IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2021

2020006516 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/283,374 05/21/2014 Jonathan W. Ayers 06-844-A-CON2 6207
20306 7590 06/16/2021
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BALDWIN, NATHAN AARON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2021 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):
docketing@mbhb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN W. AYERS, ANESTES G. FOTIADES,
ROBERT B. BRAZELL, and DAVID DIEFFENBACH
____________

Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,3741
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13–24, 26, and 28. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IDEXX
LABORATORIES, INC. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates to representations of medical data, and
more particularly to graphical and textual displays of current and historical
medical data pertaining to a subject undergoing testing.” (Spec. 2, ll. 10–
12.)
Claims 1, 18, 21, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative. It recites:
1. A method for obtaining, processing, and presenting
medical data in a computing device, comprising:
receiving, at the computing device, current medical result
data of a medical test performed on a patient as one or more
medical readings from an input interface based on the medical
test currently performed on the patient, wherein the current
medical result data is obtained by the medical test currently
performed on the patient at a current date;
creating, by the computing device, an output of the current
medical result data of the medical test performed on the patient
in a layout on a graphical interface having rows and columns,
wherein the current medical result data is based on one or more
of a height, a weight, a blood sample, a urine sample, and a fecal
sample of the patient;
in response to receiving, at the computing device, a
selection of an amount or a type of a medical result for a given
medical test that has been performed on the patient, the
computing device retrieving, from a non-transitory memory,
stored previous result data of the selected medical test that
matches to the patient, wherein the stored previous result data
was obtained by the same medical test as performed to obtain the
current medical result data and as performed on the same patient
on a previous day;
inputting, by the computing device, the stored previous
result data of the medical test performed on the patient in the
layout in a separate column adjacent to a column of the current
medical result data so that the previous result data and the current
medical result data of the same medical test are in the same row
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

3
in the layout, wherein data in the columns of the layout
correspond to one or more results from one or more samples
taken from the same patient on the same day, wherein the current
medical result data includes in the same row additional graphical
image indicators representing the current medical result data and
the previous result data is in a compressed format as text without
the additional graphical image indicators representing the
previous result data;
outputting, by the computing device, the layout to the
graphical interface that enables interaction with the layout based
on a received input at the computing device;
determining, by the computing device, whether any of the
current medical result data or the stored previous result data is
abnormal, wherein given data is abnormal based on being outside
of a range of reference data;
automatically generating, by the computing device, a
graph for the medical test based on a set of predetermined rules,
wherein the set of predetermined rules include the computing
device generating the graph based on the current medical result
data being abnormal and at least two previous result data points
existing in the non-transitory memory for the medical test; and
displaying the layout and the graph on the graphical
interface.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11, 13, 15–24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Schoenberg (US 2002/0177759 A1, pub.
Nov. 28, 2002), Malave (US 2002/0193679 A1, pub. Dec. 19, 2002),
Hockersmith (US 2005/0159656 A1, pub. July 21, 2005), and Wekell
(US 2006/0200009 A1, pub. Sept. 7, 2006).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view
of Schoenberg, Malave, Hockersmith, Wekell, and Nitzan
(US 2007/0033074 A1, pub. Feb. 8, 2007).
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

4
Claims 10, 14, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Schoenberg, Malave, Hockersmith, Wekell, and
Mayaud (US 2002/0042725, pub. Apr. 11, 2002).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that Schoenberg “teaches creating [a] graphical layout of rows and
columns (see Figs 2a, 3a, and 3b) where the user can select subsets of data to
display.” (Answer 10.) The Examiner finds that Schoenberg also teaches
“that each row represents a particular measurement/test result type” and each
column represents “either a current or past measurement/result for the
particular row test/measurement (see Figs 2a, 3a, and 3b).” (Id.) The
Examiner finds that Schoenberg further teaches displaying “previous result
data . . . in a compressed format as text without the additional graphic
indicators.” (Id.) The Examiner finds that Malave teaches “a graphical
image indicator corresponding to test result data within a row and column
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

5
display interface that also includes text values of data.” (Id. (citing Malave,
Figs. 17, 23b).) The Examiner determines that “it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to include the graphical indicator as is
disclosed by Malave [in] the display taught by Schoenberg in order to
improve the ease of the user understanding the data.” (Final Action 7.)
The Examiner finds that Hockersmith teaches a slide bar graphical
indicator “equivalent to the one taught by Malave in style,” but “just
hav[ing] a slider for current/most recent results and no other measurement
values.” (Answer 11 (citing Hockersmith, Fig. 7).) The Examiner
determines that in view of the teaching in Hockersmith, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “that graphical indicator[s] such as
the one taught by Malave can be limited to just current result data in order to
create graphical representations that best convey the desired information.”
(Final Action 7 (citing Hockersmith ¶ 3).)
Appellant argues that “the graphs in Malave in Figures 17 and 23
illustrate data with graphical image indicators for all of the data, contrary [to
what is] recited in the claims.” (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant argues that “it is
unclear as to how any combination of the glucose slider of Hockersmith
relates to the daily graph in Malave, or how the graph in Malave would be
modified to include the graphical indicator of Hockersmith.” (Id. at 11.)
Appellant argues that “[i]t is only with hindsight analysis that one of
ordinary skill in the art would pick and choose when to display data or not––
the cited references fail to describe the specific configuration of data as
claimed.” (Id. at 14.)
As an initial matter, we note that “one cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

6
on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). A reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it
fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
When, as in this case, it is necessary “to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents,” we must “determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent
at issue.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. “Under the correct analysis, any
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. And “[i]f a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id.
at 417.
An obviousness “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.” Id. Thus, “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416. In other words, “[i]f a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 417. Nonetheless, “there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Here, Appellant does not argue that there was a technological hurdle
to overcome in order to display data in both a graphical and textual form in a
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

7
row on a graphical display. Rather, Appellant’s arguments are centered on
the format for the data shown in the graphical display. Indeed, claim 1 does
not even recite how the computing device performs the claim steps; it is
based on the presumption that the computer programming techniques for
combining the familiar elements are known. (See Answer 13.)
We do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that “it is unclear as
to how any combination of the glucose slider of Hockersmith relates to the
daily graph in Malave, or how the graph in Malave would be modified to
include the graphical indicator of Hockersmith.” (Appeal Br. 11.)
Malave “relates to communications stations for medical devices.”
(Malave ¶ 2.) Figure 17 of Malave is reproduced below.

Figure 17 “is a view of a Daily Summary display screen used by software in
accordance with an embodiment of the [Malave] invention.” (Id. ¶ 31). We
agree with the Examiner that Figure 17 of Malave
shows a graphical image indicator corresponding to test result
data within a row and column display interface that also includes
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

8
text values of data [that is] similar [to] text values in rows and
columns taught by Schoenberg (see also Fig 23b), but Malave
does not explicitly teach that graphical indicator can only show
current result.

(Answer 10.) The Examiner relies on Hockersmith for its teaching of a
single slider to represent current measurement values. (Id. at 11.)
Hockersmith “relates generally to the extraction and/or presentation of
glucose concentrations estimated as a function of time into a format that
facilitates conveyance of the underlying information.” (Hockersmith ¶ 3.)
Figure 7 of Hockersmith is reproduced below.

Figure 7 shows “a slide-bar representation of glucose concentrations
according to the [Hockersmith] invention. (Id. ¶ 76.) Although Figure 7
depicts two sliders on the slide bar, Hockersmith teaches use of a single
slider, e.g., to represent “current or past glucose concentrations on a slide
bar,” or the option of using “[m]ore than one slider on the bar.” (Id. ¶ 124.)
The Examiner’s proposed modification of Malave is simply to modify
a displayed slide bar to show only a single value, i.e., the current value,
rather than displaying multiple values such as a current value, an average
value, and a range of values. In view of the above, we are not persuaded that
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

9
the Examiner erred in determining that it would have been obvious to
modify Malave in view of Hockersmith to limit the graphical indicator “to
just current result data in order to create graphical representations that best
convey the desired information.” (Final Action 7.)
We next address the recitation in claim 1:
automatically generating, by the computing device, a graph for
the medical test based on a set of predetermined rules, wherein
the set of predetermined rules include the computing device
generating the graph based on the current medical result data
being abnormal and at least two previous result data points
existing in the non-transitory memory for the medical test.

The Examiner finds that “Wekell teaches a data display interface that
automatically generate[s] a trend graph when a trend warning occurs which
trend warning is the equivalent of an abnormal result” and that Figure 5 of
Wekell shows that “trend graph 504 includes at least 2 previous results
(12H, 6H) in addition to current results 0H.” (Answer 11 (citing Wekell
¶ 108).) The Examiner determines that in view “of Wekell, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . . . to include automatically
graphing as is disclosed by Wekell to the display taught by Schoenberg in
order to alert physician of changes in the patient condition that are outside
normal ranges.” (Final Action 7–8.)
Appellant argues that “Wekell does not describe to [sic] automatic
generation of a graph based on the same set of predetermined rules as in the
claims.” (Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).) Specifically, Appellant
argues that a condition precedent to triggering the generation of the graph is
the existence of “two points being stored in memory and the current medical
result data being abnormal.” (Id. at 18.)
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

10
We apply a broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim. In
relevant part, the claim recites “automatically generating, by the computing
device, a graph for the medical test based on a set of predetermined rules.”
The claim further recites that “the set of predetermined rules include the
computing device generating the graph based on the current medical result
data being abnormal and at least two previous result data points existing in
the non-transitory memory for the medical test.”
Appellant urges us to interpret this claim language as requiring current
medical result data to be abnormal and there to be at least two previous
result data points to trigger the requirement to automatically generate a
graph. (Appeal Br. 17–18.) But the language may also be interpreted as
requiring the automatic generation of a graph, and only the content of “the
graph being based on the current medical result data being abnormal and at
least two previous result data points.” (See Claim 1; see also Final Action 4,
Answer 14.) We need not resolve this ambiguity because, as discussed
below, this limitation would have been obvious under either interpretation.
Claim 1 recites that “data is abnormal based on being outside of a
range of reference data.” The Specification recites that “a range of reference
data pertain[s] to the medical test that defines values for results of the
medical test pertaining to a low and a high result.” (Spec. 14, ll. 12–14.)
Wekell discloses a “method of generating and representing the status
of various physiological parameters that are monitored for patients during
hospitalization.” (Wekell, Abstract.) Wekell discloses generating a trend
graph 504. (Wekell ¶ 108.) Wekell discloses that the graph “can be
configured per parameter to be in a plurality of display states, including but
not limited to displayed always, displayed at the clinician’s request, or
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

11
automatically displayed when a trend warning occurs, as determined by the
rules of the inference engine.” (Id.) Thus, Wekell discloses always
automatically generating a graph, as well as generating a graph only when
the inference engine determines a trend warning has occurred.
Wekell discloses that in one embodiment, the rules under which the
inference engine operates “are based on custom defined factors including
upper and lower limits of physiological parameters, baseline of
physiological parameters, slope, time and calculations.” (Id. ¶ 33.) In other
words, Wekell discloses an inference engine with rules to automatically
generate a trend graph based on, among other factors, test results being
outside of upper and lower limits, i.e., the test result data being abnormal.
We agree with the Examiner that Wekell’s trend graph 504 show a
current data point (at time 0H) and two prior data points (at approximately
6H and 12H). (See Answer 11; see also Wekell, Fig. 5.) Thus, Wekell
discloses automatic generation of a graph when test result data is abnormal,
and further discloses a graph having contents showing current and two prior
data points. In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in determining that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art “to include automatic graphing as is disclosed by Wekell to the
display taught by Schoenberg in order to alert [a] physician of changes in the
patient condition that are outside normal ranges” with the graph showing an
abnormal state and two prior test results. (Final Action 7–8.)
Nonetheless, Appellant argues that the Examiner does not indicate
where Wekell explicitly discloses triggering automatic generation of the
trend graph based on the current result being abnormal and there being at
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

12
least two prior data points. (See Reply Br. 6–7; see also Appeal Br. 18.) We
agree. However, the Examiner finds
that applicant’s original disclosure does not express any
criticality to the number of data point[s] needed to be displayed
on the graph (the at two least [sic] data points) only stating “As
an example of a graph generating rule set, a graph may be
automatically included in a report if the current result is abnormal
and at least two previous data points for that series exist” (see
applicant’s specification p. 17 lines 12-14). Therefore, it would
also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize [the]
number of data points needed to be displayed on the graph in
order to best display the desired trend information around an
abnormal event.

(Answer 13–14.) Appellant does not persuasively argue why the Examiner
erred in determining that it would have been obvious to base the automatic
generation of a graph on the current data being abnormal and there being at
least two prior data points “to optimize [the] number of data points needed to
be displayed on the graph in order to best display the desired trend
information around an abnormal event. (Id. at 14.)
Regardless, Appellant argues that
the person of ordinary skill in the art has no direction for picking
and choosing different items from the combination of four
references in any informed manner so as to generate the claimed
invention. It would only be with luck or hindsight that a person
of ordinary skill in the art may make all the required
modifications to the combination so as to remove features, add
features, and change features of the combination to arrive at the
claimed invention.

(Reply Br. 3–4.) We do not find this argument persuasive.
As noted above, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 416. Such is the case here.
Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

13
Moreover, and as discussed above, the Examiner has presented articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning explaining why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/modify the references
as suggested. See id. at 417; see also In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (“The criterion [in an obviousness analysis], however, is not the
number of references, but what they would have meant to a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”). Thus, the Examiner has
sufficiently supported the obviousness conclusion. Appellant’s other
arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Claims 3–7, 9, 11, 13, 15–24, and 26 are not separately argued and fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Although Appellant addresses dependent claim 8, and dependent
claims 10, 14, and 28 under separate topic headings in the Appeal Brief,
Appellant relies on the arguments provided for claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 21–
22.) For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 8, 10, 14, and 28.

Appeal 2020-006516
Application 14/283,374

14
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–11, 13–24, 26, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
Specifically:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7, 9,
11, 13,
15–24, 26
103(a) Schoenberg, Malave,
Hockersmith, Wekell
1, 3–7, 9,
11, 13,
15–24, 26

8 103(a) Schoenberg, Malave,
Hockersmith, Wekell,
Nitzan
8
10, 14, 28 103(a) Schoenberg, Malave,
Hockersmith, Wekell,
Mayaud
10, 14, 28
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11,
13–24, 26,
28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED