Ex Parte AliDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 25, 201310571809 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte ALI WALID1 __________ Appeal 2011-005490 Application 10/571,809 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to detecting artifacts in a measurement signal, which have been rejected for anticipation. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant states that the Real Party in Interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2011-005490 Application 10/571,809 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification states that “[i]n conventional patient monitoring systems, alarms are typically generated on crossing a limit or threshold in a signal being monitored, e.g., heart rate” (Spec. 1). However, “wide variations in a given parameter can be observed without any major alteration of the physiological function of a patient. Many of these fluctuations cause a false alarm in conventional patient monitoring systems.” (Id.) The Specification discloses a method of identifying an artifact in a measured signal by monitoring a plurality of event signals (e.g., ECG, EEG, pulse, or temperature) (id. at 3), determining an estimated value for one of the event signals based on a transform function and a second event signal (id. at 2), and determining whether the deviation between the estimated event signal and the actual event signal indicates the presence of an artifact (id.). The Appeal Brief provides a concrete example: If the ECG signal suddenly stops or goes outside of preselected thresholds, it could mean that the patient’s heart has stopped or . . . it could be an electrode has come loose. . . . Other physiological condition sensors produce events signals carrying information related to the ECG signal. For example, the arterial blood pressure monitor . . . [and] a blood oximetry sensor. . . . By looking to these other event signals, the present application determines whether the apparent ECG alarm status (or other determined alarm condition) is a true medical emergency alarm or merely an artifact. (Appeal Br. 10.) Claims 1-20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: Appeal 2011-005490 Application 10/571,809 3 1. A device comprising: a controller; a memory coupled to the controller; and an input interface arranged to receive at least first and second event signals; wherein the controller is configured to: determine an estimated value of at least the first event signal using a transform function and the second event signal; determine a deviation between the estimated value and the first event signal, compare the deviation with a pre-determined threshold value, and determine whether an artifact is present in at least the first event signal in accordance with the comparison of the deviation and the pre- determined threshold value. The Examiner has rejected all of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Williams2 (Answer 4). The Examiner finds that Williams discloses a brain rescue monitor having software installed on it which continually [analyzes] EEG signals by calculating a frequency transform function (FFT) of the EEG signals to estimate the EEG spectral edge. Every epoch of EEG is compared to the EEG spectral edge and based on a predetermined threshold i.e. frequencies outside of a valid EEG range, too high and too low intensities are identified as artifacts and therefore rejected by the system (see figs 12, 13 and 16 and “Artifact Management” i.e. ¶ 89-106 and ¶ 54-56; also read section “Artifact Rejection” starting at ¶ 75, further details). (Id.) Appellant argues that “Williams compares the EEG signal itself with thresholds to determine artifacts in the signals” (Appeal Br. 11) and that, 2 Williams, US 2003/0023183 A1, Jan. 30, 2003. Appeal 2011-005490 Application 10/571,809 4 while Williams’ system and method use a Fourier transform, the “Fourier- transform of Williams[’] EEG signal is not used with a second event signal. Rather, it is used with the first, EEG signal itself. Moreover, the Fourier- transform and the limits of a normal EEG signal are not used to generate an estimate of the EEG signal.” (Appeal Br. 13.) Appellant also argues that “Claim 1 further calls for the controller 21 to determine the deviation between the estimated value (ya) and the first event signal (y). The Examiner does not address this limitation. . . . Indeed, it is submitted that Williams has no corresponding step.” (Id.) We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not persuasively shown that Williams discloses a system or method that includes the limitations summarized the immediately preceding paragraph. The Examiner argues that she “has interpreted the standard data acquired from MIT/BIH database (specification; ¶ 31) as the ‘second event signal’” (Answer 7). However, the claims require the second event signal to be received by a controller, and the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Williams of receiving such data in its system or method, or using it in combination with a transform function to determine an estimated value for a first event signal. The Examiner, somewhat inconsistently, also argues that she “is interpreting the standard intensity values of EEG i.e. 0.5µV2 - 500 µV2 to be the ‘second event signal’” (Answer 8). Again, however, the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Williams of using this standard range of intensities in combination with a transform function to determine an estimated value for a first event signal. Appeal 2011-005490 Application 10/571,809 5 SUMMARY We reverse the rejection the rejection of claims 1-20 as anticipated by Williams. REVERSED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation