six seven an application claims limitations relating to patient access of the medical database records system and certain patient specific data being stored in a book manipulating that system and contrast the male has to have access to the information in order to designate whether somebody else can have access to is that what your your pen we are application descriptive now it's a little bit different i think the  there's there's two things there's access and there's control and dr karp so cards as six seven application distinguishes between the two of them so the act and through the patient passport control it through the patient and and the doctor uses the patient to access the medical records but there's actually and and they are reference there's only patient control so the patient provides a pass code to a doctor the doctor not actually a password all it is is if it's additional level of security that a doctor uses for the patient doesn't have the key to get through the front for the through the first door with the thing the patient has is it will allow the doctor to open that if you look at the specification is what the patient uses to access the food but there isn't the same level of your absolute right there is the same level of detail in terms of a patient program through which the patient access and didn't break out point twenty three the way your honor did and specifically only said they claimed on the day anticipated that the same reasons why i'm twenty three was so that that analysis wasn't done multiple so if we think that there is a distinction between the two claim i'm saying that we would need to send twenty three back for additional if we agree with them on time nine do we have to send twenty three back are you saying that we should we automatically have to agree with you on claims twenty three is well well i i would think that the court would have to reverse on find twenty three of the out a little bit i know quite understandably exactly what you think it is closing versus what the patent office thinks it discloses if you think allows a patient to actually sit down to some kind of terminal or computer and then enter a code and then look at his or her prescription information and and check off which doctors can see which prescriptions or is it more on the lines of when when somebody goes to their pharmacy their doctor or their other doctor and says here's my access code you can look at my prescriptions i think it's closer to the latter now the references along reference and on that particular point it's pretty sparse and what it says in column ten is the latter of what your honor mention that about that for my daughter is that it seems this is just that a patient can manipulate my eyes to control different levels of access so that maybe the pharmacist can see everything and one doctor can only see abortion and one doctor can only see a portion portion if that's correct that would seem to imply access to some kind of database and at least a list of prescriptions that the patient has that right that's not disclosed and the reference i can see  database that has a list of prescriptions that probably have diagnoses or some reason for this prescription and allows them to manipulate the data in a hope but as far as your your invention but it seems pretty pretty close to me what's  control of that information with the patient in layers but your own i guess my hypothetical assume that they could actually see a list of prescriptions and in the prescription itself usually has some kind of four x condition do this and prescribe this that seems like medical information to me it may not be other medical information but it seems pretty close to what you're describing i think that's correct that's not that's not disclosed in the mail reference or the prescription management system every figure is for a these different levels of controls are for instance i can say that at the pharmacist and look at all of my medical information relating to my cancer and i don't want the pharmacist from the system medical information relating to something out of and that doesn't mean i have the aspects of the reference that it did that it distributes the patient interface components sort of all over the place either when a care in the lot of your other places but there's still no express disclosure of of  access by the patient still i think the most you can read into it is that a patient in the lobby is essentially swipe the card and select dr jones there's nothing about them actually i mean if this were such a key piece of the reference you think given one of the twenty some this too is there is the f d a was in the hipaa laws and people who are skilled in the medical field are aware of those and those for expressively prevent and limit who can prescribe medicine and who can you people's medical records and so if a person could  access cards are controlled cards at the at that at that terminal i don't think they actually go in and log into the database just so there's no disclosure literally doing at the terminal what once they swipe their card and then the next question is would they actually be able specific doctor's nothing that sort of map very often very thing that that what what's really happening is that there's some kind of reader or something that when somebody has a doctor's office they swipe the card and that allows that doctor's office to suddenly access their records disclosure and figure sixteen flushes out on tension headache of that figure sixteen includes computer terminals and other things dr karp never had the opportunity to respond to that before the board so if the call founded co with insufficient evidence to hold the patient access rejection if you disagree with me that figure sixteen lives that evidence we're entitled to go back to prosecution and dr karp in the claims and respond to that rejection  the morning may please the court card is reading the pirate reference in one way and the p t o is reading the records in another way the way the p t o is reading the reference is the more reasonable way to read it and at minimum is supported by the fight has been about patient access and the let's assume that that i disagree with you on content and that at that point the examiners support i find to be lacking but that the give to choose a doctor so that argument wouldn't change let's let's talk about your belief that this is all about creation accent i'd be you know you begin this beginning at the beginning access by giving them the ability to only allow certain physicians to act but given that the entire thrust of the invention is persons who should use is it your view that that know the patient record access code that patient terminals in and the way that part of reading the reference is not the most reasonable way because if you are just handed you agree that i mean in order for you to prevail my hous central additives that shows they can see their own information i understand they have an access code which might be reasonably you could recently infer that they could access the database maybe but where does it say they can see their own information like their prescriptions and their diagnoses and things like that  the right i guess my reading of that is that it's you know using the software to allow for the data files to be seen in the software is distinguished you know they and i talked about you know position software organization software and patient software but he does talk about three different software programs that allow varying levels of access so going back to look the reference doesn't explicitly go through those steps of saying that ok patient was on and is you know reviewing their medical data but you know one more nurses on the heart looking at the information but i mean i think the reasonable way of reading it is that if you like why this set up this terminology in these software if all you're doing is giving the doctor the code i think there is and no line forty one forty five it says the patient interface component of the data of the patient directing the access control ironic separate stations from the point of careless cation you know for example  reception areas but again it's used by prescribers i mean this this is a problem if you cook you start with the whole description of the invention it says a prescription management system can be provided in software a single user operation on a standalone personal computer for use by examples sole practitioner also use their operational local area next for use by physicians and other prescribers within a single facility the hospital group practice or the like prescribing organization and then you go back here and and then you're talking about prescribers so everywhere that there is a reference to use or use or it's only was issues or prescribe obvious they should do in our business rejection and do the work users of the system access what you have to show it is that the patient him or herself can look at the medical data and i just don't see so wait so you're saying claim nine what claim nine says that it's a method for allowing access to our database through the patient program does this was that once a doctor has gotten notification on self deception they can notify the patient of that but the doctor does it the  what so i mean it's an article of manufacture that and i mean the notification if it is going i mean it says that it has to be given to the patient but it doesn't i mean it  i don't think the claims require that i mean it says given situation doesn't say how it's going to the patient doesn't say that it is sending a specific alert to the patient of and so the claim makes it clear that the control program is what performs all of these steps including twenty three and if you flip over to claim twenty five it say where in the stories that been claimed twenty three includes and then the last one is and set issuing step that includes issuing a notification so i think the planes are very clear that it's the control program in the database that issues in the notification not the doctor  could the reference be constructed that way to perform that function the question is does it necessarily result from the face of the referenced that the only thing it could do is what's inherent in the reference was inherent in the property with inherent in the disclosure that our blue brief mirrored our brief before the board well we never had an opportunity for the boardroom and the clients and we never had the opportunity for the panels to in the clients and i think your honor if there is an obvious rejection look it would probably be more difficult on appeal there's more deference there's more factual issues there's a part of things that this pattern goes back in my client almost seventy years old you filed as the original application on this pad in the ninety's and so we're not talking about it obvious today in two thousand and fourteen if you're on the clock learn the same arguments that are already continue to bring in that you've already made well i think there's two responses that one of the examiner never heard of them and the second one is even if the examiner upholds the new ground of rejection we'll have michael i will have the