`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 68
`Entered: January 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner Cardiocom, LLC filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) seeking
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,840,420 B2
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’420 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. On January
`
`16, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5 on two grounds
`
`of unpatentability (Paper 21, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Robert Bosch
`
`Healthcare Systems, Inc. filed a Corrected Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`36, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 43, “Reply”).
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 53, “Pet. Mot. to
`
`Exclude”) certain evidence submitted by Patent Owner. Patent Owner filed
`
`an Opposition (Paper 57) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 61). Patent
`
`Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 55, “PO Mot. to Exclude”) certain
`
`evidence submitted by Petitioner. Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 58)
`
`and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 60). Patent Owner also filed a
`
`Motion for Observation (Paper 54, “Obs.”) on certain cross-examination
`
`testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, and Petitioner filed a Response (Paper
`
`59, “Obs. Resp.”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on September 9, 2014, and a transcript of
`
`the hearing is included in the record (Paper 67, “Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written
`
`decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
`
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5 are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`A. The ’420 Patent
`
`The ’420 patent1 describes a system for “monitoring a group of
`
`patients having a chronic disease or ongoing health condition” by
`
`monitoring certain parameters of the condition, such as blood glucose level
`
`for diabetes and blood pressure for hypertension. Ex. 1001, Abstract; col. 1,
`
`ll. 30–37. According to the ’420 patent, in prior art outpatient treatment
`
`programs, a clinician often learned about a patient’s status through “patient
`
`initiated events,” such as a visit to the emergency room. Id. at col. 1,
`
`ll. 48–67. As a result, medical needs of unmotivated patients could be
`
`overlooked. Id. In addition, prior art computer systems displayed medical
`
`data only on an “individual patient basis,” making it difficult to determine
`
`“which patients are having the greatest difficulty in controlling their health
`
`condition so that the clinician may focus attention on these patients.” Id. at
`
`col. 2, ll. 1–8. Consequently, according to the ’420 patent, a need existed in
`
`the art to “view medical data for an entire group of patients simultaneously.”
`
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 6–8.
`
`
`1 The ’420 patent issued based on U.S. Patent Application No. 12/767,093,
`filed on April 26, 2010, which is a continuation or continuation-in-part of a
`series of applications descending from U.S. Patent Application No.
`08/732,158, filed on October 16, 1996.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’420 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 above depicts healthcare clinic 10 in communication with patient
`
`sites 36 and 46 via communication network 34. Id. at col. 4, ll. 34–60.
`
`Patient site 36 includes monitoring device 42 for measuring periodically a
`
`particular health parameter of the patient, such as the patient’s blood glucose
`
`level, and transmitting the measurements to healthcare clinic 10. Id. at col.
`
`5, ll. 6–18. Patient site 36 also includes patient unit 38 (e.g., a personal
`
`computer) with message display 40 for displaying messages received from
`
`the clinic (e.g., emails). Id. at col. 4, l. 61–col. 5, l. 5.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`Healthcare clinic 10 comprises clinic server 12 and clinician
`
`workstation 22. Id. at col. 4, ll. 34–60. Clinic server 12 includes master
`
`patient database 18 for storing patient data and overview application 20 for
`
`“performing various calculations using the patient data” and “generating a
`
`group overview chart with the patient data.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 44–49.
`
`Overview application 20 calculates a “control value” for a patient indicating
`
`the patient’s “control over the health condition” (e.g., the mean value of a
`
`parameter over a given period of time). Id. at col. 6, ll. 10–22. The control
`
`values for a group of patients then are displayed in group overview chart 26
`
`on clinician workstation 22. Id. at col. 4, ll. 53–56.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’420 patent depicts an exemplary group overview chart
`
`for a group of ten diabetic patients, and is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3 above, group overview chart 26 has “ten data points,
`
`each data point representing one corresponding patient and indicating the
`
`control value calculated for the patient and the time period elapsed since the
`
`patient’s most recent collection date,” with each data point “represented on
`
`chart 26 by a corresponding icon 66.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 14–19; col. 8,
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`ll. 24–27. According to the ’420 patent, viewing such a chart allows a
`
`clinician to determine which patients are having difficulty with their
`
`condition and require greater attention. Id. at col. 8, ll. 28–37.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’420 patent recites:
`
`1. A method for monitoring a group of patients having a
`health condition via a computer system, said method
`comprising:
`
`generating and displaying a chart via a display, said chart
`having a plurality of data points, wherein each of said data
`points represents one corresponding patient and indicates at
`least one value for the one corresponding patient, each data
`point including an icon, the at least one value being based upon
`a corresponding set of measurements related to a health
`condition;
`
`receiving a user input, the user input selecting a data
`point from the plurality of data points, the data point being
`associated with a selected patient;
`
`correlating the user-selected data point with patient data
`for the selected patient associated with the user-selected data
`point, the patient data including one of: an electronic mail
`address associated with the selected patient and a telephone
`number associated with the selected patient; and
`
`transmitting a communication to the selected patient,
`wherein said communication is transmitted to the selected
`patient via one of: an electronic mail message and a telephone
`message,
`
`wherein the system allows the user to monitor the health
`condition of the plurality of patients via said chart displayed by
`said system and to proactively iniate said communication with
`the selected patient via the system by providing said user input
`to the system.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`C. Prior Art
`
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in the instant inter partes
`
`review are based on the following prior art:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,331,549, issued July 19, 1994
`(Ex. 1002, “Crawford”);
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,471,382, issued November 28, 1995
`(Ex. 1003, “Tallman”); and
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 5,827,180, issued October 27, 1998,
`continuation of an application filed August 24, 1995 (Ex. 1006,
`“Goodman”).
`
`
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Crawford and Tallman
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1
`
`Crawford, Tallman, and
`Goodman
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 2–5
`
`Dec. on Inst. 24.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). There is a “heavy
`
`presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee
`
`acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the
`
`disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.” Id.
`
`“Although an inventor is indeed free to define the specific terms used to
`
`describe his or her invention, this must be done with reasonable clarity,
`
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994). Also, we must be careful not to read a particular embodiment
`
`appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim language is
`
`broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification.”).
`
`
`
`1. Previously Interpreted Terms
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
`
`the ’420 patent as follows:
`
`Term
`
`“chart”
`
`“icon”
`
`“a group of patients
`having a health
`condition”
`
`Interpretation
`
`information arranged in the form of
`one or more tables, graphs, or
`diagrams
`
`a graphical representation of an
`underlying function or data
`
`(preamble term not limiting)
`
`See Dec. on Inst. 8–13. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in
`
`their Patent Owner Response and Reply. We do not perceive any reason or
`
`evidence that now compels any deviation from these interpretations.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`Accordingly, we adopt our previous analysis for purposes of this decision.
`
`We also interpret two other terms in claim 1.
`
`
`
`2. “Data Point”
`
`The parties do not propose any specific interpretations for the term
`
`“data point” in claim 1. In attempting to distinguish one of the prior art
`
`references at issue (Crawford), however, Patent Owner argues that each
`
`“data point” in claim 1 must be “separate” from its corresponding “icon,”
`
`and that the “data point distribution” in the recited chart must be “dynamic”
`
`(i.e., data points change location over time). PO Resp. 36–38. Petitioner
`
`disagrees with both assertions. Reply 9–11. We conclude that interpretation
`
`of “data point” is necessary to resolve the dispute.
`
`Claim 1 recites “generating and displaying a chart via a display, said
`
`chart having a plurality of data points, wherein each of said data points
`
`represents one corresponding patient and indicates at least one value for the
`
`one corresponding patient, each data point including an icon,” and
`
`“receiving a user input, the user input selecting a data point from the
`
`plurality of data points, the data point being associated with a selected
`
`patient.” Thus, from the claim itself, we know that (1) the chart has a
`
`plurality of data points; (2) each of the data points represents a
`
`corresponding patient and indicates a value for the corresponding patient;
`
`(3) each of the data points includes an icon; and (4) at least one of the data
`
`points is capable of being selected via user input.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’420 patent, shown above, depicts group overview
`
`chart 26. The Specification describes group overview chart 26 as having
`
`“ten data points,” where each data point “represent[s] one corresponding
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`patient and indicat[es] the control value calculated for the patient and the
`
`time period elapsed since the patient’s most recent collection date.”
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 12–17; col. 8, ll. 25–27. Each data point is “represented
`
`on chart 26 by a corresponding icon 66,” shown as a diamond shape, and
`
`icon 66 may change appearance depending on the patient’s data (e.g.,
`
`non-compliant patients shown as “flashing icons” and compliant patients
`
`shown as “non-flashing icons”). Id. at col. 7, ll. 17–39; col. 8, ll. 24–25
`
`(“Each data point on chart 26 is displayed as a corresponding icon 66.”).
`
`A clinician uses a mouse or other pointing device to “select[] patients from
`
`chart 26 by clicking the icon corresponding to the patient.” Id. at col. 8,
`
`ll. 38–42.
`
`Based on how the term “data point” is used in the claims, and the
`
`description in the Specification, we conclude that each data point is not
`
`simply a location in x-y space on the chart. Some type of additional display
`
`characteristic for the data point is required. Otherwise, if the data point was
`
`just an intangible location and did not display anything to the user, it would
`
`not be possible for the data point to “indicat[e]” a value for the patient, and it
`
`would not be possible for the user to “select[]” the data point because the
`
`user would not see anything at the location to select.
`
`Further, the display for the data point may be the icon itself. This is
`
`consistent with claim 1’s recitation that the data point “includ[e]” an icon.
`
`We agree with Petitioner that “including” in claim 1 means the same thing as
`
`“comprising” and does not require that the data point be completely separate
`
`from the icon. Reply 10; see Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`
`314 F.3d 1313, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“comprising” and “including”
`
`mean that “the named elements are essential, but other elements may be
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim”) (citation and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted). For example, a claim may recite a piece
`
`of furniture, wherein the piece of furniture “comprises” a chair. The piece of
`
`furniture may be the chair itself, or it may be the chair and something else,
`
`but it does not need to be separate and distinct from the chair. Likewise, the
`
`data point may be the icon, or it may be the icon and something else, but it
`
`does not need to be separate and distinct from the icon.
`
`Notably, although Patent Owner argues that the “data point” and
`
`“icon” in claim 1 must be “separate,” it does not explain how the features are
`
`“separate” in the chart shown in Figure 3 of the ’420 patent, or how the
`
`Specification otherwise supports such a reading of claim 1. PO Resp.
`
`36–37. Indeed, Patent Owner’s declarant, Yadin David, Ed.D.,
`
`acknowledged that the diamond shapes shown in Figure 3 of the ’420 patent
`
`are both data points and icons. See Ex. 1041 at 342:20–343:6. Also,
`
`although the data points in the exemplary embodiment shown in Figure 3 of
`
`the ’420 patent change location over time as the patients’ data changes, we
`
`do not see any requirement in claim 1 or the Specification that data points
`
`must change location over time, as Patent Owner suggests. See PO Resp.
`
`37–38. Therefore, we do not interpret claim 1 to have either requirement
`
`proposed by Patent Owner.2
`
`
`2 At the hearing, Patent Owner cited Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco
`Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010), where the
`Federal Circuit held that “[w]here a claim lists elements separately, ‘the
`clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct
`component[s]’ of the patented invention” (citations omitted). See Ex. 2080
`at 63; Tr. 56:10–57:2. Becton is inapposite, however, because in that case,
`the claim at issue recited separately a hinged arm and spring means
`“connected to” the hinged arm. Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254. The claim did not
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “data point” to mean a display of data at a
`
`location on the chart.
`
`
`
`3. “The System Allows the User . . . to Proactively Ini[ti]ate3 Said
`Communication With the Selected Patient Via the System by Providing Said
`User Input to the System”
`
`Patent Owner argues that claim 1 should be interpreted to require that
`
`the communication be “initiated before the patient develops an urgent
`
`medical need.” PO Resp. 41 (emphasis omitted). In support of its proposed
`
`interpretation, Patent Owner cites three dictionary definitions of the term
`
`“proactive,” portions of the Specification of the ’420 patent, and testimony
`
`from the parties’ declarants. Id. Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed interpretation. Reply 12.
`
`We are not persuaded that the “proactively ini[ti]ate” language in
`
`claim 1 requires the communication to be initiated before the patient
`
`develops an urgent medical need. The claim itself does not recite anything
`
`about an urgent medical need or include any language indicating that
`
`initiation of the communication should be defined in terms of an urgent
`
`medical need. Further, at least one of the dictionary definitions submitted by
`
`Patent Owner is broader than the interpretation it seeks, and defines
`
`“proactive” as “creating or controlling a situation by taking the initiative or
`
`anticipating events; ready to take initiative, tending to make things happen.”
`
`
`recite one structure “comprising” or “including” the other, as is the case here
`with “data point” and “icon.”
`
` 3
`
` We agree with Patent Owner that “iniate” in claim 1 is misspelled, and that
`the term should be “initiate.” See PO Resp. 40 n.1.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`Ex. 2013 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation reflects
`
`the latter meaning of anticipation of a specific event—development of an
`
`urgent medical need—but not the former meaning of creating or controlling
`
`a situation by taking the initiative. The ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`“proactive,” therefore, is broader than what Patent Owner proposes. Finally,
`
`the Specification of the ’420 patent does not define “proactively ini[ti]ate” or
`
`demonstrate a disavowal of the full scope of the term “proactive.” Rather,
`
`the only portion of the Specification disclosing proactive communication
`
`before a patient develops an urgent medical need describes such
`
`communication as an “advantage of the multiple patient monitoring system
`
`of the preferred embodiment.” See Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 59–65.
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “the system allows the user . . . to
`
`proactively ini[ti]ate said communication with the selected patient via the
`
`system by providing said user input to the system” to mean that the system
`
`allows the user to control the initiation of the communication to the selected
`
`patient by providing the user input on his or her own initiative or in
`
`anticipation of an event.
`
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The parties’ declarants apply similar definitions for the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’420 patent (October 16, 1996,
`
`when the parent application of the ’420 patent was filed), and neither party
`
`contends that the minor differences between those definitions impact the
`
`obviousness analysis. Petitioner’s declarant, Robert T. Stone, Ph.D.,
`
`testifies that a person of ordinary skill would have had (1) “a bachelor’s
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science, or its equivalent, and
`
`at least 2 years of experience with the design and programming of patient
`
`monitoring systems,” and (2) “at least 1 year of experience with the design
`
`or programming of networked systems.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 22; see Pet. 6; Ex. 1022
`
`¶¶ 19–21. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. David, agrees with the first portion
`
`of Dr. Stone’s definition, but disagrees as to the second portion, testifying
`
`that a person of ordinary skill would not have had experience with the design
`
`or programming of networked systems. Ex. 2010 ¶ 24.
`
`Based on our review of the ’420 patent, the types of problems and
`
`solutions described in the ’420 patent and cited prior art, and the testimony
`
`of the parties’ declarants, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science (or its equivalent), and at least two years of experience with the
`
`design and programming of patient monitoring systems. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, l. 23–col. 2, l. 67 (describing prior art medical monitoring systems
`
`that collected data from remote monitoring devices, and stating that the ’420
`
`patent describes “computer systems for managing healthcare”); Ex. 1008
`
`¶¶ 1–5 (background of Dr. Stone); Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 1–9 (background of
`
`Dr. David).
`
`We do not include a requirement of one year of experience with the
`
`design or programming of networked systems. Although the challenged
`
`claims recite “transmitting a communication” to a patient via “electronic
`
`mail message” or “telephone message,” the Specification describes such
`
`communications only at a high level of generality. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 4, ll. 50–52 (“Clinic server 12 is coupled to a modem M1 for connecting
`
`server 12 to a communication network 34, preferably a public telephone
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`network or similar data transmission network.”); col. 8, ll. 53–55 (“mail
`
`server application 16 transmits each message 78 through network 34 to the
`
`corresponding patient”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had at least two years of experience with the design and programming of
`
`patient monitoring systems, and, therefore, would have had at least some
`
`familiarity with the use of networked systems (e.g., to communicate with
`
`monitored patients), but may not have had one year of specific experience
`
`designing or programming the underlying networked systems that enable
`
`electronic mail or telephone message communication with patients.
`
`
`
`C. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner argues in its Petition that claim 1 is unpatentable over
`
`Crawford and Tallman under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), relying on the Declaration
`
`of Dr. Stone (Ex. 1008) in support. Pet. 19–26, 32–42. We have reviewed
`
`the Petition, Patent Owner Response, and Reply, as well as the evidence
`
`discussed in each of those papers, and are persuaded, by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence, that claim 1 would have been obvious based on the
`
`combination of Crawford and Tallman.
`
`
`
`1. Crawford
`
`Crawford discloses a “medical monitoring system in which a plurality
`
`of vital signs monitors for a plurality of patients provide data on a continuing
`
`basis to a central server.” Ex. 1002, Abstract. The system provides an
`
`overview display (e.g., a computer touchscreen) showing, for example, a
`
`hospital floor plan with room icons. Id. at col. 5, ll. 19–23; col. 6, ll. 34–38.
`
`Alarms and warnings are displayed whenever a patient’s monitored vital
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`signs fall outside a range pre-selected by the health care provider. Id. at
`
`col. 5, ll. 23–37; col. 8, ll. 22–44. Figure 3 of Crawford is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 above depicts Room 221 with a critical emergency and Rooms 208
`
`and 228 with warnings. Id. at col. 5, ll. 23–58. The rooms may be colored
`
`red, yellow, or green, or shown as flashing, depending on the condition of
`
`the patient (red and flashing for critical, yellow for warning, and green for
`
`normal). Id. at col. 6, ll. 3–18. A user can touch the screen on a particular
`
`room to call up information for the particular patient. Id. at col. 6, ll. 34–38.
`
`The system also can display past vital sign measurements for a patient. Id.
`
`at col. 2, ll. 34–37; col. 8, ll. 52–62; Fig. 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`
`2. Tallman
`
`Tallman discloses a “network management system” where nurses and
`
`other health care professionals speak to patients over the telephone using
`
`“proprietary information tools . . . to help patients assess their health needs
`
`and then select appropriate care.” Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 7–18. When a patient
`
`calls a nurse, the nurse accesses the patient’s data stored in the system and
`
`asks the patient questions. Id. at col. 5, ll. 48–54; Fig. 2. The system then
`
`makes a determination as to whether the patient is eligible for services and
`
`whether the patient requires medical intervention. Id. at col. 5, l. 52–col. 6,
`
`l. 17. During the course of a patient call, the system displays various screens
`
`to the nurse, which may include questions to ask the patient (e.g., Figures 22
`
`and 74) and messages to read to the patient (e.g., Figures 24, 75, and 76),
`
`and logs the patient’s responses as entered by the nurse. Id. at col. 22,
`
`ll. 56–67; col. 23, ll. 44–49. If the patient requires medical intervention, the
`
`nurse uses the system to determine what level and type of care is needed,
`
`and to help the patient select a health care provider. Id. at col. 5, ll. 17–21;
`
`col. 6, ll. 23–30. If the patient does not need medical intervention, the nurse
`
`uses the system to provide home care instructions and to schedule a
`
`follow-up call with the patient if necessary. Id. at col. 6, ll. 17–22. Tallman
`
`describes specific procedures for performing a callback to the patient and
`
`logging the results of the callback. Id. at col. 34, l. 38–col. 35, l. 67.
`
`
`
`3. Analysis
`
`a. Crawford and Tallman Are Analogous Art
`
`Before turning to Petitioner’s substantive arguments regarding
`
`Crawford and Tallman, we must determine whether the references are
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`analogous art to the ’420 patent. “A reference qualifies as prior art for an
`
`obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the
`
`claimed invention.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the
`
`art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed
`
`and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor,
`
`whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`
`with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . it is one which,
`
`because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended
`
`itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” Innovention
`
`Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Crawford is analogous art, but
`
`argues that Tallman is not analogous art under either test. PO Resp. 16–20.
`
`The field of endeavor of the ’420 patent is using a computer system to
`
`monitor a group of medical patients. See id. at 2, 17; Reply 2; Ex. 1001,
`
`claim 1 (“method for monitoring a group of patients having a health
`
`condition via a computer system”); col. 1, ll. 23–26 (stating that the
`
`disclosed invention relates to “computer systems for managing healthcare”
`
`and “proactively monitoring a group of patients having a chronic disease or
`
`ongoing health condition”); Dec. on Inst. 16.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Tallman is outside this field because it
`
`relates to providing assistance to individuals “seeking” health care services
`
`“before they enter the health care system,” not actively “monitoring”
`
`existing patients. PO Resp. 17–18. This argument is not persuasive.
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`Although Tallman describes situations where an individual makes contact
`
`with the system for the first time, it also describes maintaining information
`
`about, and communicating with, existing patients. The disclosed network
`
`management system includes patient assessment program 17 and patient
`
`database 19. Ex. 1003, Fig. 1. An existing patient may contact a nurse
`
`through the network management system, “[p]atient information is gathered
`
`and eligibility is confirmed at 42 by accessing data from a patient chart at
`
`44,” and the nurse then uses the patient’s information to determine whether
`
`the patient requires medical intervention. Id. at col. 5, l. 52–col. 6, l. 17; col.
`
`17, ll. 10–12 (describing “how to find a patient’s chart when it already exists
`
`in the system”); col. 20, l. 35–col. 21, l. 22 (describing Figure 13, a “Patient
`
`Chart window” for “viewing information on file for the patient,” and Figure
`
`14 displaying “Health Information” for the selected patient); see also col. 18,
`
`l. 38–col. 19, l. 13 (describing actions to be taken “[i]f the patient requesting
`
`services has not used the system before” or “[i]f the patient has used the
`
`system before”). Patent Owner and Dr. David also acknowledge that the
`
`system disclosed in Tallman is used by individuals who are not yet patients
`
`as well as existing patients. See Ex. 1041 at 423:22–424:25; Tr. 37:1–8.
`
`Thus, Tallman is from the same field of endeavor as the ’420 patent.
`
`Tallman also is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems
`
`addressed by the ’420 patent, including those associated with “effectively
`
`managing the medical priorities of [a group of] patients.” See Ex. 1001,
`
`col. 1, l. 41–col. 2, l. 12. Patent Owner argues that the named inventor of the
`
`’420 patent was concerned with managing the medical needs of a group of
`
`patients who have “already” entered the health care system and been
`
`diagnosed, whereas Tallman is concerned with managing access to health
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`care providers “before” someone becomes a patient. PO Resp. 18–20.
`
`Again, Patent Owner reads Tallman too narrowly, as it relates to assessing
`
`and managing the medical conditions of existing patients as well as new
`
`patients, for the reasons explained above. Tallman, therefore, is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the problems associated with effectively managing the medical
`
`needs of a group of patients with health conditions.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that Crawford and Tallman are
`
`analogous art to the ’420 patent.
`
`
`
`b. Crawford and Tallman Teach Every Limitation of Claim 1
`
`Petitioner has presented evidence showing that Crawford and Tallman
`
`teach every limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that
`
`Crawford teaches a medical monitoring system for a group of patients that
`
`generates and displays a “chart” via a “display” (i.e., the overview display
`
`shown in Figure 3), the chart having a plurality of “data points” each
`
`representing one patient and indicating a value for the patient (e.g., a critical
`
`or warning situation) based on measurements for the patient, with each data
`
`point having an “icon” (i.e., image of a room). Pet. 32–35 (citing Ex. 1002,
`
`col. 3, ll. 38–43; col. 5, ll. 38–51; col. 8, ll. 11–16). Petitioner further
`
`contends that Crawford teaches receiving a “user input” selecting one of the
`
`data points (i.e., user selection by touching the screen or using the keyboard)
`
`and correlating the user-selected data point with “patient data” (e.g., patient
`
`name or ailment). Id. at 36–39 (citing Ex. 1002, col. 6, ll. 34–38).
`
`Petitioner relies on Tallman as teaching correlation with a particular
`
`type of patient data, namely the “telephone number associated with the
`
`selected patient,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003,
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00449
`Patent 7,840,420 B2
`
`Figs. 7, 12, 13, 37–39). Petitioner also relies on Tallman as teaching the
`
`limitation of “transmitting a communication to the selected patient” via a
`
`“telephone message,” where the communication is “proactively
`
`ini[ti]ate[d].” Id. at 40–42 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 6, 24; col. 34, ll. 40–54).
`
`Petitioner’s analysis, supported by the testimony of Dr. Stone, is persuasive.
`
`See Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 26–50.
`
`Patent Owner makes four arguments with respect to claim 1. Fi