Ex Parte Edwards et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2017

14015398 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017)

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.
14/015,398 08/30/2013 D. Craig Edwards 7257-0350/PB9939.01 4479
96139 7590 01/31/2017
MAROFR tohnson
EXAMINER
-PHYSIO -CONTROL, INC. HOLMES, REX R
888 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1050
PORTLAND, OR 97204 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 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):
docketing@techlaw.com
phy sio_control_docketing @ cardinal-ip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte D. CRAIG EDWARDS, KELLY J. LOCKE,
MARK B. GAUSMAN, ALEX OTMAN,
RICHARD C. NOVA, and SHAWN R. BERTAGNOLE
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
Technology Center 3700
Before: GEORGE R. HOSKINS, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
D. Craig Edwards et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—25 and 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a user interface for a defibrillator. Spec. 21
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A medical device for patient treatment comprising a lid
and a plurality of layered user interface components, each
successive layer of user interface component becoming available
to an operator of the medical device as the user interface
component becomes appropriate during the operation of the
medical device and patient treatment.
Br. 9 (Claims App.).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Locke US 2003/0208237 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
REJECTION
Claims 1—25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Locke.1
OPINION
Claims 1—12
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Locke
discloses all of the features recited in claim 1. Br. 6. Specifically,
1 The Final Office Action (dated April 9, 2014) lists claim 26 as “allowable.”
Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
Appellants assert that “Locke does not appear to teach at least ‘a lid and a
plurality of layered user interface components,'' as recited.” Br. 6. Rather,
Appellants contend, claim 1 requires both a lid and a plurality of layered
user interface components distinct from the lid, and “Locke appears to
merely describe a lid 14 and a user interface 29.'” Br. 7 (citing Locke, Figs.
1 and 2).
In response, the Examiner determines that “a system that anticipates
the claim theoretically only requires two user interfaces that are not showing
at the same time to meet the claim limitations,” and “[claim 1] only requires
a plurality of successive layers.” Ans. 4—5. The Examiner finds that the
requirements of claim 1 are satisfied by Locke’s disclosure of “a lid with an
interface located on it, an electrode packet underneath the lid with a user
interface located on top of it and [a] display underneath the electrode packed
with yet another interface.” Ans. 4. In this regard, the Examiner finds that
Locke discloses two layered user interface components in addition to the lid
and its accompanying user interface component. Ans. 5.
Even assuming that, for the purpose of argument, we were to agree
with Appellants that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1
requires a lid in addition to a plurality of layered user interface components
distinct from the lid, we agree with the Examiner that Locke satisfies these
requirements. Appellants’ Specification describes the components of the
layered user interface as follows.
As depicted in the illustrated embodiment, the user interface
components of the layered user interface may comprise an on/off
actuator 108, a lid 104, an electrode package 120 (see FIGURE
3) and a shock key 170 (see FIGURE 6), as well as accompanying
visual and/or audible instructions for operating the AED and for
treating the patient. As will be appreciated from the following
3
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
description, beginning with the on/off actuator 108, each
successive user interface component will become available to the
operator as it becomes necessary for use by or instruction to the
operator.
Spec. 6:6—13 (emphases added). Describing the use of electrodes 142 and
144 disposed within electrode package 120, the Specification states, “The
operator is now presented with the next layer of user interface component,
namely, the defibrillation electrodes 142, 144 themselves.” Spec. 9:27—29.
Thus, the electrodes, shock key, and display of visual instructions described
by Appellants in relation to Figures 3 and 6 of the present Application
correspond to user interface components of the layered user interface. We
reproduce Appellants’ Figure 3 below.
m
" "
r
m
t : a
a'r 5;
<■’’* \*S K > \
• >y W
■X
At
'"1
m
ill i %
III-. ^sa"****
‘ < * fx V '
m
7 iW--"'
'''"'PC
\ ■y’
-- (ftf
-r~ :;v‘ ’l 3^' • ''
\ W %
* i\\ v. v->
lit -\Xt\ X
" ^1 \ $/ N ............ -
V %/VtA.IIS'" v %
x %
m
%
A7 AT''
.. ..,
x$
m
4
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
Appellants’ Figure 3 depicts a defibrillator with an open lid, revealing an
electrode package 120 hidden by the lid when the lid is in a closed state.
Spec. 4:20-22, 8:12-20.
We reproduce Figure 2 of Locke below.
Figure 2 of Locke depicts the defibrillation device with the lid opened,
exposing a user interface hidden beneath the lid (with electrodes not shown).
Locke 1112 and 20.
5
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
Locke states:
FIG. 2 illustrates the AED 10 of FIG. 1 when the lid 14 is
opened. As illustrated, the housing 12 incorporates a user
interface 29 including a speaker 17. In the present description,
the term “user interface” is used to encompass any element that
is used to send messages and/or instructions to and receives
messages and/or instructions from an operator of the medical
device 10, including any element that is to be physically handled
by the operator. For example, the user interface 29 may include
a pair of defibrillation electrodes (not shown) placed on the
housing 12 to be handled by an operator. The user interface 29
may further include stationary or other graphics provided on the
face of the housing 12, such as graphics 18 illustrating how to
apply the defibrillation electrodes on a patient’s body.
Additionally, in the case of a semi-automatic AED, the user
interface 29 of the AED 10 also includes a shock key 19, which
is to be pressed by an operator to apply a defibrillation shock to
the patient, as will be more fully described below.
Locke 120 (italics added). Accordingly, Locke teaches lid 14, underneath
which lid are the electrodes included in interface 29. See, e.g., Locke 1 6
(stating “the user interface covered beneath the lid may include a pair of
electrodes and a shock key.”). The electrodes disclosed by Locke, consistent
with Appellants’ Specification, quality as one layered user interface
component of the recited plurality of such components. Also beneath and
distinct from the lid is shock key 19, which also qualifies as a second layered
user interface component of the recited plurality of such components. The
graphics display discussed in paragraph 20 of Locke qualifies as a third
layered user interface component distinct from lid 14. Thus, the Examiner’s
finding that Locke discloses a plurality of layered user interface components
as recited in claim 1 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellants next assert:
6
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
Locke does not appear to teach “each successive layer of user
interface component becoming available to an operator of the
medical device as the user interface component becomes
appropriate during the operation of the medical device and
patient treatment,” as recited by claim 1 (with emphasis added);
rather, the entire user interface 29 of Locke (e.g., the speaker 17,
defibrillation electrodes, graphics 18, and shock key 19) appears
to become available to an operator of the device upon the
operator opening the lid 14, regardless of appropriateness as
pertaining to any individual component of the user interface 29.
Br. 7 (emphasis modified).
In response, the Examiner finds that in Locke, “once the lid is opened
the user is revealed an electrode package that includes a second user
interface showing how to attach the electrodes. When the electrodes are
removed the user is revealed a third user interface that shows how to provide
a shock.” Ans. 5.
Paragraphs 6 and 20 of Locke support, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the Examiner’s finding that Locke’s electrodes are disposed
beneath lid 14 and on top of the graphical display 18 demonstrating how to
use the electrodes and that removal of the electrodes would reveal graphical
display 18 beneath them. Moreover, Appellants do not contest this finding.2
furthermore, shock key 19, disposed on the same surface as graphical
display 18, is likewise disposed beneath lid 14 and would become available
upon removal of the electrodes (i.e., as appropriate). See, e.g., Locke 120
and Pig. 2.
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 1, however, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
2 Appellants did not file a Reply Brief.
7
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
claim 1 as anticipated by Locke. Claims 2—12 fall with claim 1. See Br. 6—7
(arguing claims 1—12 as a group).
Claims 13—25 and 27
The Examiner finds:
Locke discloses a medical device for patient treatment
comprising a plurality of layered user interface components (e.g.
Figs. 1—2), each successive layer of user interface component
becoming available to an operator of the medical device as the
user interface component becomes appropriate during the
operation of the medical device and patient treatment (e.g. 120).
Locke discloses the system includes an activator (e.g. 20) with a
power symbol located on it (e.g. Fig. 1), a connector (e.g.
electrodes 120) and an initiator (e.g. 19).
Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds that on/off button 20 in Locke
corresponds to “an activator that guides an operator to activate the
defibrillator, the activator including a lid” as recited in claim 13. The
Examiner further finds that the electrodes in Locke correspond to “an
electrode application layer . . . that guides the operator to apply electrodes to
a patient” as recited in claim 13. Finally, the Examiner finds that shock key
19 corresponds to “a defibrillation pulse delivery layer . . . that guides the
operator through delivery of a defibrillation pulse to the patient” as recited in
claim 13.
Appellants argue:
As discussed above with regard to independent claim 1,
Applicant submits that Locke does not appear to teach a medical
device having a lid and a plurality of layered user interface
components, let alone successive layers of user interface
component becoming available as the user interface component
becomes appropriate. Consequently, Locke does not appear to
teach a medical device having an activator that includes a lid and
a plurality of layered user interface components (e.g., “an
electrode application layer made available to the operator
8
Appeal 2015-003318
Application 14/015,398
subsequent to the activator that guides the operator to apply
electrodes to a patient” and “a defibrillation pulse delivery layer
made available to the operator subsequent to the electrode
application layer,” as recited by claim [13].)
Br. 7—8 (underlining added).
We agree with Appellants’ argument on the issue of whether
“activator 20” of Locke includes a lid. The Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how the simple on/off button 20 of Locke “includes a lid” as
required by claim 13. Appellants’ Specification states that “movement of
the lid 104 to an open position can be the event activating the AED 100.”
Spec. 8:1—2. The broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the
Specification, of the activator recited in claim 13 requires more than a button
distinct from a lid. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 13 and claims 14—25 and 27 depending therefrom as anticipated by
Locke.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25 and 27 is affirmed as to
claims 1—12 and reversed as to claims 13—25 and 27.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9