Ex Parte Cozmi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12336981 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/336,981 12/17/2008 Mihaela Cozmi
41155 7590 02/19/2016
MICHAEL R CRABB
275 N. FIELD DRIVE
DEPT. NLEG BLDG H-1
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045-2579
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
7202US02 2896
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, CAROLYN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
MICHAEL.CRABB ©HOSPIRA.COM
HOSPIRA_DOCKETING@CARDINAL-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIHAELA COZMI, JOHN ARRIZZA, GLENN DA VIS,
MARWAN A. FATHALLAH, WEN FENG, ANGELA MARINO,
JOHN ERIK MICHAEL P ALMROOS, JAMES R. SHULTS,
SUZANNE WILLEY, and YU XIN
Appeal2013-001359
Application 12/336,981
Technology Center 2600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-12, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2013-001359
Application 12/336,981
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to configuring a backlight brightness
level for a medication management unit. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A medication management system for configuring a
backlight by an authorized person and a user, the system
compnsmg:
a medication management unit having a processing unit,
a storage medium coupled to the processing unit, and an MMU
graphical user interface coupled to the processing unit, the
storage medium containing programming code executed by the
processing unit to:
display clinical care areas on the MMU graphical
user interface;
receive selection of one of the displayed clinical
care areas by the authorized person;
display default brightness levels on the MMU
graphical user interface for the selected clinical care
area;
receive selection of one of the displayed default
brightness levels by the authorized person;
update a drug library in the medication
management unit with the selected default brightness
level for the selected clinical care area; and transmit the
updated drug library from the medication management
unit; and
a medical device in electronic communication with the
medication management unit, the medical device having a
processor, a memory coupled to the processor, and a device
graphical user interface coupled to the processor, the memory
containing programming code to:
receive and store the updated drug library at the
medical device;
2
Appeal2013-001359
Application 12/336,981
display clinical care areas on the device graphical
user interface;
receive selection of one of the displayed clinical
care areas by the user; and
operate the backlight for the medical device at the
default brightness level for the user selected clinical care
area from the stored updated drug library.
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Holland (US 2007/0214003 Al; Sept. 13, 2007). (Final Act. 2.)
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 13; see also
Reply Br. 5---6) that Holland does not describe the limitation "display default
brightness levels on the MMU graphical user interface for the selected
clinical care area," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the user interface for the medical device of
Holland, as illustrated in Figure 17, corresponds to the limitation "display
default brightness levels on the MMU graphical user interface for the
selected clinical care area." (Final Act. 3.) In particular, the Examiner
found that "[a]lthough FIG 1 shows two separate devices both having user
interfaces; a user interface is just a means by which the user and computer
device interacts" and "[t]herefore the user interface on the MMU and on the
medical device can be the same, because the information that is being sent is
the same for both devices." (Ans. 3--4.) We do not agree.
Claim 1 recites "a medication management unit having ... an MMU
graphical user interface" and "a medical device in electronic communication
3
Appeal2013-001359
Application 12/336,981
with the medication management unit" (emphasis added). Appellants'
Specification discloses the following:
With reference to FIG. 1, the medication management
system (MMS) 10 of the present invention includes a medication
management unit (MMU) 12 and a medical device 14 . . . . As
shown in FIG. 1, the MMU 12 communicates to a hospital
information system (HIS) 18 via a caching mechanism 20 that
is part of the hospital environment 16.
(i-f 25 (emphases added).)
Lab system 2 8 and monitoring device 3 0 also
communicate with the MMU 12 to deliver updated patient-
specific information to the MMU 12. As shown, the MMU 12
communicates directly to the lab system 28 and monitoring
device 30. However, it will be understood to those of skill in
art that the MMU 12 can communicate to the lab system 28 and
monitoring device 30 indirectly via the HIS 18, the caching
mechanism 20, the medical device 14 or some other
intermediary device or system.
(i-f 28 (emphasis added).)
In the context of the present invention, the term "medical
device" includes without limitation a device that acts upon a
cassette, reservoir, vial, syringe, or tubing to convey medication
or fluid to or from a patient (for example, an enteral pump, a
parenteral infusion pump, a patient controlled analgesia (PCA)
or pain management medication pump, or a suction pump), a
monitor for monitoring patient vital signs or other parameters,
or a diagnostic, testing or sampling device.
(i-f 37.) Accordingly, the claimed "medication management unit," when
construed in view of Appellants' Specification, would not encompass
medical device 14 because Appellants' Specification discloses that MMU 12
is a separate and distinct from such medical device 14 and performs different
functions. In addition, independent claim 1 recites the claimed "medical
4
Appeal2013-001359
Application 12/336,981
device" as a separate element from the claimed "medication management
unit."
Holland relates to delivering medication to patients, in particular "an
integrated system for maximizing patient safety and caregiver productivity
for medication delivery." (i-f 2.) Figure 1 of Holland illustrates medication
management system and its interaction with a medical device (i-f 26),
including medication management system (MMS) 10 having medication
management unit (MMU) 12 and medical device 14 (i-f 51). Figure 17 of
Holland illustrates medical device 14 and provides an example of "MMU 12
instructing the medical device 14 to have a display of a particular color or
warning tones/volumes based on the location of the medical device 14 in the
hospital, time of day" in particular, "display brightness ... [is] set lower in
the pediatric clinical care area or at night than in the emergency room
clinical care area or during the daytime." (i-f 122.)
However, Holland explains that MMU 12 instructs medical device 14
to display a particular display brightness, rather than MMU 12 having a
separate display. As discussed previously, the claimed "medication
management unit" does not encompass a medical device, and thus, Holland
does not disclose the limitation "display default brightness levels on the
MMU graphical user interface for the selected clinical care area."
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "[t]he MMU
[of Holland] controls the medical device display, but the Holland publication
is silent as to selection by an authorized person from among multiple default
brightness levels, particularly how this actually could be accomplished at the
MMU and included and implemented through a drug library" (App. Br. 13;
see also Reply Br. 6) and "[t]he MMU graphical user interface is different
5
Appeal2013-001359
Application 12/336,981
from the device graphical user interface in light of the claim language and
when interpreted in light of the specification" (Reply Br. 5).
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Holland describes
the limitation "display default brightness levels on the MMU graphical user
interface for the selected clinical care area," as recited in independent
claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-12 depend from independent claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is reversed.
REVERSED
ACP
6