Appeal No. 2002-2066
Application No. 09/288,504
medical treatment plans. In our view, while evidence may indeed
exist that would convince us of the obviousness to the skilled
artisan of applying Ulvila’s particular disclosed decision tree
analysis technique to medical treatment decision making, no such
evidence is forthcoming from the Examiner in this case.
We also agree with Appellant that the decision making
systems disclosed by Ulvila and Dormond would not, even if
combined, teach all of the elements of the appealed independent
claims. A review of the language of independent claims 1, 9, and
18 reveals that they require, inter alia, a decision tree with
branches representing actions to be selected and events which may
occur as a result of the selected actions. A further requirement
is the calculation of expectations of the selected actions in
accordance with occurrence probabilities for the events and
utility values which either “... reflect intentions of the person
to be inspected on the events” (claim 1) or reflect “... the
subjective worth the patient attributes to the corresponding
events that may occur” (claims 9 and 18).
Our review of Ulvila reveals a generalized discussion of a
“personalized” decision tree analysis technique. We find,
however, no disclosure of any calculated expectations of actions
to be selected based on event occurrence probability and utility
-7–7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007