LaBorde, David Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 20202019002518 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/228,739 03/28/2014 David LaBorde 04-004 9246 124474 7590 05/04/2020 Culpepper IP, LLLC 75-170 Hualalai Road Suite B204 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 EXAMINER KOPPIKAR, VIVEK D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 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): admin@culpepperip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID LABORDE ____________ Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–25, 33, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Iconic Data Inc. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to health information voice data, and capturing, processing, and submission of this data on a mobile device (Spec., para. 5). Claim 14, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 14. A charge capture client device comprising: a transceiver for communicating with a charge capture manager device via a connection to a network; a controller coupled to the transceiver; and a memory coupled to the controller, the memory including instructions to configure the controller to: generate a new bill graphical display for facilitating user entry of a new patient data set, the new bill graphical display including: an image graphical interface, wherein an image input interface is generated when the image graphical interface is selected for receiving an image including patient identification information so that the patient identification information can be extracted from the image; a voice input graphical interface, wherein a voice input display subsequent in hierarchy to the new bill graphical display is generated when the voice input graphical interface is selected, the voice input display including: a record control graphical interface for recording voice utterances including patient identification information when selected; a transcript display portion for displaying a transcript of the voice utterances; and a plurality of template graphical interfaces for categorizing information included in the voice utterances to extract the patient identification information; a diagnosis selection graphical interface, wherein a diagnosis selection display is generated when the diagnosis selection graphical interface is selected, the diagnosis selection display subsequent in hierarchy to the new bill graphical display, the diagnosis selection display including: Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 3 an open text field for receiving diagnosis related information; a results display for displaying a plurality of diagnosis codes returned as results based upon the diagnosis related information; and a favorites display for returning a plurality of diagnosis codes selected more than a predetermined number of times in a predetermined previous time period or diagnosis codes previously designated as favorite diagnosis codes; an evaluation and management (E/M) code selection graphical interface; and a procedure code selection graphical interface, wherein a procedure code selection display is generated when the procedure code selection graphical interface is selected, the procedure code selection display subsequent in hierarchy to the new bill graphical display, the procedure code selection display including: an open text field for receiving procedure code related information; and a results display for displaying a plurality of procedure codes returned as results based upon the procedure code related information. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 14–25, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker (US 2002/0019749 A1, pub. Feb. 14, 2002). Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 14–18, 33, and 34 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 14 is improper because the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest a separate diagnosis section graphical interface, E/M code selection graphical interface, and procedure code selection interface (App. Br. 15). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Becker discloses these features at Figure 6 (numbers 62, 64), and paragraphs 84 and 124 (Ans. 4). We agree with the Appellant. Claim 14 requires “a diagnosis selection graphical interface”; “an evaluation and management (E/M) code selection graphical interface”; and “a procedure code selection graphical interface”. Becker at Figure 6 does disclose a separate diagnosis interface (62) and a separate procedure code interface (64). However, this citation to Figure 6 in Becker does not disclose a separate “evaluation and management (E/M) code selection graphical interface” as claimed. The Answer at page 4 acknowledges that “E/M codes are not explicitly recited in Becker” but asserted that such codes are a subset of CPT codes. However, here the claim requires a separate interface for the evaluation and management codes and 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 5 the citations to Becker at Figure 6 and paragraphs 84 and 124 fail to disclose this. For this reason the rejection of claim 14 and its dependent claims is not sustained. The Appellant has argued that the rejection of claim 33 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose a separate diagnosis section display and procedure selection display (App. Br. 16, 17). As noted above the Examiner has determined that these claim limitations are shown by Becker (Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner as Becker at Figure 6 does disclose a separate diagnosis interface (62) and a separate procedure code interface (64) thus meeting the argued claim limitation. For this reason, the rejection of claim 33 is sustained. The Appellant has not provided separate arguments for claim 34, and the rejection of this claim is accordingly sustained as well. Claims 19–25 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 19 is improper for failing to teach or suggest a controller configured to store one or more management codes in the data set for the patient (App. Br. 17, 18). The Appellant also argues that in claim 20 that the prior art fails to disclose “ICD codes”. With regards to claim 23, the Appellant argues the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “generating a bill history display based upon data received from the charge capture manager device” (App. Br. 18, 19). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Becker discloses this at Figure 6 (number 64) and paragraphs 84 and 124 (Ans. 4). With regard to claim 19, we agree with the Examiner. In regard to claim 19 the Appellant has argued that Becker fails to teach or suggest a Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 6 controller configured to store one or more management codes in the data set for the patient (App. Br. 17, 18). In contrast, to claim 14 which included a limitation for an “evaluation and management (E/M) code selection graphical interface,” the claim limitation at issue here in claim 19 is only directed to a controller configured to store “one or more management codes in the data set for the patient,” which is mere data and non-functional descriptive material. Regardless, the diagnosis and procedure data in Figure 6 of Becker may be considered “management codes” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 19 is sustained. With regard to claim 20 the Appellant has argued for the claim limitation that the “plurality of diagnosis codes are . . . (ICD) codes”. Here, the formatting of the diagnosis codes is also mere data and non-functional descriptive material. Regardless, Becker at paragraph 124 does disclose using ICD codes as asserted by the Answer at page 4. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 20 is sustained. With regards to claim 23, the Appellant argues the prior art fails to disclose or suggest “generating a bill history display based upon data received from the charge capture manager device” (App. Br. 18, 19). In contrast the Examiner has cited to these limitations being shown by Becker at Figure 18D (number 292) and paragraph 146 (Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner. Becker in Figure 18D does disclose billing payor data and reports. Becker at paragraph 146 also discloses billing information, billing data, reports, and billing inquiries. Regardless, the use of conventional bill histories in the combination would have been an obvious expedient readily inferred by one of ordinary skill in the art, to Appeal 2019-002518 Application 14/228,739 7 provide accurate billing reports for the parties to the transaction. For this reason, the rejection of claim 23 is sustained. The Appellant has not argued separately for claims 21, 22, 24, and 25, and the rejection of these claims is accordingly sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker. We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 19–25, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 14–25, 33, 34 103 Becker 19–25, 33, 34 14–18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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-IN- PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation