B. BRAUN AVITUM AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020006171 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2021)

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.
15/644,164 07/07/2017 MEIKE PETERS BBMG-283US 1369
169726 7590 09/14/2021
Christopher A. Rothe
Culhane Meadows, PLLC
1665 Royal Berkshire Circle
West Chester, PA 19380
EXAMINER
ORME, PATRICK JAMES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1779
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eOfficeAction@AppColl.com
patentdocket@cm.law
ssarchet@cm.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MEIKE PETERS,
SEBASTIAN BRÖGGER, BJÖRN BRÖKER, and
BRUNO STENZEL
____________

Appeal 2020-006171
Application 15/644,164
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12–14, 16–18, and 20–232 of
Application 15/644,164. Non-Final Act. (November 29, 2019). Because at
least one of the claims on appeal has been twice rejected, we have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies B. Braun Avitum AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellant has canceled claim 24. Amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.116,
filed April 29, 2020.
Appeal 2020-006171
Application 15/644,164
2
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
I. BACKGROUND
The ’164 Application describes a display device for medical apparatus
such as a dialysis machine. Spec. 1. In particular, the display device is
configured as a head-up display. Id. The display device is said to provide
advantages over conventional display devices such as CRT or LCD
monitors. Id.
Claim 12 is representative of the ’164 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Amended Claims Appendix
(“Amend. Claims App.”), filed April 29, 2020.
12. A display device of a medical apparatus, comprising:
a projection surface mounted to the medical apparatus
and configured to present a predetermined display content to a
user of medical apparatus on a front side of the projection
surface; and
a projection device mounted on the medical apparatus
and configured to protect the predetermined display content
from a rear side of the projection surface onto the projection
surface;
wherein a predetermined portion of the projection surface
is provided for displaying at least one predetermined operating
condition of the medical apparatus, and in at least at a first and
a second operating condition at least one of the predetermined
first portion or a predetermined second portion of the projection
surface is controllably configured to display the first and second
operating conditions in different colors; and
wherein the display device further comprises at least one
of:
at least one interactive element which is arranged
on the projection surface and is configured to detect an
interaction of the user in a touch-sensitive manner, or
Appeal 2020-006171
Application 15/644,164
3
at least one manually-operable key, actuator or
switch integrated in the projection surface.
Amend. Claims App. 8.
II. REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 12–14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Blair.3 Non-Final Act. 5.
2. Claims 16–18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Blair and Pryor.4 Non-Final Act. 8.
3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Blair and Bröker.5 Non-Final Act. 9.
4. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Blair and Benatti.6 Non-Final Act. 10.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Rejection of claims 12–14 and 20 over Blair
Claim 12 is the only independent claim subject to this ground of
rejection. See Amend. Claims App. 8–10. Appellant’s only argument for
reversal of this rejection is based upon the limitations in claim 12. See
Appeal Br. 4–6. Thus, we select claim 12 as representative of the claims

3 US 2015/0187196 A1, published July 2, 2015.
4 US 2015/0070319 A1, published March 12, 2015.
5 DE 10 2013 111 084 A1, published April 9, 2015. A machine translation
has been made of record.
6 EP 1 101 502 A2, published May 23, 2001.
Appeal 2020-006171
Application 15/644,164
4
subject to this ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Dependent claims 13, 14, and 20 will stand or fall with claim 12.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Blair
describes or suggests a display device comprising at least one of (1) a touch-
sensitive interactive element on the projection surface or (2) at least one
manually-operable key, actuator, or switch integrated into the projection
surface. Appeal Br. 4–6.
In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner found that Blair describes this
limitation. Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Blair ¶¶ 26, 29, 42).
We agree with Appellant that this finding is erroneous. For ease of
reference, we reproduce Blair’s Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of an example
medical device visual management system.
Blair ¶ 2.
As shown in Figure 1, Blair describes a visual management system 20
for medical device 22. Blair ¶ 10. Visual management system 20 comprises
projection device 30 and controller 34. Id. ¶ 11. Controller 34 comprises one
or more processing units that generate control signals causing projection
device 30 to project one or more images onto the one or more projection
Appeal 2020-006171
Application 15/644,164
5
surfaces 32, 34, 36, 38, 40. Id. ¶ 16. According to the Specification,
projection surfaces 32, 34, 35, 36, and 38 are distant from medical device
22. Id. ¶ 26. The Specification further states that controller 34 may receive
instructions through an input device such as a keyboard, touch screen, or
mouse. Id. ¶ 29.
As our summary description of Blair’s visual management system 20
makes apparent, Blair uses reference number 34 to identify two distinct
things in Figure 1. As can be seen in Figure 1, reference number 34 is used
to identify both the right-hand wall of the room in which visual management
system 20 is located and the controller that is part of the visual management
system. After carefully reviewing Blair, we determine that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have understood projection surface 34 and
controller 34 to be separate and distinct. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s
finding, Blair’s description of a touch screen or other input device on
controller 34 is not a description of a touch screen or other input device on a
projection surface such as the right-hand wall of the room in which visual
management system 20 is located.
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claim 12 as
obvious over Blair. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of claims 13, 14, and
20.
B. Rejection of claims 16–18 and 22 over the combination of Blair and
Pryor
Claims 16–18 and 22 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
claim 12. Amend. Claims App. 9–10. In rejecting claims 16–18 and 22, the
Examiner did not find that Pryor remedies the deficiencies we identified in
Appeal 2020-006171
Application 15/644,164
6
the rejection of independent claim 12. Thus, we also reverse the rejection of
claims 16–18 and 22.
C. Rejection of claim 21 over the combination of Blair and Bröker
Claim 21 depends from independent claim 12. Amend. Claims App. 9.
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner did not find that Bröker remedies the
deficiencies we identified in the rejection of independent claim 12. Thus, we
also reverse the rejection of claim 21.
D. Rejection of claim 23 over the combination of Blair and Benatti
Claim 23 depends from independent claim 12. Amend. Claims App.
10. In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner did not find that Benatti remedies the
deficiencies we identified in the rejection of claim 12. Thus, we also reverse
the rejection of claim 23.
IV. CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
12–14, 20 103 Blair 12–14, 20
16–18, 22 103 Blair, Pryor 16–18, 22
21 103 Blair, Bröker 21
23 103 Blair, Benatti 23
Overall
Outcome
12–14,
16–18,
20–23
REVERSED