Ex Parte You et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2018

13798337 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131798,337 03/13/2013
43471 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
05/31/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Di You
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.
CS40903 1960
EXAMINER
MORTELL, JOHN F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
arris.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DI YOU, MIR F. ALI, PAUL C. DA VIS, JIANGUO LI, and
DALE W. RUSSELL
Appeal 2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Br. 3. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ARRIS Enterprises. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed August 9, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed January 10, 2017; and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed April 20, 2017.
Appeal2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention receives information from multiple, distributed
health-sensor-enabled electronic devices and determines contexts and
associated health profiles. Abstract. A context can include predefined
locations---e.g., a bar, restaurant, or amusement park---during a particular
predetermined time period or event---e.g., a sale event. Spec. i-fi-1 44, 46.
Once the context is selected or defined, the system can filter and analyze
health-sensor data from multiple devices. Id. i129. According to the
Specification, the invention addresses the limitations of typical mobile-
device sensors, which analyze only one user at a time, and stationary sensors
(e.g., cameras or microphones), which have a limited sampling area.
Id. i-fi-f l-2.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system, health data from a
plurality of distributed electronic devices, wherein the health
data comprises:
context data for a plurality of contexts, wherein each of the
plurality of contexts corresponds to a geographical area and a
time period; and
corresponding implicit health data for the plurality of
contexts, the implicit health data sensed by the plurality of
distributed electronic devices for the plurality of contexts;
determining, by the computer system, a first context in the
plurality of contexts;
determining, by the computer system, a first portion of the
health data determined to include context data that matches the
first context;
analyzing, by the computer system, the implicit health data
in the first portion of the health data to generate a first plurality
of health descriptors for the first context; and
2
Appeal2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
generating, by the computer system, a first health profile
for the first context based on the first plurality of health
descriptors for the first context, wherein the first health profile
for the first context is a profile of a plurality of people each one
of whom was present within the geographical area of the first
context during the time period of the first context.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Rodgers
Schechter
US 2008/0015903 Al
US 2008/0059224 Al
THE REJECTION
Jan. 17,2008
Mar. 6, 2008
Claims 1-203 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Rodgers and Schechter. Final Act. 2-13.
THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS
The Examiner finds that Rodgers teaches every limitation recited in
representative claim 1 except for the health profile for the recited plurality of
people, each present during the context's time period. 4 Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner cites Schechter as teaching generating a group's health profile by
selecting health data for places and service dates. Id. at 3. In particular, the
3 The Examiner omits Schechter from the heading of the rejection of claims
10, 16, and 17. See Final Act. 11-13. We treat this omission as a
typographical error because the Examiner rejected claims 9 and 15, from
which claims 10, 16, and 17 depend, under Rogers and Schechter.
4 Appellants argue claims 1, 19, and 20 as a group by stating that the
arguments regarding claim 1 "apply with equal force to independent claims
19 and 20." Br. 12. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of claims 1, 19, and 20. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Rodgers
with Schechter to predict future disease states in groups and streamline
preventative strategies and care. Id. at 3--4.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that Rodgers lacks the recited contexts. Br. 8-9.
According to Appellants, Rodgers teaches creating one patient-risk profile
for a single patient. Id. at 9. Appellants contend that the claim term "first
context" is not met by Rodgers's facility because Rodgers's patient-risk
profile is not for a plurality of people at the facility. Id. Similarly,
Appellants contend that the claim term "first context" is not met by
Rodgers's patient location 303 because location 303 and room 902, 1000 are
associated with an individual patient. Id.
Appellants further argue that the Rodgers-Schechter combination
lacks a health profile of a plurality of people in a first of a plurality of
contexts. Id. at 10-12. Appellants argue that Rodgers lacks a health profile
that corresponds to a plurality of people. Id. at 10 (citing Rodgers i-fi-1 96-
100). In Appellants' view, Rodgers collects patient data from sensors
monitoring a single patient, not a plurality. Br. 10-11 (citing Rodgers i-fi-185,
89, 90, 97-98, Fig. 3). Appellants note that, in Rodgers, each individual
patient has a patient-risk profile, and different patients have different
profiles. Br. 12 (citing Rodgers i1 84 ).
ANALYSIS
The disputed limitation of claim 1 recites, in part, "the first health
profile for the first context is a profile of a plurality of people each one of
4
Appeal2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
whom was present within the geographical area of the first context during
the time period of the first context."
Regarding the recited "context," the Specification explains that a
context can include predefined locations during a particular predetermined
time period or event. Spec. iii! 44, 46. A context includes a bar, restaurant,
or amusement park. Id. ii 44. The context can be defined by physical
locations during some date range or on a specific day, such as a sale event,
wedding, or concert. Id. ii 46. According to the Specification, "a context
can be arbitrarily defined as any region or time period for which sensor data
is available." Id. ii 44. Although the above-discussed examples are not the
only contexts, these embodiments, nevertheless, inform our analysis of claim
1, which requires that each context "corresponds to a geographical area and
a time period."
The Examiner finds that Rodgers teaches several contexts. Ans. 5.
Specifically, Rodgers tracks a patient's location in a facility. Rodgers ii 106,
cited in Final Act. 3. The patient's location can be compared to another
location in the facility---e.g., a cafeteria, security zone, exit, or parking lot.
Rodgers ii 106. Rodgers uses this data to determine whether duties or
activities are actually carried out as prescribed. Id. ii 109, cited in
Final Act. 3. For instance, Rodgers determines whether the patient or
caregiver performs an activity within predetermined time guidelines or at the
proper location. Rodgers ii 109. Rodgers then refines a "patient risk
profile" based on the collected patient data. Id. iii! 99, 110. On this record,
we agree with the Examiner that Rodgers teaches a context that corresponds
to a location (e.g., a location in the facility) and a time period. Final Act. 3;
see also Ans. 9 (discussing locations).
5
Appeal2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
Although Rodgers's patient-risk profiles correspond to an individual
patient, instead of "a plurality of people" as recited, the Examiner relies on
Schechter to remedy this deficiency. Ans. 3--4. Appellants' arguments are
unpersuasive because they do not address this aspect of the rejection. See
Br. 8-12.
In particular, Schechter creates a health profile for a group of
individual patients. Schechter i-f 3 7, cited in Final Act. 3. By creating
profiles for groups of patients, healthcare providers are able to identify
genetic diseases. Schechter i-f 17. The Examiner then concludes, and we
agree, that the Rodgers-Schechter combination would have allowed the
system to predict future disease states in a group of individual patients and
streamline preventative strategies and care. Final Act. 3--4.
Appellants' argument focuses on Rodgers but fails to take into
consideration the Examiner-proposed combination with Schechter. See
Br. 8-12. Here, the Examiner cited Rodgers for the recited context
limitation, as discussed above. See Final Act. 3. In fact, Appellants argue
against Rodgers and Schechter for features that these references were not
cited to teach. See Br. 8-12. Appellants, however, cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually when the
Examiner's rejection is based on a combination of Schechter and Rodgers.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 1 and claims 19 and 20, which fall with claim 1. See Br. 12. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-18, which are not
separately argued with particularity. See id.
6
Appeal2017-011052
Application 13/798,337
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7