Please see below. I have converted the attachment to plain text and included it below, as well.
I have asked jenny how we can access a copy of the patent application - I can see teh application details, but not the application itself in the IP Australia Web site. How did we access it in 2004? Alas, the old GPCG archives are no searchable - what a shame, what a loss of community memory. Tim C -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: Email to Tim Churches and GPCG Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:58:38 +1100 From: Jenny Laffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 'Tim Churches' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: 'Vincent McCauley' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Dear Tim During 2004, you co-ordinated a lively email discussion on the GPCG list with respect to the Pharmacy Guild patent for consumer-controlled EHR. This patent application is still in the system and due for examination shortly. The MSIA is planning to oppose this patent and we have compiled this list of 'prior art' (i.e. prior to the provisional patent application date of 14 March 2001). If GPCG members would like to recommend any further references that we can include in this submission to the Patents Commissioner, we would appreciate your input. You will notice we already used some of the information in your email conversations in this document. Would you mind circulating to the GPGG email list to contribute if they wish? Apologies in advance to those GPCG participants who are also in MSIA - they will have got this twice. MSIA will be sending this list to the Patents Commissioner by the end of the month. Cheers and many thanks Jenny Laffey (On behalf of MSIA Management Committee) ----------------------------------------------- MSIA Opposition to Australian Patent Application 2002242456 MSIA Review of Prior Art on Australian Patent Application 2002242456 Method and system for sharing personal health data providing authentication to a health care provider to access selected items of the data (Pharmacy Guild of Australia) >From the Worldwide Patents database: 1. Information management system for personal health digitizers - Conception Technology Inc (1999). http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9963886&F=0. This patent contains all the features described in claim 1 except the last reference to the health care provider recording details of the consumer in the database. As this is a standard feature of all health record databases, we do not believe the patent under examination contains any inventive steps at all. 2. System for providing dynamic data informed consent to provide data privacy and security in database systems and in networked communications – Privacomp Inc, US (1999). http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO0133936&; F=0. While not specific to health, this patent application describes a system by which the consumer can define a set of data access rules which designate the client companies who have access to their personal data and the particular segments of that personal data to which each client company is entitled. We do not believe the application of these concepts to a particular domain (i.e. health) involves an inventive step. 3. A system for protection of unauthorized entry into accessing records in a record database (Garfinkle Ltd Partnership, 1999). http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&DB=EPODOC&PN=wo00268 23&PGS=10&CY=ep&LG=en&ST=advanced. While not specific to health, this patent application describes the concept of a user controlling access to information (and levels of information) by other users of a database. We do not believe the application of these concepts to a particular type of user (i.e. health consumer) involves an inventive step. 4. Networked Personal Contact Manager (Sage Enterprises, 1999). http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9923591&; F=0. While not health specific, this patent application describes the concept of a member controlling access to their information (and levels of information) by other members. We do not believe the application of these concepts to a particular type of ‘member’ (i.e. health consumer) involves an inventive step. 5. Electronic Medical Records System – Azron Inc US (1998). http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9813783&; F=0. Contains a general description of most electronic medical records in widespread use – general evidence of prior art around electronic health records. Department of Health & Ageing sponsored project: the Better Medication Management System (in which the patent applicant participated) The following BMMS project information describes the general concept of consumers controlling access to their medical record (in whole and in part) although not the specific technical mechanisms by which this could be achieved. The patent applicants, through their involvement in this project, would reasonably have had access to all this documentation at the time of patent filing, some of which was public domain, some of which was available to committee members including the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. 1. Press release from Dr Michael Wooldridge at Australian Health Ministers’ Conference (2000) stated, with reference to the project: “this affords consumers the opportunity to become active participants in their medication management. It also enables doctors and pharmacists – with patient consent – to make prescribing and dispensing decisions based on knowledge of what has been prescribed for a patient before and what other current medications a patient is taking.” (Copy attached as Appendix 1). 2. Health Insurance Commission (2000). Better Medication Management System: Third Party Software Vendor Functional Requirements (Version 1.0, Draft) state (see paragraphs 2.1.3 and 2.1.4): “The medication records held by BMMS will be accessible to individual Consumers and, with the explicit consent of the Consumer, to participating Prescribers and Dispensers. “Records can be accessed individually, as a specific medication prescription/record, or as a group in the form of a Consumer Medication History Update. Consumers have the right to request that a specific record be suppressed (at the item level) any time during the life of that record, ie. at Lodge, Dispense or any time thereafter. When suppression is set on a prescription item, access to that item will be blocked to all except the original parties to the item. These parties include the individual Prescriber, the individual Dispenser, and the Consumer themselves. Consumers may opt to have the suppression of records overridden in the event of an emergency. The options for emergency override are determined during Consumer Registration”. (Copy attached as Appendix 2). 3. BMMS Technical Options paper (2000, June) includes the assumptions that: “access to an individual’s medication record will be consumer controlled; “consumers will be able to suppress any medication event from their medication record” (Copy attached as Appendix 3). 4. Privacy Framework for the Better Medication Management System (BMMS) – para 3.3.7 states that consumers will have the ability to suppress “all or part of” their medication record (copy attached as Appendix 4) Academic publications 1. Ho, A (1998). Patient-Controlled Electronic Medical Records. American Psychiatric Association Institute on Psychiatric Services, Los Angeles, October. Internet Reference: http://www.txoutcome.org/scripts/zope/readings/patientcontrolled. Discloses features contained in claim 1 and in claim 26. 2. Christopher C, Tsai, BA and Starren J (2001). Patient participation in electronic medical records. JAMA; 285:1765. This paper describes patients using the World Wide Web to interact with their records, and a specific diabetes project starting in 2000 using this method. Discloses features contained in Claim 1 and Claim 26. 3. Kohane et al (1996): Building electronic medical records via the World Wide Web; JAMA: 3; 191-207. Discloses some of the features contained in Claim 26. 4. Schoenberg R and Safran C (2000). Internet based repository of medical records that retains patient confidentiality. BMJ; 321:1199-1203 (11 Nov). Internet reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7270/1199. Discloses features contained in Claims 1 and 26. 5. Coiera E (Jan, 2001). “E-Consent”: Consumer consent in Electronic Health Data Exchange Report prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Health & Ageing. Discloses many of the features contained in Claims 1 and 26. See in particular p 7 (model of “general denial with specific consent”) which discloses the features contained in claim 1; while not in the public domain immediately at this date, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was on a number of Commonwealth DoHA committees at that time (including the BMMS project committee) and may have received a copy (note that the author recommended it be published for wider discussion in the health community). Evidence that this document was published by DoHA (date of publication unknown) comes from later citations of the paper including: C Ruan and V Varadharajan (2003). Supporting E-consent on Health Data by Logic - group of 2; LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE –Springer, Page 1. Ruan C and Varadharajan V (2003). An Authorization Model for E-consent Requirement in a Health Care Application - group of 3 LECTURE NOTES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE – Springer, Page 1. 6. Masys DR and Baker DB (1997). Patient-centred access to secure systems online (PCASSO): a secure approach to clinical data access via the World Wide Web. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp; 340-3. This paper discloses most of the features in Claims 1 and 26; example paper – see also other publications on the PCASSO project by Masys and Baker during 1990s and beyond. 7. Clarke R (2000). Consumer consent in electronic health data exchange: catalogue of cases (Report for Department of Health & Ageing). High level description of the project at: http://www.ict.csiro.au/page.php?did=58 (Roger) e-consent. Project outcomes published on DoHA website (no longer available, date of publication not known). Discloses some of the concepts in Claims 1 and 26. International Standards Publications 1. The Centre for European Normalisation (CEN) is a standards setting body for Europe inclusive of Health IT standards. It published the European Prestandard in 1999 (CEN / TC251 ENV 13606). This Prestandard describes the concept of a centralised electronic health record with template-based access control. We do not believe the application of these concepts to a particular type of user (i.e. health consumer) involves an inventive step. By way of example, the scope of the Prestandard includes the following text with respect to access control of the electronic health record: “This European prestandard specifies data objects for describing rules for distribution or sharing of electronic healthcare records in whole or in part. This European prestandard establishes general principles for the interaction of these data objects with other components and mechanisms within an electronic healthcare record application, thereby controlling the distribution of electronic healthcare records in whole or in part. This European prestandard establishes ways of creating information with associated security attributes. This European prestandard defines a methodology for constructing rules built from defined data objects, capable of being implemented using a range of techniques, to effect the control of sharing of electronic healthcare record data…This European prestandard specifies a method for constructing an Access Log, that can be rendered human viewable, that records distribution of the data to which a Distribution Rule is attached… This European prestandard allows the sharing of records distributed in space, time or responsibility. A complete copy of CEN / TC251 ENV 13606 is available to the Patents Commissioner on request.
List of prior art - draft V2.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
