AgaMatrix, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

14266074 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/266,074 04/30/2014 Anoop Rao AGAM.P-071-2 8358
57381 7590 05/13/2020
Larson & Anderson, LLC
P.O. BOX 4928
DILLON, CO 80435
EXAMINER
SIEFKE, SAMUEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANOOP RAO
Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074
Technology Center 1700
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5. See Final Act. 2, 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AgaMatrix, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a web-enabled portion device (WEPD) (for
example, an IPhone) that may be integrated with additional devices such as a
glucose meter (GM) or blood glucose meter (BGM). Spec 1–2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A portable combination for measuring a glucose
concentration value in a sample, the combination comprising:
(A) a portable glucose meter (GM) having a test strip port for
receiving a disposable electrochemical test strip, wherein the GM
is configured to calculate a glucose concentration value in a
sample applied to a test strip received in the test strip port; and
(B) a web enabled portable device (WEPD) having a
rechargeable WEPD battery and a wireless connection to the
internet, wherein:
(I) the GM and the WEPD are electrically coupled to allow
power transfer between the GM, and the WEPD,
(II) the GM and the WEPD are communicatively coupled
to allow for data transfer between the GM and the WEPD,
and
(III) the GM and WEPD are detachable from and
reattachable to each other to form the portable combination.
Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 5).

REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Brown et al. (“Brown”) US 2008/0300920 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Frikart EP 1 764 030 A1 Sept. 20, 2005

Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Frikart. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable in view of Frikart and Brown. Final Act. 5.
OPINION
Claim 12
Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that
Frikart discloses an apparatus including an “GM and [an] WEPD [that] are
electrically coupled to allow power transfer between the GM, and the
WEPD” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 2. Appellant acknowledges that
“Frikart discloses a blood glucose meter that is designed to be connected to a
portable electrical device” but argues that the “one way or unidirectional
connection” of Frikart does not disclose the recited “power transfer between
the GM, and the WEPD”3 which “is bidirectional, so that either device can
transfer power to the other device or devices.” Id.
The Examiner responds by defining the claim term “between” as
“from one to another” under the broadest reasonable standard. Ans. 7.4 The

2 Appellant does not separately argue for claims 2 and 4 and they stand or
fall with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3–4; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3 We note that the claim term “power transfer between the GM, and the
WEPD” is not grammatically logical because a comma separates “the GM”
and “the WEPD.”
4 Appellant contends that the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument
is a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 1. This argument is not persuasive.
In any event, any request to seek review of an examiner’s asserted failure to
designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer
must be by way of a petition to the Director under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 filed
Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074

4
Examiner finds that “Frikart discloses GM 1 and the WEPD 2 are
electrically coupled at an electrical connection 5’ (WEPD) and 5 (GM) for
power transfer” which meets the claim limitation. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because it is
unsupported by the record. Appellant does not cite to the Specification to
support the argument that a power transfer “between” two devices is
bidirectional. Although Appellant cites the “Specification at p. 8, lines 7-12
and p. 9, line 3 to p. 11, line 2”5 as written description support for the claim
term at issue, neither these nor other portions of the Specification are cited in
support of the argument with regard to “between.” See Appeal Br. 2.
Appellant does not direct us to the Specification to support the argument that
“either device can transfer power to the other device or devices” or that
“power might be transferred back to the WEPD” from the GM. See Appeal
Br. 2; Reply Br. 2.
The Specification is consistent with the Examiner’s interpretation of
the claim term. For example, the Specification provides that “the GM can
draw operating power from either or both SBP 103 and the WEPD 105.”
Spec. 8. The Specification provides that GM 101 may “draw operating
power first from the SBP 103, second from the WEPD 105 battery, and third

within two months from the entry of the examiner’s answer and before the
filing of any reply brief. Failure of an appellant to timely file such a petition
constitutes a waiver of any arguments that a rejection must be designated as
a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a); see also, e.g., Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure § 1002.02(c)6 and § 1207.03(b) (9th ed., Rev.
7, November 2015); In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984–85 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(holding that issues regarding whether an examiner abused his or her
discretion in matters of practice and procedure are not subject to appeal).
5 The Specification as originally filed lacks line numbers.
Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074

5
from the GM 101 battery, if the GM 101 battery is present.” Id. at 9. Such a
charging sequence “ensures minimizing power draw and providing the most
operational power remaining in the WEPD battery and lastly and most
preferably in the GM battery.” Id.
Appellant’s argument with regard to Frikart’s teaching is unpersuasive
because the argument is premised on the contention that “power transfer
between the GM, and the WEPD” requires a bidirectional power transfer.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites “comprising a
portable rechargeable supplemental battery pack (SBP).”
Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim
3 because claim 3 states that “an external, third device is added to the device
configuration.” Appeal Br. 3. Appellant argues that the device in Frikart “is
part of the glucose meter and intended to operate the glucose meter when not
connected to portable electrical device 2” and does not anticipate claim 3. Id.
We are not persuaded by this argument because it is not based on the
claim language which requires no more than “a portable rechargeable
supplemental battery pack (SBP).”
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 as well as claim 4 and additionally
recites “wherein the GM first draws operating power from the SBP and then
from the GM battery, and causes the GM battery to be recharged first,
Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074

6
followed by the SBP, when the combination is connected to an external
recharging power source.”6
In rejecting claim 5, the Examiner reasons that the prior art devices
are “structurally capable of performing” the recited limitations. Ans. 11.
Appellant does not dispute this finding. See Reply Br. 2–3 (arguing instead
that “this is new ground of rejection and sufficient reason to reopen
prosecution”).7 Because Appellant does not address this finding by the
Examiner, no error has been identified and the rejection of claim 5 is
sustained.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3 102(b) Frikart 1, 3
2, 4, 5 103(a) Frikart, Brown 2, 4, 5
Overall
Outcome:
1–5

6 Should prosecution continue, the Examiner may consider whether claim 5
which recites both an apparatus and a method of operating the apparatus
meets the definiteness requirement under section 112. See Ans. 10–11
(noting that “the limitation[s] of claim 5 [are] process limitations”).
7 With regard to whether the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument is
a new ground of rejection of claim 5, we decline to reach the issue for the
reasons provided in FN 4 supra.
Appeal 2019-004442
Application 14/266,074

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED