Ex Parte Brandt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2015

10730593 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 10/730,593 12/08/2003 46169 7590 07/31/2015 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP, (Cerner Corporation) Intellectual Property Department 2555 GRAND BOULEVARD KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Samuel I. Brandt 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. CRNI.224403 2121 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, TERESA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2015 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): IPDOCKET@SHB.COM IPRCDKT@SHB.COM BPARKERSON@SHB.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMUEL I. BRANDT, HARM J. SCHERPBIER, and ROBERT P. SPENA Appeal2013-002333 Application 10/730,593 1 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES A. WORTH, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants' claimed invention "relates to a healthcare information system involving analyzing orders for healthcare treatment or services." (Spec. 1.) 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens Medical Solutions Health Services Corporation which merged into Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal2013-002333 Application 10/730,593 Claims 1, 13, 14, and 15 are the only independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced below (emphasis added): 1. A system for analyzing data comprising healthcare orders initiating treatment or services used in patient healthcare, compnsmg: a data processor for identifYing a potential change in use of a particular treatment by, examining data representing a plurality of orders for treatment administration to a patient generated by healthcare clinicians over a particular time period and used in treating a plurality of patients, to identifY a number of orders initiating application of a particular treatment to individual patients of said plurality of patients to address a particular medical condition; and determining at least one of (a) whether said number of orders exceeds a predetermined threshold, and (b) whether a rate of change in said number of orders relative to a previously determined number of orders is significant to identifY a potential change in use of said particular treatment; an order entry processor for entering orders for administration of treatment to a patient; and a message processor for automatically and proactively initiating generation of a message to alert a user of said order entry processor to permit review and potential modification of at least one order for said particular treatment corresponding to the identified potential change in use of said particular treatment in response to determining that at least one of (a) said number of orders exceeds a predetermined threshold, and (b) said rate of change in said number of orders relative to a previously determined number of orders is significant. REJECTIONS Claims 1-7 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bailey (US 2002/0040282 Al, pub. Apr. 4, 2002). 2 Appeal2013-002333 Application 10/730,593 Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bailey and Mcllroy (US 5,583,758, iss. Dec. 10, 1996). ANALYSIS Claim 1 relates to analyzing healthcare orders to determine certain information about the use of a particular treatment to address a particular medical condition in a plurality of patients. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites paragraphs 57, 73, and 100 of Bailey as disclosing the above "determining" limitation. (Final Office Action 3.) Appellants assert that Bailey examines individual orders for drugs to ensure that they "comport with the predetermined rules for allowable drug orders", Bailey para. 0007. Bailey nowhere suggests identifying "a number of orders initiating application of a particular treatment to individual patients" "over a particular time period". Bailey does not suggest or even mention maintaining a "number" or count of orders at all. Bailey nowhere suggests identifying "whether a rate of change in said number of orders" "over a particular time period" "relative to a previously determined number of orders is significant to identify a potential change in use of said particular treatment". (Appeal Br. 9.) We agree with Appellants. Bailey relates to a decision support system for "screen[ing] drug orders for drug dosing errors based on patient-specific information." (Bailey, Abstract.) Paragraphs 57, 73, and 100 relate to how Bailey's "dosage monitor" evaluates a particular drug order rather than evaluating aggregated order data from multiple patients. 3 Appeal2013-002333 Application 10/730,593 In other words, the cited paragraphs in Bailey do not disclose determining whether a "number of orders [for initiating a particular treatment to individual patients in a plurality of patients] exceeds a predetermined threshold," nor do they disclose determining "whether a rate of change in [the] number of orders [across the plurality of patients] relative to a previously determined number of orders is significant to identify a potential change in use of said particular treatment .... " (See Appeal Br., Claims App.) Therefore, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 1. Because independent claims 13-15 contain a similar limitation, we also reverse the rejection of independent claims 13-15 and dependent claims 2-7, 16, and 17. The Examiner does not rely on Mcllroy to teach or suggest the above noted "determining" limitation. Therefore, we also reverse the rejection of dependent claims 8-12. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) is reversed. The Examiner's rejection of claims 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 4