Ex Parte Dmello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

12628358 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/628,358 12/01/2009 Melwyn Dominic Dmello
61604 7590 04/21/2016
GE Healthcare, IP Department
9900 W. Innovation Drive
Mail Code RP2131
Wauwatosa, WI 53226
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.
238927PN 5785
EXAMINER
COX, THADDEUS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 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):
HCTechnologies@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEL WYN DOMINIC DMELLO and
MEENAKSHISUNDARAM RAMKUMAR
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
Technology Center 3700
Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses that "[i]nfant care apparatus such as infant
warmers or incubators includes an infant platform, which needs to be moved
during a clinical procedure. The infant care apparatus is provided with a
drive mechanism to move/tilt the infant platform" (Spec. 1 i-f 2).
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as General Electric Company
(App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
"Conventionally a drive control mechanism or a user interface for moving
the infant bed is provided at the front side of the infant platform. In a
resuscitation situation, the clinician will be standing at the front side of the
warmer" (id. at 1 i-f 3). The Specification discloses an infant care apparatus
having a drive mechanism with a user interface that can be accessed from
the side (id. at 2 ,-r 8).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows
(emphasis added):
1. An infant care apparatus comprising:
a base;
a frame member extending upwardly from said base:
an infant platform extending outwardly from said frame member
positioned above the base and having lateral side walls and a bottom
support;
a heating arm extending outwardly from said frame member,
positioned above the infant platform; and
at least one drive mechanism connected to the frame member and to
the infant platform, the drive mechanism comprising at least one user
interface extending laterally from the drive mechanism, wherein the user
interface is configured to control the drive mechanism to thereby move the
infant platform.
The claims stand rejected as follows:
411 Claims 1, 2, 9, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in vie\v of
Benson;2
411 Clairns 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson and
Schaefer;3
2 Benson et al., US 5,980,449, issued Nov. 9, 1999.
3 Schaefer, US 5,029,826, issued July 9, 199L
2
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
° Clairn 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson and Koch;4
411 Claims 11, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson
and Speraw;5
411 Clairns 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson,
Speraw, and Schaefer;
° Clahn 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson, Speraw,
Schaefer, and Volker;6
° Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson, Speraw, and
Volker; and
° Claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Benson and
Benzo.7
I.
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 9, and 19-22 as anticipated by
Benson (Final Rejection8 (Final Rej.) 2--4). The Examiner has also rejected
claims 3-8, 10, 23, and 24 as obvious in view of Benson and either Schaefer
(claims 3-8, Final Rej. 5-8), Koch (claim 10, Final Rej. 8), or Benzo (claims
23 and 24, Final Rej. 13). The same issue is dispositive for all of these
rejections, and we will consider them together.
4 Koch, US 7,482,558 B2, issued Jan. 27, 2009.
5 Speraw et aL, US 6,540,660B1, issued Apr. 1, 2003.
6 Volker et al., US 2005/0146187 Al, published July 7, 2005.
7 Benzo et al., US 2009/0094745 Al, published Apr. 16, 2009.
8 Office Action mailed Feb. 15, 2013.
3
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner's finding that Benson discloses an infant care apparatus
comprising a "drive mechanism comprising at least one user interface
extending laterally from the drive mechanism," as required by claim 1?
Findings of Fact
1. The Examiner finds that Benson discloses an infant care
apparatus comprising a base, a frame member, an infant platform, and a
drive mechanism connected to the frame member and to the infant platform,
"the drive mechanism comprising at least one user interface ( 65, 66)
extending laterally from the drive mechanism, wherein the user interface is
configured to control the drive mechanism" (Final Rej. 2-3 (citing Benson,
Fig. 12, col. 6, 1. 50-col. 7, 1. 62, col. 7, 11. 12-32)).
2. Benson discloses "infant warmer open care beds" (Benson, col.
1, 11. 6-8).
3. Figure 12 of Benson is shown below:
4
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
Figure 12 shows "an enlarged view of a section of the infant warmer ...
showing the inclination adjustment linkage mechanism" (Benson, col. 3, 11.
23-25).
4. Benson discloses that the basinet "is attached to the support
column 5 by an inclination adjusting linkage arrangement ... [that]
comprises two link members 60 and 61" (Benson, col. 6, 11. 53-56).
"Preferably each link member is 'U' shaped and the two legs of the link
member are pivotally attached to either side of the support column 5 at their
proximal ends" through pivot points 62 and 63 (Benson, col. 6, 11. 56---63).
5. Benson discloses that the "pivot points 62 and 63 are connected
into ... 'T' shaped sliding blocks to allow rapid height adjustment of the
basinet relative to the support column 5" (Benson, col. 6, 1. 67---col. 7, 1. 3).
"Upon tightening the screw or bolt ... the 'T' shaped block is firmly
frictionally held in position in the channel" (Benson, col. 7, 11. 3-7).
6. Benson discloses that the "distal ends of the link members are
attached to two mounting brackets 65 and 66 which are connected ... within
a specially shaped channel in the basinet" (Benson, col. 7, 1. 11-15).
7. The Specification states that "[ e ]xamples of the drive
mechanism include rotating gear mechanism, gas spring mechanism, switch
mechanism and lead-screw mechanism, but need not be limited to these.
The drive mechanism 140 is operated manually through a user interface
150" (Spec. 6 ii 24 ).
8. The Specification discloses that a "user interface 150 is
connected to the drive mechanism 140 .... Examples of the user interface
5
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
150 include a touch panel, lever, rotary knob or similar mechanism" (Spec. 7
ii 25).
Analysis
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner "points to the mounting brackets
65 and 66 as disclosing a user interface extending laterally from the drive
mechanism and configured to control the drive mechanism thereby to move
the infant platform" (App. Br. 6) but "it cannot reasonably be said that the
'drive mechanism' ... (the 'linkage arrangement') has at least one user
interface extending laterally from the drive mechanism" (id. at 7).
Appellants argue that "Benson does not disclose any element extending
laterally from the 'linkage arrangement' that is appropriate for interfacing by
a user" (id.). Appellants also argue that "the mounting brackets 65 and 66
do not extend laterally from the drive mechanism" because "the mounting
brackets are internal to the 'linkage arrangement' and form an integral part
of the linkage structure that connects the link members 60 and 61 to the
basinet" (id.).
The Examiner responds that claim 1 recites that "the user interface is
part of the drive mechanism ('the drive mechanism comprising at least one
user interface') and not a separate element" (Ans. 3). The Examiner reasons
that "mounting brackets 65 and 66 do extend laterally from the drive
mechanism, as they extend in several different directions relative to other
components of the drive mechanism" (id.).
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and conclusion. Claim 1
recites that "the drive mechanism compris[ es] at least one user interface,"
6
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
which makes clear that the user interface is part of drive mechanism. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner's reasoning that the mounting brackets 65 and
66 on Benson's infant care apparatus could be both part of the drive
mechanism and a user interface for the drive mechanism (see FF 3---6).
We also agree with the Examiner that the mounting brackets 65 and
66 extend laterally from the drive mechanism within the meaning of claim 1.
That is, link members 60 and 61 are attached at one end to mounting
brackets 65 and 66, and at the other end to "T" shaped sliding blocks (FF4-
FF6). Thus, mounting brackets 65 and 66 extend laterally from part of the
"T" shaped sliding blocks, which are also parts of the drive mechanism.
Appellants argue that "Benson does not disclose a user interface
configured to control the drive mechanism" (App. Br. 8) (emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue that one of skill in the art "would not recognize the
mounting brackets 65 and 66 as appropriate locations for the user to
interface with the device in order to move the infant platform" (id. at 7-8)
and "a user would have a difficult time moving the infant platform by
grasping one of the mounting brackets 65 or 66 because the user would have
little to no leverage for tilting or controlling the platform" (id. at 8).
Appellants also argue that "adjusting the basinet 10 in Benson by grasping
the mounting brackets 65 and 66 directly controls the movement of the
basinet, rather than controlling the drive mechanism to thereby move the
infant platform" (id.).
The Examiner responds that "the mounting brackets are clearly
capable of being 'interfaced' by a user, as they are easily accessible by a
user and can be moved to thereby move and rotate the infant platform" (Ans.
7
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
4). The Examiner further responds that "[i]f the mounting brackets are
grasped and moved by a user, the remaining components of the drive
mechanism (and the basinet) move as well" (id. at 4--5).
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and conclusion.
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the aii,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Specification does
not define a "user interface," but only states that the "drive mechanism 140
is operated manually through a user interface 150" (FF 7), that "user
interface 150 is connected to the drive mechanism 140" (FF 8), and that user
interface examples "include a touch panel, lever, rotary knob or similar
mechanism" (FF 8). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term
user inteJjace that is consistent with the Specification is that a user interface
is a component of the drive mechanism that can be touched by a user to
operate a connected drive mechanism.
Benson discloses that mounting brackets 65 and 66 are connected, via
link members 60 and 61, to T-shaped blocks that slide to allow height
adjustment of the basinet (FFs 4----6). Given the connection between the
mounting brackets and the T-shaped sliding blocks, Benson's infant
platform could be moved by grasping the mounting brackets to adjust the
height of the infant platform. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Benson's mounting brackets 65 and 66 correspond the user interface of
claim 1.
8
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
Appellants argue that Benson does not disclose "a drive mechanism
within the meaning of claim 1" (App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that, as
understood by those in the art, "a drive mechanism [is] a mechanism that
drives-i.e., 'propels or carries along by force in a specified direction.' (The
New Oxford American Dictionary© 2001.)" (Id. at 9.) Appellants argue
that Benson's linkage system "does not meet with that definition because it
does not impart motion on the infant platform" (id.). Rather, Appellants
argue, Benson's system "relies on the user to propel and position the basinet
10, and the 'Basinet Support System' simply holds, or 'supports', the basinet
in place once the user has positioned it" (id.).
The Examiner responds that Benson discloses a drive mechanism
even under the above definition, reasoning that, "if the mounting brackets
(which are part of the drive mechanism) are grasped and moved by a user
(i.e., the user is imparting a force upon the brackets in a particular direction),
this will correspondingly move the basinet" (Ans. 5).
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning and conclusion. As
discussed above, claim terms are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation that is consistent with the Specification. Here, the
Specification does not preclude the use of user-applied force as part of the
drive mechanism operation, but rather discloses that a drive mechanism is
manually operated through a user interface (FF 7).
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 2, 9, and 20-22 have not been argued separately and therefore fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
9
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
Claim 19
Appellants separate I y argue claim 19, which is similar to claim 1, and
differs only in requiring the apparatus to have (a) a platform with a front side
wall and an end wall, in addition to lateral side walls, and (b) requiring the
drive mechanism to be "connected to the frame member and to the end wall
of the infant platform, the drive mechanism being provided with at least one
user interface extending to the lateral side walls of the infant platform."
Appellants argue that Benson does not disclose "a user interface
extending to the lateral side walls of the infant platform" or "a drive
mechanism connected to the end wall of the infant platform" (App. Br. 10)
(emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that he "has interpreted the drive mechanism
disclosed by Benson more broadly (i.e., to include more elements) than for
the purposes of claim 1" (Ans. 6). Specifically, the Examiner interprets the
drive mechanism to include elements 12 and 34 of Benson's apparatus (id.).
Elements 12 and 34 are extrusions of the basinet frame of Benson's
apparatus (Benson4:12-15, 15-17, 5:9-16, Figs. 5, 7).
According to the Examiner, "it is not the user interface that is required
to extend to the lateral side walls, but instead the drive mechanism" (Ans. 7).
The Examiner reasons that, "because the drive mechanism includes
extrusions 12 and 34 ... the drive mechanism clearly extends to the lateral
side walls" (Ans. 7).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how Benson discloses a drive mechanism "with at least one user
interface extending to the lateral side walls of the infant platform." Claims
10
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation when examined, but that
interpretation must be consistent with the Specification. See In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[D]uring examination proceedings,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification.").
Claims 19 recites a "drive mechanism being provided with at least one
user interface extending to the lateral side walls of the infant platform." The
Specification describes the user interface as a distinct portion of the drive
mechanism. See, e.g., Spec. 7 i-f 25 ("At least one user interface 150 is
provided on the drive mechanism 140 .... The user interface 150 is
connected to the drive mechanism 140.") The Specification also describes
the user interface as extending to the sidewalls of the infant platform (id. at 2
i-f 8). Thus, the Examiner's interpretation of claim 19 as only requiring the
drive mechanism, not the user interface, to extend to the lateral side walls of
the infant platform is not reasonable in light of the Specification. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claim 19 as anticipated by Benson.
The Examiner has also rejected claims 3-8, 10, 23, and 24
as obvious over Benson in combination with Schaefer, Koch, or Benzo.
Appellants argue that these rejections should be reversed for the reasons
discussed above with regard to independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12).
Because we have found that Benson discloses the invention of claim 1, and
Appellants have waived arguments directed to Schaefer, Koch, or Benzo, we
affirm the rejection of claims 3-8, 10, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
11
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner's finding that Benson
discloses an infant care apparatus comprising a "drive mechanism
comprising at least one user interface extending laterally from the drive
mechanism," as required by claim 1.
II.
Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 12, and 17 as obvious in view
of Benson and Speraw (Final Rej. 9-10 and 12). The Examiner has also
rejected claims 13, 14, 16, and 18 as obvious in view of Benson and Speraw,
and further in view of Schaefer (claims 13 and 18), Volker (claim 16), or
Schaefer and Volker (claim 14). The same issue is dispositive for these
rejections, and we will consider them together.
Claim 11 is directed to an infant care apparatus that comprises, among
other things, "two drive mechanisms extending outwardly from the frame
member, each drive mechanism connected in parallel to the bottom support
of the infant platform, each drive mechanism being provided with a user
interface extending to one of the lateral side walls of the infant platform for
moving the infant platform" (emphasis added).
The issue presented is: Does the evidence of record support the
Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Benson and Speraw would
have made obvious the infant care apparatus of claim 11?
12
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
Findings of Fact
9. The Examiner relies on Benson, as discussed above, but finds
that Benson does not "disclose that the apparatus has two drive mechanisms,
each provided with a user interface" (Final Rej. 9).
10. The Examiner finds that Speraw discloses "an infant care
apparatus 32 (col. 1, 11. 10-29) with two drive mechanisms 90 (col. 6, 11. 37-
47) each provided with a user interface 99 (col. 7, 11. 1-5)" (Final Rej. 9).
11. Speraw discloses "a patient-support assembly for a thermal
support apparatus such as an infant warming device .... [T]he present
invention relates to a tilting mechanism and an X-ray tray that are included
in the patient-support assembly" (Speraw, col. 1, 11. 10-15).
12. Figure 3 of Speraw is shown below:
'~~fil
"..... .·.·.·.·.· ·.-.·.· ·.·.·.·.·.j· ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.~·
~
Figure 3 shows "a side elevation view of the patient-support apparatus ...
with portions broken away, showing one end of the deck assembly elevated
above the other end of the deck assembly" (Speraw, col. 3, 1. 66-col. 4, 1. 2).
13. Speraw discloses that the patient-support assembly 32 "includes
a pair of elevation mechanisms 90, each of which are independently
13
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
operable to raise and lower the respective overlying first and second ends 86,
88 of deck assembly 84" (Speraw, col. 6, 11. 34--40).
14. The Examiner concludes that it "would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art ... to modify Benson's invention by adding a
second drive mechanism and user interface as taught by Speraw because this
allows both sides of the infant platform to be independently raised and
lowered ... and also allows multiple caregivers to operate the drive
mechanism simultaneously" (Final Rej. 9-10).
Analysis
Appellants argue that "neither Benson nor Speraw, alone or in
combination, disclose two drive mechanisms connected in parallel" (App.
Br. 12). Appellants argue that, as disclosed in the instant Specification, "two
drive mechanisms are connected in parallel ... to synchronize the operation
of the two mechanisms" (id. at 13 (citing the Spec. at i-f 29 and Fig. 2)).
We agree. Speraw states that the elevation mechanisms 90 of its
apparatus are "independently operable to raise and lower the respective
overlying first and second ends" of the deck assembly (FF13). Drive
mechanisms that are independently operable are not "connected in parallel,"
as required by claim 11 and as described in Appellants' Specification.
The Examiner reasons that "this limitation means that both drive
mechanisms are connected to the bottom support of the infant platform and
are parallel to each other" (Ans. 8). The Examiner adopts this interpretation
"because 'in parallel' describes how the two drive mechanisms are
connected to the bottom support (i.e., their orientation to each other)" (id.).
14
Appeal2014-000947
Application 12/628,358
The Examiner's interpretation of the disputed limitation, however, is
not consistent with the way the term is used in Appellants' Specification,
which (as Appellants point out) describes two drive mechanisms connected
so as to "synchronize the[ir] operation." (Spec. 8 i-f 29.) Because the
rejection is based on an unreasonably broad claim interpretation, we reverse
the rejection of claim 11 and dependent claims 12 and 17 as being obvious
in view of Benson and Speraw.
For the same reason, we reverse the rejection of claims 13, 14, 16, and
18, which depend from claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in
view of Benson and Speraw, and further in view of Schaefer, Volker, or
Schaefer and Volker.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b ), and but we reverse the rejection as applied to claim 19.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3-8, 10, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
We reverse the rejection of claims 11-14 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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-IN-PART
15