Ex Parte 6968375 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

95002237 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
95/002,237 09/13/2012 6968375 12771.0076USR2 8444
60683 7590 12/30/2016
Robert Bosch LLC
1800 W. Central Road
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
EXAMINER
KE, PENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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
____________________

MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC CARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, AND CARDIOCOM, INC.,
Requesters,
v.

ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC. and HEALTH HERO
NETWORK, INC.,
Patent Owner
____________________

Appeal 2016-006953

Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. US 6,968,375 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, STEPHEN C. SIU, and ERIC B. CHEN
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Patent Owner Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (2002) from the rejection of claims 1–67 as
set forth in the Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) mailed September 23, 2014.
Patent Owner filed a brief (“PO App. Br.”) on January 19, 2016. Requester
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

2
Medtronic, Inc. filed a respondent brief (“Req. Br.”) on February 18, 2016.
Patent Owner filed a rebuttal brief (“PO Reb. Br.”) on May 02, 2016. The
Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) on March 30, 2016 which
incorporated the RAN by reference. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 134 and 315.
An oral hearing was held on October 25, 2016. The record will
include a written transcript of the oral hearing.
We affirm.
The ’375 Patent issued to Brown on November 22, 2005. The ’375
Patent concerns a system for remotely monitoring an individual. A server
system generates a script program from a set of queries. The script program
is executed at a remote apparatus, which displays information and/or queries
to the individual through a user interface. Responses and individual
identification information are sent to the server system. The server system
also includes an automated answering service for providing a series of
questions for the remotely-located individual to respond to, storing
responses to each provided question, and providing a service based on the
individual’s response to the questions. See Abstract.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, reads as
follows:
1. A system for remotely monitoring an individual, the system
comprising:

(a) a remote apparatus for interacting with the individual;

(b) a server system including

Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

3
(i) a script generator for generating a script program from
a set of health related queries, the script program being
executable at the remote apparatus to communicate the
set of queries to the individual; and

(ii) a database for storing the[]queries, the responses to
the queries, and details of the individual;

wherein the remote apparatus includes:

(i) a communication component for receiving the script
program from the server and for transmitting the responses to the
server;

(ii) a user interface having an audio transducer for audibly
notifying the individual and a display, and

a processor connected to the user interface for executing
the script program to cause presentation on the display of
queries to the individual.

The claims stand rejected as detailed below (see PO App. Br. 11). All
rejections are made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

References Claims
Fu and Wahlquist 1, 2, 4–7, 9–16, 37, 38, 59–62, and 67
Fu and Wright 1–19, 21–41, 43–65, and 67
Chaco and Wahlquist 1, 2, 4–7, 9–16, 37, 38, 59–62, and 67
Chaco and Wright 1–67
Kirk, Beckers, and Wahlquist 1, 2, 4–7, 9–16, 37, 38, 59–62, and 67
Kirk, Beckers, and Wright 1–19, 21–41, 43–65, and 67
Gombrich and Wahlquist 1, 2, 4–7, 9–16, 37, 38, 59–62, and 67
Gombrich and Wright 1–19, 21–41, 43–65, and 67

Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

4
ISSUES
Patent Owner argues, inter alia, that neither Chaco nor Wright teach a
processor that causes presentation on the display of the queries to the
individual. PO App. Br. 38.
Patent Owner contends that neither Chaco nor Wright teach a script
generator for generating a script program from a set of health related queries.
PO App. Br. 39.
Patent Owner further asserts that neither Chaco nor Wright teach a
database for storing the queries, the responses to the queries, and details of
the individual. See PO App. Br. 39.
Patent Owner expostulates that the Examiner has not identified a
reason for combining Chaco and Wright to include a database for storing the
queries, the responses to the queries, and details of the individual. PO App.
Br. 39.
With respect to claim 3, Patent Owner further argues that Wright fails
to teach or suggest audible notification of unanswered queries. See PO App.
Br. 26, 40.
With respect to claim 20, Patent Owner contends that Wright does not
teach or suggest a script program having a connection command to establish
communication with a central computer at a prescribed connection time. PO
App. Br. 42.
The arguments made by Patent Owner and Requester present us with
the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Chaco and Wright teach a processor that
causes presentation on the display of the queries to the individual?
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

5
2. Does the combination of Chaco and Wright teach a script generator
for generating a script program from a set of health related queries?
3. Does the combination of Chaco and Wright teach a database for
storing the queries, the responses to the queries, and details of the
individual?
4. Does the Examiner identify a reason for combining Chaco and
Wright to include a database for storing the queries, the responses to the
queries, and details of the individual?
5. Does Wright teach or suggest audible notification of unanswered
queries?
6. Does Wright suggest a script program having a connection
command to establish communication with a central computer at a
prescribed connection time?

ANALYSIS
REJECTION OVER CHACO AND WRIGHT
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–19, AND 21–36
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that neither
reference teaches a processor that causes presentation on the display of the
queries to the individual. PO App. Br. 38. Patent Owner’s argument is an
attack on the references individually, and is thus ineffective to show error in
a rejection based upon a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As noted in the Request, Chaco discloses a physiological data
monitoring system. Chaco Col. 4:59–64, Col. 14:36–40; See Request 366.
The microprocessor-based subsystem (210 or 2310, Figure 4) includes a data
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

6
management unit adapted for digital data signal processing (414/414') and a
monitoring device (410/222') to monitor physiological parameters of the
patient. Chaco further discloses at least one health care professional
computer 320 in signal communication (Figure 4) with the central server
430. The health care professional computer specifies information to be
communicated to an individual at a microprocessor-based subsystem. Such
information is inputted into a computer via an interface (e.g., a keyboard 324
and monitor 322). This information is provided to the central server, which
is then communicated to the microprocessor-based subsystem. See Chaco,
col. 13 ll. 26–32, col.16 ll. 7–14, and Fig. 4.
As admitted by Patent Owner, Wright teaches a remote apparatus
having a display that interacts with an individual. PO App. Br. 38. Wright
teaches that the individual responds to queries presented on the display. See
Abstract.
Patent Owner’s argument that neither Chaco nor Wright teach a script
generator for generating a script program from a set of health related queries
is also unpersuasive. See PO App. Br. 39. We agree with Requester that
Wright’s entire form is the “script program” claimed, and that the script
program contains queries. Wright’s script generator receives user input, but
generates script programs as recited. See Req. Br. 8–9; Wright col. 7:1–44.
Wright teaches generating scripts that incorporate a set of queries. Req. Br.
9; Wright col. 9:10–13:36. Further, Wright teaches a script generator that
accepts user input to create a script program. Wright prompts the user for
field data input, such as prompting for the type of field. See Req. Br. 9;
Wright col. 10:54–56.
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

7
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that neither Chaco
nor Wright teach a database for storing the queries, the responses to the
queries, and details of the individual. See PO App. Br. 39. We agree with
Requester that Wright teaches generating a form that contains queries. Req.
Br. 10; Wright col. 10:11–53. That form is saved and sent to a remote
device, where it is stored electronically. Wright’s PDA stores responses
electronically and transmits them to a central computer, where they are also
stored electronically. Req. Br. 10; Wright cols. 7:33–39, 13:24–36. We
concur with the Board’s decision in IPR2013-00468, finding that Wright
teaches “one or more databases . . . for storing the generic script program
and any responses received from the remotely situated apparatus.” IPR2013-
00468 at pp. 17–18. The Board also found that Wright teaches the
generation of customized or individualized script programs. See Id.
Patent Owner argues that the Examiner has not identified a reason for
combining Chaco and Wright to include a database for storing the queries,
the responses to the queries, and details of the individual. PO App. Br. 39.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. As noted by the
Examiner, Chaco teaches patient monitoring and storing health related
inquiries. See Req. Br. 17; Request 274–275. As discussed supra, Wright
teaches generating a form that contains queries, as well as storing responses
to the queries.
The Examiner refers to the reasons for obviousness given with respect
to the rejections over Fu and Wright, and Chaco and Wahlquist. See RAN
21, 25, 26. We agree with Requester that, as with the combinations of Fu
and Wright or Chaco and Wahlquist, the combined teachings of the
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

8
references suggest all the claim limitations. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would consider combining storage of the health related inquiries of
Chaco and responses to the queries of Wright in the same database when
combining the references. See Req. Br. 10 and 16–17.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that the Examiner has failed to
give a reason to modify Chaco to include Wright’s script generation. PO
App. Br. 39–40. Patent Owner refers to “reasons analogous to those
discussed above in Section VII.C.1.e,” in which Patent Owner traverses the
Examiner’s rejection over Chaco and Wahlquist.1 Id. In that context,
Requester answers, and we agree, that Patent Owner admits that the
generation of script programs results in “a script file that can be sent to a
remote computer and executed at the remote computer.” Req. Br. 17. This
reasoning is equally applicable to the generation of script programs in
Wright. We further agree with Requester that “a [person having ordinary
skill in the art] would recognize that such benefits are desirable,” in Chaco
as well as in Fu. Req. Br. 7.
Patent Owner’s argument that the Examiner has not given a reason to
modify Chaco to include receiving a script in a remote apparatus from a
server is not persuasive to establish that the Examiner erred. See PO App.
Br. 40. Patent Owner again refers to its arguments concerning the
combination of Chaco and Wahlquist. Id. Again, we agree with Requester
that Wright, as well as Wahlquist, teaches generating a script file that can be
sent to a remote computer and executed at the remote computer; and that if a

1 This argument itself refers to reasons analogous to those expressed with
respect to the rejection over Fu and Wahlquist. PO App. Br. 36.
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

9
program is sent to and executed by a remote device, it must necessarily have
been received by that device. See Req. Br. 17–18.
Because Patent Owner has not persuasively established that the
Examiner’s rejection is erroneous, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 4, and 5 not separately argued, over Chaco and
Wright.
Patent Owner’s argument with respect to claims 6–8 is that the
combination of Chaco and Wright does not teach “generating a script
program from a set of queries.” PO App. Br. 40. As analyzed supra, we find
this argument to be unpersuasive, and that Wright does teach such script
generation. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–8
over Chaco and Wright.
Patent Owner argues claims 9–14 for the reasons “in sections VII.B.5
[sic, 4], VII.D.1.a and VII.D.1.f.” PO App. Br. 41. These reasons have been
considered and found to be unpersuasive with respect to the rejection of
claim 1, supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
9–14 over Chaco and Wright.
Patent Owner’s remarks with respect to claims 15–19 and 21–36 rely
on arguments “in Sections VII.D.1.a, VII.D.1.e and VII.D.1.f.” These
arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive with respect to
claim 1. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–19 and
21–36 over Chaco and Wright, for the same reasons.
CLAIM 3
Patent Owner relies on the argument made against the combination of
Fu and Wright in remonstrating that the Examiner has not identified a
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

10
rationale to modify Chaco to include the teachings of Wright. See PO App.
Br. 26, 40. We agree with Requester, however, that Wright teaches audible
notification of unanswered queries. Req. Br. 12; Wright col. 10:21–23. We
further agree with Requester that the person having ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that “audible indications would be used to notify a
user of actions to be taken, such as unanswered queries.” Req. Br. 12.
Because Patent Owner has not established that the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 over Chaco and Wright.
CLAIM 20
Patent Owner argues that Wright does not teach a script program
having a connection command to establish communication with a central
computer at a prescribed connection time. PO App. Br. 42. Patent Owner’s
argument is not persuasive because, as explained in the Right of Appeal
Notice, Wright teaches communication between the remote computer and
the server, and Chaco teaches executing an action at a prescribed time. RAN
27; see Chaco col. 17:43–45 and Wright col. 26:53–54.
Because Patent Owner has not established that the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Chaco and Wright.
CLAIMS 22 AND 23
Patent Owner’s only argument with respect to the rejection of these
claims over Chaco and Wright is to refer the reader to the arguments with
respect to the combination of Fu and Wright. We do not agree with Patent
Owner that Wright fails to teach or suggest “a plurality of sets of queries and
corresponding response choices.” PO App. Br. 28. First, we concur with the
Decision in IPR2013-00468, finding that Wright teaches the use of both
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

11
queries and responses for scripts. IPR2013-00468 at 13–14. Second, we
agree with Requester that Wright teaches multiple forms, each with multiple
queries, as well as the creation of multiple, different script forms, for
gathering information from remote devices via a script generator. Req. Br.
13; Wright cols. 8:29–31; 10:11–12:64; 9:46–13:23.
We agree with Requester that the combination of Chaco and Wright
teaches the elements of claims 22 and 23. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 22 and 23.
CLAIMS 25–27
Patent Owner’s argument concerning claims 25–27 refers only to the
arguments made with respect to the rejection of claims 25–27 over Fu and
Wright. Those arguments are not pertinent to the rejection over Chaco and
Wright, however, because Patent Owner discusses only what is deficient in
Fu. See PO App. Br. 29–30. As such an argument fails to set forth Examiner
error in rejecting claims 25–27 over the combination of Chaco and Wright,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
CLAIMS 37–67
Patent Owner, in asserting error in the rejection of these claims,
merely makes reference to arguments previously raised concerning claims 1,
20, 22–23, and 25–27. PO App. Br. 42. We have considered each of these
arguments, and have found them to be unpersuasive. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 37–67, for the reasons expressed
supra with respect to claims 1, 20, 22–23, and 25–27.
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

12
OTHER REJECTIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED
In affirming the rejected claims on appeal on these grounds, we
decline to address the merits of additional grounds of rejection appealed by
the Patent Owner. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (having decided a single dispositive issue, the ITC was not
required to review other matters decided by the presiding officer).

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER’S CROSS-APPEAL
Requester appeals from the Examiner’s non-maintenance of the
rejection of a number of claims, over various combinations of prior art
references. In view of our affirmance of the rejection of all claims, we need
not reach Requester’s arguments concerning the other grounds of rejection.
See Id.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Chaco and Wright teaches a processor that
causes presentation on the display of the queries to the individual.
2. The combination of Chaco and Wright teaches a script generator for
generating a script program from a set of health related queries.
3. The combination of Chaco and Wright teaches a database for
storing the queries, the responses to the queries, and details of the individual.
4. The Examiner identifies a reason for combining Chaco and Wright
to include a database for storing the queries, the responses to the queries, and
details of the individual.
5. Wright suggests audible notification of unanswered queries.
Appeal 2016-006953
Reexamination Control 95/002,237
Patent No. 6,968,375 B1

13
6. Wright suggests a script program having a connection command to
establish communication with a central computer at a prescribed connection
time.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–67 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

Counsel for Patent Owner:
ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
2400 GENG ROAD SUITE 200
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303

Counsel for Third Party Requester:
Mercant & Gould PC 3200 IDs Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402