Ex Parte 8511314 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

90013087 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
77382.91 5453
EXAMINER
JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
90/013,087 12/06/2013
28289 7590 12/27/2016
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD, SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
8511314
12/27/2016 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
Ex parte ALESSIO PIGAZZI and GLENN KEILAR,
Appellants, Patent Owners
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B21
Technology Center 3900
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON and
DANIEL S. SONG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2 The Appellant/Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) and
3 35 U.S.C. § 306 from a final rejection of unamended claims 1—26; and
4 newly-added claims 27—29, 33, 35—39 and 42^45. (See “Notice of Appeal,”
5 dated Nov. 10, 2014; “Advisory Action,” mailed October 24, 2014, cover
1 Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2 (the “’314 patent”), issued August 20,
2013 to the Appellants. The ’314 patent is assigned to KHS GmbH and
exclusively licensed to Xodus Medical, Inc., the latter of whom is the real
party in interest. The ’314 patent issued from Appl. 13/773,290, filed
February 21, 2013.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
page). Claims 30—32, 34, 40, 41, 46 and 47 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 306.
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—29, 33, 35—
39 and 42-45, which claim a patient support apparatus, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klauschie et al., Use of Anti-Skid
Material and Patient-Positioning to Prevent Patient Shifting during Robotic-
Assisted Gynecologic Procedures, 17 J. Minimally Invasive Gynecology
504—07 (July—Aug. 2010) (“Klauschie”), and VanSteenburg (US 6,701,558
B2, issued Mar. 9, 2004). We also REVERSE the Examiner’s decision
alternatively rejecting claims 15—18 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Klauschie, VanSteenburg and Tursi (US 6,653,363 Bl, issued Nov. 25,
2003). (See Final Off. Act. 2).
THE ’314 PATENT
One example of a tiltable medical procedure table is a surgical table
designed to tilt so as to orient a patient in the “Trendelenburg position.” The
Trendelenburg position is a position in which the operating table is inclined
so that the patient’s head and upper torso are lower than the patient’s upper
legs. (’314 patent, col. 1,11. 46—53 and Fig. 6). One problem associated
with tilting a surgical patient at an angle with respect to horizontal is that the
patient may slide or otherwise move during the surgery due to the effects of
gravity. Another problem associated with tilting a surgical patient at an
angle with respect to horizontal is that the patient may suffer neuropathy or
vascular damage due to an uneven distribution of pressure forces imposed by
the support surface on the patient. (See ’314 patent, col. 1,1. 65 — col. 2,
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
1. 13). The ’314 patent addresses these problems by laying the patient on a
pad of viscoelastic foam material of suitable thickness and mechanical
properties. The patient may lie either directly on the viscoelastic pad or on a
lifting sheet covering the viscoelastic pad. (Id.)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A patient support arrangement comprising:
a pad configured to be placed on a tiltable medical
procedure table;
said pad having a length sufficient to extend from about at
least the thighs of a patient to about at least the shoulders of a
patient to support the torso of a patient placed on said pad;
said pad comprising a deformable material;
said deformable material being configured to be
deformable by the torso of a patient to form a depression in said
pad, which depression provides a substantial portion of the
holding forces which hold a patient generally in a desired
position on said pad upon the medical procedure table being
tilted at an angle and thus the torso of a patient being tilted at an
angle with respect to the horizontal, such that:
a) the head of the patient is disposed lower than
the torso of the patient, or
b) the head of the patient is disposed higher than
the torso of the patient, or
c) the right side of the patient is disposed higher
than the left side of the patient, or
d) the left side of the patient is disposed higher
than the right side of the patient, or
e) a combination of any of a), b), c), and d);
said deformable material has a rate of recovery sufficiently
slow to maintain a depression in said pad for a desired period of
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
time upon a change in a depression-generating force on said pad;
and
said pad is configured to distribute pressure forces across
a substantial portion of the torso of a patient in contact with said
pad to minimize injuries generated by concentration of pressure
forces on at least one portion of the torso of the patient in contact
with said pad during a medical procedure.
THE RECORD
The Examiner’s position is set forth in a Final Office Action, mailed
July 10, 2014 (“Final Off. Act.”), and an Answer, mailed June 11, 2015
(“Answer” or “Ans.”). The Patent Owner relies on an “Appeal Brief,” dated
January 9, 2015 (“Appeal Brief’ or “App. Br.”), to which are attached
declarations of Dr. Maheswari Senthil, Dr. Gustavo Plasencia, Mr. Craig
Kaforey, Dr. Alessio Pigazzi, Dr. Michael L. Madigan, Dr. Glenn E. Beltz,
Mr. Paul Lloyd and Dr. Thomas Ljungman. The Patent Owner also relies on
a Reply Brief dated August 10, 2015.
ISSUES
The Patent Owner argues the rejections of claims 1—14, 19-29, 33,
35—39 and 42^45 as a group. (See App. Br. 12—22, 24 & 25; Reply Br. 2—8
& 10). We address the “patient support arrangement” of claim 1 and method
claim 23 as representative of the claims rejected over Klauschie and
VanSteenburg. The patentability of these claims turns on whether the
Examiner erred in concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had reason to modify the teachings of the primary reference, Klauschie, in a
fashion satisfying the limitations of claim 1; and whether the teachings of
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
the secondary reference, VanSteenburg, taught away from such
modification.
We need not address the Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 15 and 16 separately. (See App. Br. 22—24; Reply Br.
8 & 9). It suffices for us to conclude that the teachings of Tursi do not
remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Klauschie and
VanSteenburg.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following by a preponderance of the evidence. See
Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Klauschie
Klauschie describes a study to estimate the effect of what the article
describes as an “antiskid” material to prevent the shifting of a patient placed
in a steep Trendelenburg position during robotic gynecological surgery.
(Klauschie 504). During the study, patients were positioned as follows:
A 3- x 5-foot piece of blue blanket was placed horizontally
on the operating table, on top of which was placed a 2- x 3-foot
antiskid material (pink egg-crate foam:2 Tyco
Healthcare/Kendall, Mansfield, MA), and a second piece was
2 “Egg crate foam” is a “popular term for a foam mattress with a
chicken wire-like pattern of elevations and depressions, likened to that of an
egg carton, most useful for [patients] with recalcitrant decubitus ulcers.”
(The Free Dictionary, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
/egg+crate (last visited December 2, 2016), citing McGraw-Hill Concise
Dictionary of Modern Medicine (The McGraw-Hill Cos. 2002)).
5
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
1 placed over the initial piece with the flat sides of the foam
2 opposing each other. The pink foam was secured at 2 points with
3 broad strips of cloth tape .... All patients, positioned in a
4 modified dorsal lithotomy position with legs padded and secured
5 in stirrups (Welch Allyn, Inc., Acton, MA), laid directly on the
6 pink foam on their bare back. Both arms, cradled in soft arm
7 pads (David Scott Co., Framingham, MA) were then tucked to
8 the sides using the blue blanket. No shoulder blocks, straps, or
9 braces were used.
10 (Klauschie 505). According to Klauschie, the study “demonstrate[d] that
11 antiskid material [was] a safe alternative to prevent patient sliding and
12 subsequent consequences such as pain, neuropathic injuries, and potential
13 hernias.” (Id.) Klauschie teaches that:
14 The Trendelenburg position and the techniques used to
15 prevent cephalad slippage of the patient in this position
16 contribute to nerve injury .... With increasing reports of
17 neuropathic injury as a result of shoulder braces and straps used
18 to prevent shifting, all members of our practice have
19 implemented the use of antiskid material and patient positioning
20 as described herein, avoiding the use of braces and other devices
21 for at least 5 years previous to this study.
22 (Id. at 506).
23
24 Tursi
25 Tursi describes a class of polyurethane foams that are viscoelastic
26 near room temperature; and that experience significant changes in firmness
27 with small changes in temperature while in a viscoelastic state. (See Tursi,
28 col. 3,11. 13—17 & 21—27; see also id., col. 8,11. 53—60 & Fig. 1). Tursi
29 teaches the use of these foams in bedding. (See, e.g., Tursi, col. 1,11. 5 & 6;
30 & col. 3,11. 62—67). In its discussion of the background art, Tursi explains
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
that “[vjiscoelastic polyurethane foams are typically characterized by high
vibration damping, body conformance and slow recovery from
compression.” (Tursi, col. 1,11.51—54). Tursi teaches that “[vjiscoelastic
foams have gained popularity for bedding applications because such foams
are advertised as reducing pressure points, which are believed to cause
tossing and turning during sleep.” (Tursi, col. 2,11. 22—25).
VanSteenburg
VanSteenburg teaches that, during surgery, “[pjortions of the patient’s
skin may be subjected to very high pressures and shear forces exerted by the
material underlining skin[,j resulting in tissue loads that restrict blood flow
to a particular area of the skin[,j resulting in tissue damage or necrosis. This
is a major cause of pressure ulcers.” (VanSteenburg, col. 1,11. 23—27).
Figure 5 of VanSteenburg depicts a combination of a cushion 132 and anti­
shear layers 130 for supporting a patient. The combination is designed to
reduce skin shear and distribute the patient’s weight more evenly across the
surface. (See VanSteenburg, col. 6,1. 66 — col. 7,1. 2; see also
VanSteenburg, col. 1,11. 28—36). The cushion 132 is divided into a head pad
72, a torso pad 74 and a foot pad 76. Each of the pads 72, 74, 76 includes a
layer of “slow recovery foam” 100, 108, 140 atop foam layers having
different support characteristics. (See VanSteenburg, col. 8,1. 25 — col. 9,1.
22). VanSteenburg describes “slow recovery foam” as “foam material that
easily conforms to the contour of the patient when weight is applied and
slowly returns to its uncompressed state after the weight is removed.”
(VanSteenburg, col. 7,11. 27—31). The Examiner correctly characterizes
“slow recovery foam” as viscoelastic. (See Ans. 14 & 15).
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
VanSteenburg describes each of the head pad 72, the torso pad 74 and
the foot pad 76 as being received in a cover 28 and a bottom coverlet 24.
VanSteenburg also teaches positioning an anti-shear layer 130 underneath
each cover 28, between the layer of “slow recovery foam” 100,108,140 and
the surface that supports the patient. (See VanSteenburg, col. 8,1. 25 — col.
9,1. 22). The anti-shear layers 130 comprise a material such as polyethylene
disposed between the cushion and the cover. The anti-shear layers 130
permit the cover to slide freely with respect to the cushion and also permit
the cover to stretch without being inhibited by the surface of the cushion.
(See VanSteenburg, col. 5,11. 3—9). VanSteenburg teaches that the presence
of the anti-shear layer beneath the cover reduces skin shear. (See
VanSteenburg, col. 2,11. 13—22; col. 3,1. 67—col. 4,1. 4).
ANALYSIS
“Patient Support Arrangement” Claims 1—22, 27—29, 33, 35—39 and 42—45
Claim construction is the first step in analyzing whether the subject
matter of claim 1 would have been obvious. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc. v.
Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim 1
recites a “patient support arrangement comprising: a pad configured to be
placed on a tiltable medical procedure table.” The remainder of claim 1
recites limitations on the pad, either in terms of intrinsic properties or in
terms of the pad’s capacity to react in particular ways when a patient is laid
on the table. With the exception of claims 8, 13, 42 and 43, the claims
depending directly or indirectly from claim 1 further limit the intrinsic and
functional characteristics of the pad. Claims 42 and 43 recite the pad in
combination with straps. Claims 8 and 13 recite the pad in combination with
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
“a retaining arrangement,” that is, securing straps, “configured to at least
assist in the retention of said pad on a medical procedure table.” (See, e.g.,
’314 patent, col. 11,11. 47—52).
Claim 1 recites that the patient support apparatus “compris[es]” the
pad. Claim 1 further recites that the pad “compris[es] a deformable
material.” The verb “comprises,” as used in its patent law sense, denotes
that the claimed apparatus “may contain elements in addition to those
explicitly mentioned in the claim,” at least to the extent that such additional
elements do not conflict with the express limitations of the claim. In re
Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, for example, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 might encompass a pad
including other materials, such as high density or low density foams in
addition to the recited deformable material. The patient support apparatus as
a whole might include additional structures, such as a cover, lift sheet or
anti-shear layer in addition to the recited pad.
That said, our role is to review the final rejection entered by the
Examiner. See 35 U.S.C. § 134(b). The Examiner finds that Klauschie
describes the subject matter of independent claim 1, except for:
the egg-crate foam being of the viscoelastic variety (i.e. having
“a rate of recovery sufficiently slow to maintain a depression in
said pad for a desired period of time upon a change in a
depression-generating force”). VanSteenburg teaches, in the
same field of endeavor, i.e. patient support surfaces, the use of
“slow recovery foam” and defines such slow recovery foam as “<2
foam material that easily conforms to the contour of the patient
when weight is applied and slowly returns to its uncompressed
state after the weight is removed’, col. 7, lines 26—35, for
decreasing tissue load.
(Ans. 14 & 15). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious:
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
given the desire to prevent patient shifting and “subsequent
consequences such as pain, neuropathic injuries, and potential
hernias’ ([Klaushie] 505), to have incorporated viscoelastic
foam in [Klaushie’s patient] support table, either by replacing the
egg-crate foam with viscoelastic foam, or by making the egg-
crate foam out of viscoelastic material, in order to adopt intrinsic
benefits of viscoelastic foam in a medical bed environment such
as decreased tissue load.
(Ans. 15). Although the Examiner incorporates pages 48—59 of the “Request
for Ex parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,314,” dated December
6, 2013 (see Ans. 3), the incorporated material does not appear to provide
any reason for combining the teachings of the references independent of the
reasons provided by the Examiner.
The Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized “intrinsic benefits of viscoelastic foam in a medical bed
environment such as decreased tissue load” is capable of such instant and
unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d
1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). (See Ans. 21 (“[VJiscoelastic foam is notorious
to the medical bed arts for such decreased pressure on a patient as reinforced
numerous times by VanSteenburg.”); see also Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d
1355, 1362—63 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (instructing us to consider all evidence in
the record bearing on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Tursi, for example, teaches that, as of December 2002, “[vjiscoelastic foams
ha[d] gained popularity for bedding applications because such foams [were]
advertised as reducing pressure points, which [were] believed to cause
tossing and turning.” (Tursi, col. 2,11. 22—25). This teaching regarding the
reduction of “pressure points” reflects an understanding that viscoelastic
material could reduce tissue load by dissipating or redistributing the reaction
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
forces supporting a patient’s weight in areas of force concentration. The
Patent Owner’s experts are in accord with the Examiner’s finding. (See,
e.g., “Declaration,” executed by Dr. Gustavo Plasencia on Sept. 8, 2014
(“Second Plasencia Decl.”), at 11. 99-103 (“[T]he general knowledge of
viscoelastic foam of persons in the medical field, in my opinion, is similar to
that disclosed by VanSteenburg, and that is that some viscoelastic foams can
be used as a cushion or patient support in order to minimize the occurrence
of pressure injuries, such as pressure ulcers.”); see also “Declaration,”
executed by Thomas N. Ljungman, M.D., on Sept. 8, 2014 (“Ljungman
Deck”), at 11. 194—98). The Examiner lists on page 30 of the Answer
additional patents found, without traverse by the Patent Owner, to teach the
use of viscoelastic foam in medical beds for the purpose of relieving
pressure on a patient.
Nevertheless, Klauschie describes techniques in which a patient’s bare
back is laid directly on an antiskid material, namely, pink egg-crate foam.
(See Klaushie 505). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had reason either to replace the egg-crate foam used in the
technique described in Klaushie with viscoelastic foam; or to make the egg-
crate foam described by Klauschie out of viscoelastic material. (Ans. 15).
The Examiner is silent as to any other proposed combination that one
of ordinary skill in the art might have had reason to implement. Claim 1 is
sufficiently broad to encompass a pad consisting of a deformable material
such as viscoelastic foam combined with other compressible materials, as
well as to encompass a pad combined with other structures such as a cover, a
lift sheet or an anti-shear layer. The Examiner’s reasoning, on the other
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
hand, relies on a proposed substitution in which a patient’s bare back is laid
directly on a viscoelastic pad.
The Examiner relies on the “intrinsic benefits of viscoelastic foam in a
medical bed environment such as decreased tissue load” (Ans. 15), as a
reason one of ordinary skill in the art might have had to substitute a
viscoelastic foam pad for the egg-crate foam described by Klauschie, but
does not appear to consider any tendency of viscoelastic foam to increase
skin shear (see Ans. 21). In this regard, the Examiner finds that a
viscoelastic foam pad substituted for the egg-crate foam described by
Klauschie would have retained a patient on a tilted medical procedure table
in the same manner as the egg-crate foam, namely, by means of friction
between the pad and the skin of the patient. (See Ans. 22). The Examiner
finds that the frictional force between the substituted viscoelastic foam pad
and the patient would have had multiple components, including a component
due to a “speed bump effect” attributable to cradling of the patient by the
viscoelastic pad. (See Ans. 22 & 23).
There is no teaching in either VanSteenburg or Tursi that the
viscoelasticity of viscoelastic foam would help to retain a patient on a tilted
medical procedure table. VanSteenburg, for example, does not describe the
use of its cushions to support a patient on a tilted surface. (See
“Declaration,” executed by Dr. Maheswari Senthil on April 4, 2014
(“Senthil Deck”), at 11. 142 44). The only relevant teachings available in the
prior art are Klauschie’s teaching to lay a patient’s bare back directly on an
antiskid material to retain a patient on a medical procedure table in the
Trendelenburg position; and VanSteenburg’s teaching to reduce the risk of
skin shear by laying the patient on a stretchable cover overlying a friction
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
reducing anti-shear layer. In short, these teachings are generally divergent
with respect to each other in terms of friction on the skin, and the Examiner
has not shown that the “speed bump effect” would have been recognized by
one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the disclosure of the ’314 patent so as
to provide a reason to utilize the viscoelastic foam of VanSteenburg in a
manner disclosed in Klauschie. VanSteenburg’s teachings suggest that any
cradling provided by the cushion it describes is attributable to the structure
of the cushion as a whole rather than to the viscoelastic layers 100,108,140
in particular. (See VanSteenburg, col. 1,11. 28—36).
The Patent Owner presents expert testimony indicating that
Klauschie’s technique of laying a patient directly on an antiskid surface atop
pink egg-crate foam was not uniformly successful as a means to immobilize
a patient on a tilted medical procedure table. (See Senthil Decl., 11. 44-49;
see also Ans. 27). The Patent Owner also presents testimony that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from implementing
any technique for retaining a patient on a medical procedure table that would
have resulted in skin shear, that is, unacceptable shear stresses in and
immediately below the patient’s skin. (See App. Br. 17 & 18, citing
declarations of Pigazzi, Plasencia, and Ljungman; Reply Br. 4 & 5; see also
“Declaration,” executed by Dr. Alessio Pigazzi on Sept. 10, 2014, at 11. 36—
93; Second Plasencia Deck, 11. 36—93; Ljungman Deck, 11. 98—163). In view
of VanSteenburg’s teaching that conventional patient support surfaces could
generate unacceptable shear stresses in and immediately beneath the skin of
a patient supported on a tiltable medical procedure table (see VanSteenburg,
col. 1,11. 23—27), the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious
either to replace the egg-crate foam used in the technique described in
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
Klaushie with viscoelastic foam, or to make the egg-crate foam described by
Klauschie out of viscoelastic material, is not persuasive.
Considering the evidence as a whole, the Examiner has not proven by
a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason to modify the teachings of Klauschie in a fashion satisfying
the limitations of claim 1 based on the teachings of VanSteenburg.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—22,
27—29, 33, 35—39 and 42-45 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Klauschie and VanSteenburg.
In the alternative rejection of claims 15—18, the Examiner cites Tursi
for its description of compressibility and rebound properties of a class of
viscoelastic polyurethane foams. (See Ans. 15, 19-20 & 27). The Examiner
does not persuasively explain how these compressibility and rebound
properties might remedy the above discussed deficiencies in the combination
of Klauschie and VanSteenburg as applied in the Final Office Action. For
this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision alternatively rejecting
claims 15—18 under § 103(a) as being unpantentable over Klauschie,
VanSteenburg and Tursi.
Method Claims 23—26
Independent claim 23 recites:
23. A method of positioning a patient on a medical
procedure table comprising:
positioning a pad, having a length sufficient to extend
from about at least the thighs of a patient to about at least the
shoulders of said patient, on a tiltable medical procedure table;
[and]
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
positioning at least the torso of said patient on said
pad....
The Examiner correctly finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized “intrinsic benefits of viscoelastic foam in a medical bed
environment such as decreased tissue load.” (Ans. 15). On the other hand,
the Examiner has not articulated sufficient rationale to support the position
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason either to replace
the egg-crate foam used in the technique described in Klaushie with
viscoelastic foam, or to make the egg-crate foam described by Klauschie out
of viscoelastic material. Because the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejection of claims 23—26 relies on this proposed modification to the
teachings of Klauschi based on the teachings of VanSteenburg as generally
discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23—26 under
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klauschie and VanSteenburg.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—29, 33, 35—
39 and 42-45 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klauschie and
VanSteenburg.
We also REVERSE the Examiner’s decision alternatively rejecting
claims 15—18 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klauschie,
VanSteenburg and Tursi.
Consequently, we REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—29, 33, 35—39 and 42-45.
15
Appeal 2015-007831
Reexamination Control 90/013,087
Patent No. US 8,511,314 B2
REVERSED
16
Patent Owner:
THE WEBB LAW FIRM, P.C.
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
420 FT. DUQUESNE BLVD., SUITE 1200
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222