Ex Parte JOHNSON

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2019

14213163 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/213,163 03/14/2014
61834 7590
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP
125 Park Avenue
7th Floor
NEW YORK, NY 10017
03/20/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Gail JOHNSON
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.
5024-019 7389
EXAMINER
MORGAN, ROBERT W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2019 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@msf-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN GAIL JOHNSON
Appeal2018-000262
Application 14/213, 163
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and PHILIP
J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Careview
Communications, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000262
Application 14/213, 163
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a system and method for documenting patient
procedures. (Abstr., Title).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A surveillance system for documenting patient
procedures comprising:
a monitoring station including at least one dedicated
storage server;
at least one a surveillance camera configured to capture a
plurality of video frames of a surveillance area;
a network interface configured to transfer said video
frames to a remote location;
a patient procedure remote sensor configured to detect a
presence of a health care professional proximate to the
surveillance area to perform a patient procedure and output a
signal indicative of the detection; and
a control system comprising memory and at least one
processing unit, the control system configured to:
receive the signal indicating the presence of the
healthcare professional proximate to the surveillance area
from the patient procedure remote sensor;
create a data event file in response to the detection
of the presence of a health care professional, wherein
creating the data event file comprising creating at least
one header associated with the data event file;
receive the plurality of video frames from the
surveillance camera;
save the plurality of video frames in the memory;
based on the reception of the signal indicating the
presence, prioritize a first set of video frames of the
plurality of video frames that show the presence of the
healthcare professional proximate to the surveillance area
relative to a second set of video frames of the plurality of
video frames, wherein the second set of video frames
show routine surveillance of the surveillance area before
the indication is received, and
2
Appeal2018-000262
Application 14/213, 163
wherein the prioritization protects the first set of video
frames from overwriting in the memory while allowing the
second set to be overwritten;
write the first set of video frames to the data event
file;
receive an indication from the patient procedure
remote indicating the end of a medical procedure;
determine the accessibility of a network using the
network interface;
transfer the at least one header contained within
the data event file to the monitoring station using the
network interface if the network is accessible;
transfer the plurality video frames from the control
system to the monitoring station;
detect a bottleneck condition using the network
interface; and
in response to a bottleneck condition, transmit only
those video frames written to the data event file to the
monitoring station.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
The Supreme Court
ANALYSIS
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ...
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts .... If so, ... then ask, "[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us?" . . . To answer that
question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both
individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine
3
Appeal2018-000262
Application 14/213, 163
whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the
claim" into a patent-eligible application. . . . [The Court]
described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive
concept'"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
"sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
itself."
Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLSBankint'l, 573 U.S., 217-18 (2014) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012))
( citations omitted).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit has
explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on whether 'their character
as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp.
v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks
whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant
technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36.
In so doing we apply a "directed to" two prong test: 1) evaluate
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a
judicial exception, evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019).
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to documenting
patient medical procedures related to patient audio and video surveillance to
allow healthcare facilities to automatically document a medical procedure.
(Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that the claims recite additional
4
Appeal2018-000262
Application 14/213, 163
limitations of software using a camera control device, processor unit, RAM
and ROM memory, network controller, monitor device, video processor and
remote interface. The Examiner finds that these components are recited at a
high level of generality and perform generic computer functions routinely
used in computer applications utilizing generic computer elements
performing generic and well-known computer functions. (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner finds that these elements do no more than implement the
abstract idea with a computerized system. (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner does not address the recitation of a patient procedure
remote sensor configured to detect a presence of a health care professional
proximate to the surveillance area to perform a patient procedure and output
a signal indicative of the detection. The Examiner also does not discuss the
recitation of a control system configured to detect a bottleneck condition.
We will not sustain this rejection because even if the Examiner is
correct that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and even if the
features of the claims specifically discussed by the Examiner do not amount
to significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner has not adequately
explained why the recitation of a "remote sensor configured to detect a
presence of a health care professional proximate to the surveillance area ...
and output a signal indicative of the detection" is not a recitation of
significantly more than the abstract idea.
In addition, the Examiner has not explained why the step of detecting
a bottleneck is not a recitation of significantly more than an abstract idea.
\Ve agree with Appellant that the Examiner failed to provide a
required explanation of why the elements either individually or in
combination with the additional elements of the claim, such as those
mentioned above, does not amount to significantly more. (App. Br. 9-10).
5
Appeal2018-000262
Application 14/213, 163
Here, the Examiner did not satisfy the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of ineligibility under§ 101 by providing an explanation as to how
the recitations in the claims in addition to any abstract idea do not amount to
significantly rnore than the abstract idea. See MPEP) § 2106.07 (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (noting that the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of ineligibility under § 101 is on the Examiner to explain
clearly and specifically why claims are ineligible, so that the applicant has
sufficient notice and can respond effectively); Rapid Litig. Mgmt, Ltd. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1051 (Fed, Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the
Examiner's patent eligibility rejection of claim 1 under § 101. \Ve also
reverse the rejection as it is directed to the remaining claims subject to this
rejection because the remaining claims require similar subject matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6