allen, and Shusterman.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 4--7 of the
Answer, excluding the Examiner's findings on the double patenting
rejection.
2. Allen discloses:
A determination is made as to whether an
object poses a hazard by, for example, reading data
from an associated RFID tag or by accessing a
database using data read from the RFID tag. The
RFID tag may be, for example, embedded into an
employee badge used for more general
identification purposes, or affixed to a vehicle or
container for more general tracking purposes, or
otherwise associated with the object.
If the object is found to pose a hazard, the
nature of the hazard is determined and a warning
about the nature of the hazard is provided
proximate to the monitored space. In some
embodiments, providing the warning may be
conditional upon the concurrent presence of a
second object in the monitored space. In any case,
the warning may include, for example, information
3
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367
about the type of hazard or its potency, the exact or
approximate location of the hazard, and so forth.
Col. 3, 11. 21-35.
3. Allen discloses that "[ t ]he expression 'proximate to the monitored
space' means, for example, that the warning can be observed by a person or
other object entering the monitored space, or about to enter the monitored
space." Col. 3, 11. 55-58.
4. Rosow discloses
The number of male beds in the unit is indicated at
134, number of female beds at 136, number of
mixed beds at 138 (i.e., both male and female beds
such as on a unit for newborns), private beds at
140, the number of non-committed beds at 142,
(i.e., 2 beds that are in a semi-private room, neither
of which is occupied are non-committed beds,
however once one is occupied by a female for
example, then the remaining unoccupied bed is
designated also as a female bed). Also, identified
although not shown in screen, are the number of
negative pressure beds, positive pressure beds, as
well as the number of monitored beds including
hardwired monitors and telemetry monitors.
Additionally, information regarding the selected
patient for the bed assignment is identified
including patient requirements in the Find Bed
screen 116 as shown at 144.
Para. 91.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1--4 and 6 as a group, selecting claim 1 as the
representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims standing or
falling with claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)).
4
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367
Appellants argue,
The cited reference [(Allen)], however, includes no
determination as to whether that the identification
of an object that is predicted to enter the optimized
room corresponds to a type of object that upon
entering the optimized room would conflict with
the desired room attributes of the patient. The cited
reference is only concerned with objects that
already have entered a monitored space - not
objects that are predicted to enter the optimized
room.
(Appeal Br. 6-7).
The Examiner, however, found that Allen discloses this feature at
column 3, lines 21-61. (Answer 5).
We begin by construing the scope of claim 1. Appellants'
Specification does not specifically define the term "predict," nor does it
utilize the term contrary to its customary meaning. The ordinary and
customary definition of the term "predict" as defined by Webster's
Dictionary is: "to declare or indicate in advance"2.
We find that while Allen does not disclose the predicted object in the
claimed environment of a hospital room, it nevertheless discloses
identification of an object that is predicted to enter an optimized room/space;
and determining that the identification corresponds to a type of object that
upon entering the optimized room/space would conflict with the desired
room attributes of a person in the space. We find that Allen explicitly
discloses using an RFID tag to track an object representing, for example, a
container, to make a determination "as to whether an object poses a hazard"
2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict (last visited
3/31/2016)
5
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367
and then issues a warning of the conflict. (FF 2). We further find that the
disclosure in Allen of "[a] determination is made as to whether an object
poses a hazard" constitutes an indication in advance because Allen further
discloses that the warning can be issued before the person is "about to enter
the monitored space." (FF 3).
We further are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that, "the cited
reference does not make any determination that takes into account the
desired room attributes of the patient" (Appeal Br. 7) because the Examiner
found that Rosow, and not Allen, discloses the selection of a hospital room
based on patient attributes. (Answer 4). Thus, that argument is not well
taken because Appellants are attacking the reference individually when the
rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, (CCPA 1968).
We find that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that
since Allen discloses predicting a conflict between a space and an object
entering that space, it would be obvious to use this predicting feature in
conjunction with the object/attribute-based room selection feature of Rosow
to avoid such problems as placing patients having conflicting genders in the
same room. (FF 4).
We also affirm the rejection of dependent claim 7 since Appellants
have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
We will not affirm the statutory type (35 U.S.C. § 101) double
patenting rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 7 over copending Application No.
12/942,227 because: 1) the rejection was not made as a provisional double
patenting rejection and 2) the body (post preamble content) of the
6
Appeal2014-003235
Application 13/484,367
independent claims of the copending applications do not recite the same
invention/identical subject matter- application No. 13/484,367 requires the
room optimizer module of a computer, whereas claims 8 and 15 of
application 12/942,227 simply require a room optimizer module.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4, 6, and
7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1--4, 6, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7