throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket