Ex Parte DAS et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 27, 2019

14023553 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/023,553 09/11/2013
47604 7590
DLA PIPER LLP US
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
11911 Freedom Dr.
Suite 300
RESTON, VA 20190
07/01/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RANJITDAS
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.
383803-000003 2765
EXAMINER
JIAN, SHIRLEY XUEYING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2019 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):
PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANJIT DAS and MARK TRA V AGLINI
Appeal2017-010090
Application 14/023,553
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010090
Application 14/023,553
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, and 11-20. Claims 3, 7, and 10 are
canceled. App. Br. 13-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' claims are directed generally "to wearable patches
comprising multiple separable adhesive layers." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A patch comprising:
at least two lower layers, each lower layer having
a substrate with a first surface and a second surface,
each first surface comprising an adhesive formed
thereon; and
a top layer provided over a second surface of the
at least one lower layer, wherein each lower layer
comprises at least one sensor for monitoring a
characteristic of a wearer of the patch and an integrated
circuit coupled to the at least one sensor for processing
data from the at least one sensor, and wherein removal
of one lower layer does not prevent a next lower layer
from monitoring the characteristic of the wearer of the
patch and processing the data.
App. Br. 13, Claims App.
2
Appeal2017-010090
Application 14/023,553
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fischer et al.
("Fischer")
US 2009/0022941 Al Jan. 22, 2009
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 9, and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fischer. Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection by stating that in the
claimed patches "removal of one layer ... does not prevent other layers of
the same type from performing the same function." App. Br. 9. As the
Examiner points out, however, the multiple elements used in the stack
system embodiment depicted in Fig. 12 of Fischer are disclosed, for
example, in Fig. 1, such that "each element operates independently as each
element comprises its own sensor(s), i.e. pimple head shaped sensor 2, and
integrated circuit, i.e., electronic element 3." Ans. 6. Thus, Fischer does
disclose that the elements of the stack are configured to operate
independently, so removal of one element would not affect the operation of
the remaining elements.
Appellants also recite various claim language and assert that the
Examiner fails to cite language that discloses that language. See App. Br. 9-
11. Appellants do not, however, explain why the Examiner is incorrect. As
noted above, the Examiner sufficiently explains how the removal aspect of
3
Appeal2017-010090
Application 14/023,553
layers as claimed is found in Fischer. Additionally, the Examiner explains
how Fischer, although only depicting two layers in Fig. 12, further "teaches
a 'stack system' configuration comprising any number of expansions ....
which would inherently include a configuration of a patch having three
layers comprising: at least a top layer and at least two bottom layers." Ans.
5. Given this disclosure, we agree that Fischer sufficiently teaches the stack
configuration claimed. We are, thus, not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8, 9, and 11-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED
4