Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

13798580 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/798,580 03/13/2013
26201 7590 11/01/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (AU)
P.O BOX 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Trey Moore
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.
23956-0084001 4163
EXAMINER
HOLCOMB, MARK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN TREY MOORE,
THOMAS SCOTT WADE, and
LLOYD KORY BROWN
Appeal2017-007676 1
Application 13/798,580
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is Airstrip IP Holdings, LLC."
Appeal Brief 4.
Appeal2017-007676
Application 13/798,580
Introduction
The invention is directed to "methods for providing a user of a mobile
device access to patient information and patient physiological data."
Specification ,r 4.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a user of
a mobile device access to patient information and patient
physiological data, the method being executed by one or more
processors and comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, first user input,
the first user input indicating a user command to display a
timeline screen;
in response to receiving the first user input, processing,
by the one or more processors, patient-specific data, accessed
through a user-facility index that maps an identifier associated
with the user to one or more facilities, in a plurality of facilities,
that the user is associated with, to determine a plurality of
medical events to be graphically depicted, the plurality of
medical events being specific to a patient;
displaying the timeline screen on a touch-screen display
of the mobile device in a user-customized view, the timeline
screen displaying a first time period of a timeline associated
with the patient and comprising at least a first portion of the
plurality of medical events, each medical event comprising
summary information, the plurality of medical events being
graphically depicted in chronological order, such that an
amount of detail of the summary information and a size of each
of the first portion of the plurality of medical events are
adjusted based on the first time period of the timeline and a first
number of the plurality of medical events being displayed;
receiving, by the one or more processors, second user
input, the second user input being input to the timeline
2
Appeal2017-007676
Application 13/798,580
displayed on the touch-screen display and indicating a second
time period of the timeline based on user contact with the
touch-screen display, such that the second time period of the
timeline is different than the first time period of the timeline;
and
in response to receiving the second user input,
displaying, by the one or more processors, the timeline screen
on the mobile device in the user-customized view, the timeline
screen displaying the second time period of the timeline
associated with the patient and comprising at least a second
portion of the plurality of medical events, such that the amount
of detail of the summary information and the size of each of the
second portion of the plurality of medical events are adjusted
based on the second time period of the timeline and a second
number of the plurality of medical events being displayed.
Rejections on Appeal2
Claims 1-10, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Hughes (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2013/0024206 Al; published January 24, 2013), Whelchel (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2010/0198619 Al; published August 5, 2010) and
Ben-Sira (U.S. Patent Application 2011/0301478 Al; published December
8, 2011). Final Action 7-15.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes, Whelchel, Ben-Sira and Follis (U.S. Patent
Application 2006/0265249 Al; published November 23, 2006). Final
Action 15-16.
2 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn. Answer 16.
3
Appeal2017-007676
Application 13/798,580
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes, Whelchel, Ben-Sira and Shiraishi (U.S. Patent
6,621,508 Bl; issued Sept. 16, 2003). Final Action 16-17.
Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes, Whelchel, Ben-Sira and Powell (U.S. Patent
Application 2010/0235782 Al; published September 16, 2010 ("Powell
'782") ). Final Action 17-18.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes, Whelchel, Powell '782, and Powell (U.S. Patent
Application 2006/0149597 Al; published July 6, 2006 ("Powell '597")).
Final Action 19.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes, Whelchel, Ben-Sira, Powell '782, and
Sparandara (U.S. Patent Application 2012/0130741; published May 24,
2012). Final Action 20.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed November 29, 2016), the Reply Brief
(filed April 25, 2017), the Answer (mailed March 1, 2017) and the Final
Action (mailed September 21, 2016) for the respective details.
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) Rejection
Appellants argue Whelchel fails to address Hughes' deficiencies
because Whelchel does not disclose elements such as a mobile device touch
4
Appeal2017-007676
Application 13/798,580
screen display, etc. Appeal Brief 22. Nonetheless, the Examiner relies upon
Whelchel to disclose first or second portions of a plurality of medical events
displayed on a timeline. Final Action 11; Answer 18.
Appellants contend Whelchel fails to disclose first or second portions
of a plurality of medical events displayed on a timeline wherein the amount
of detail and size of each portion displayed is adjusted based upon time
periods of the timeline and the number of medical events displayed. Appeal
Brief 22. Appellants state that support for the displayed medical events
limitations is found in the Specification, paragraphs [O 104 ]-[O 107], [O 109]-
[0111 ], [0118] and Figures 9-11. Appeal Brief 8-9. The Specification
discloses:
In some examples, information and/or graphics provided in the
graphical representations and/or the size of graphical
representations can be adjusted based on the time period being
displayed and/or the number of graphical representations being
displayed. In this manner, crowding of the screen (which can
make review of the timeline difficult) can be inhibited.
Specification, ,r 109. Similarly, Whelchel discloses in paragraph 53:
It should be pointed out that the dates and times in the timelines
of the exemplary embodiments may be Zoomed in on or Zoomed
out from and corresponding areas of the timelines may be
displayed in a compact or expanded State, respectively. In this
regard, a user Such as for example a health care professional may
utilize a pointing device ( e.g., mouse) or the like of a user input
interface ( e.g., user input interface 82) to access data
corresponding to a particular time period on the patient time line
85.
We agree with the Examiner that the Whelchel disclosure supports the
Examiner findings:
5
Appeal2017-007676
Application 13/798,580
Whelchel teaches, at paragraphs 53-59 and Fig. 9, that it was old
and well known in the art of displaying medical data at the time
of the invention to display event data along a timeline such that
an amount of detail of the summary information and a size of
each of the first or second portion of the plurality of medical
events are adjusted based on the first or second time period of
the timeline and a .first or second number of the plurality of
medical events being displayed. See Whelchel at Fig. 9 where the
initial timeline displays various events over multiple days
including summary information ( events occurred at capsules 4 7 -
49), and then the "double clicked zoomed" timeline shows fewer
events over a single day in a larger size, with more summary
information available (such as specific details regarding capsules
51-59 previously displayed as block of capsules 49, as well as
further details of E for event and P for procedure at capsules 48
and 47, respectively). Whelchel is operative to be used
repeatedly, such that multiple timelines can be adjusted along
with their corresponding size and number of events of summary
information.
Answer 18.
Appellants argue:
[T]he profile corresponding to a medical provider of Ben-Sira
includes the respective medical provider's (a) name, (b) email
addresses, ( c) short message service ("SMS") addresses, ( d)
phone numbers, ( e) specialties, and/or (f) the like, which is
different than a user-facility index that maps an identifier
associated with the user to one or more facilities, in a plurality of
facilities, that the user is associated with, as recited in claims 1,
17, and 18.
Appeal Brief 24.
Ben-Sira discloses a medical management system that can:
[E]lectronically store profiles that correspond respectively to
medical providers. For example, a profile corresponding to a
medical provider can be used to store attributes associated with
6
Appeal2017-007676
Application 13/798,580
the medical provider that may assist in providing ( e.g.,
transmitting) the electrocardiographic information ( or other
medical information), patient information, and/or medical record
to a mobile device 110, application, and/or account associated
with the medical provider.
Ben-Sira ,r 35; see Final Action 12.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We agree with
Appellants that Ben-Sira discloses additional information besides the
medical provider's name; however, we agree with the Examiner (Final
Action 12; Answer 7) that provider information such as, e.g., phone number,
specialties, or "the like" teaches or suggests a provider profile relating to an
association with one or more facilities. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 17 and 18,
argued together. See Appeal Brief 24. We also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2-16, not argued separately with
distinction. See Appeal Brief 24.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-18 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
AFFIRMED
7