Ex Parte Coulter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 2016

12791208 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121791,208 06/01/2010 28289 7590 02/18/2016 THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P,C ONE GATEWAY CENTER 420 FT. DUQUESNE BL VD, SUITE 1200 PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Craig Coulter 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. 6042 - 101519 2224 EXAMINER REYES, REGINALD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): patents@webblaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte ROBERT CRAIG COULTER, RALPH GROSS, JEAN-FRANCOIS LALONDE, and BARBARA ANNE-MARIE SIMARD Appeal2014-001096 1 Application 12/791,208 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 134 and 6. The invention relates generally to medical clinical logistics management. Spec. para. 3. 1 The Appellants identify Disruptive IP, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2). Appeal2014-001096 Application 12/791,208 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of controlling patient care logistics comprising: (a) providing a programmed computer; (b) providing a plurality of user devices in operative communication with the computer; ( c) under the control of a logistics software program, the computer determining for each user device a unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device, wherein each unique priority sorted list of queue tasks is determined on the basis of criterion that affect the determination of the priority sorted lists of queue tasks for the plurality of user devices; ( d) dispatching to each user device the unique priority sorted list of queue tasks determined for said user device in step (c); ( e) the computer receiving a change in at least one criterion; (t) under the control of the logistics software program, the computer determining for each user device on the basis of the change received in step ( e) either an amendment to the unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device determined in step ( c) or a new unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device; and (g) dispatching to each user device the unique priority sorted list of queue tasks determined for said user device in step (t). Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson (US 2008/0139898 Al, pub. June 12, 2008) and Mohanty (US 2007/0180084 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2007). We AFFIRM. 2 Appeal2014-001096 Application 12/791,208 ANALYSIS Claims 1. 2. 4. 6-9. 11-17. 20-24. and 27-32 Appellants argue independent claims 1, 8, 16, and 24 together as a group. Appeal Br. 7. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson and Mohanty fail to disclose "determining for each user device a unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user of said user device," as claimed, because, according to Appellants, Johnson updates a single display, and not a plurality of devices with unique lists of tasks. Appeal Br. 5-7, Reply Br. 2---6. Appellants seemingly argue that Johnson teaches a single device informing a single technician of a single list of tasks to perform for an entire patient population of a hospital. Reply Br. 6. We disagree. Johnson discloses use in a hospital (para. 2), by telemetry-monitoring technicians (para. 3), a system that "may be configured according to beds, wards, staffing, and/or patient management guidelines .... " Para. 26. Johnson discloses "adding new tasks for all patients being monitored 126, automatically updating task statuses 100, and updating and re-prioritizing a task list 102, for example, according to adaptive priority rules 104." Id. Johnson further discloses a "screen update interval" before updating the list in the tele-tech's screen. Id. Johnson does not limits its computer architecture, and discloses servers and multiple processing systems (id. at para. 29), and information forwarded to a "network node" that serves "a ward or floor of a hospital" and makes available at the network node "patient alarms" and other information for the tele-tech. Id. at para. 14. 3 Appeal2014-001096 Application 12/791,208 The skilled artisan would thus recognize that in a hospital environment, where a system is configured by "beds, wards, staffing" and other management guidelines, more than a single technician would be expected to be involved in monitoring telemetry devices. The artisan would recognize that if work responsibilities and tasks are divided among multiple technicians, a unique task list would be displayed for each user, based on the "beds, wards, and staffing" that are appropriate for each user, or at least that such a display of information would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill. While Appellants may be asserting that Johnson only displays a single task list for all technicians, and does not indicate to an individual technician which tasks are for them to perform and which are for a different technician, we are unpersuaded such a position is credible given that the system is configured by "beds, wards, staffing" and other management guidelines. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson teaches away from "a unique priority sorted list of queue tasks for the user," as claimed, because Johnson has telemetry technicians utilize "hospital paging system 44." Reply Br. 5. Johnson discloses the "tele-tech notifies the appropriate medical staff, such a clinician, for example, via paging system 44" (para. 25), and thus uses the paging system to communicate downstream to, for example, doctors. We are unclear as to how this teaches away from any features of the tele-tech's screen. Indeed, we are unclear as to why they could not be used together. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, 16, and 24, as well as of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, 20-23, and 27-32 that are not separately argued. 4 Appeal2014-001096 Application 12/791,208 Claims 3. 10. 18. and 26 Appellants argue the claims together as a group (Appeal Br. 9), so we select claim 3 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Dependent claim 3 recites "the computer responsive to user activation of a first one of the user devices for causing said first user device to be coupled in communication with a second one of the user devices." We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to disclose the claim language. Appeal Br. 7-9, Reply Br. 8. Johnson discloses "tele-tech notifies the appropriate medical staff, such a clinician, for example, via paging system 44" (para. 25), and that the computer the tele-tech utilizes is connected to a "communication network or link" (para. 28). Johnson thus discloses the tele-tech system, as the first user device, is connected to the network, as the second user device. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 10, 18, and 26. Claims 5. 19. and 25 Appellants argue the claims together as a group (Appeal Br. 10), so we select claim 5 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Dependent claim 5 recites "wherein the computer determines the second user device to connect in communication with the first user device based on a role of a user of the second user device." We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Johnson fails to disclose the claim language. Appeal Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 9. Johnson discloses contacting the hospital paging system "as a special manual inquiry concerning whether the action is completed." Para. 26. The tele-tech's 5 Appeal2014-001096 Application 12/791,208 system, as the first user device, thus connects to the second user device of the paging system, based on the role of the user of the paging system to perform the listed actions from the task list. For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 19, and 25. DECISION We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 6