Ex Parte Frondorf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2013

12324497 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2013)

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.
12/324,497 11/26/2008 Michael M. Frondorf N1-20901 9733
63565 7590 04/19/2013
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
EXAMINER
POLITO, NICHOLAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL M. FRONDORF, MITCHELL A. SMITH, and
JAMES R. RISK, JR.
____________

Appeal 2011-003351
Application 12/324,497
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, JOHN W. MORRISON, and
ADAM V. FLOYD, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003351
Application 12/324,497

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision twice rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Luff (US 6,008,598, iss. Dec. 28, 1999) and Wilson (US
3,465,373, iss. Sept. 9, 1969). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below,
and is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An adjustable bed, comprising:
an occupant support having adjustable settings that
include an elevation, a profile and an angular orientation;
an interface for allowing desired values of the adjustable
settings to be individually commanded;
a single-action boost control for commanding a boost
configuration comprising a boost elevation setting, a boost
profile setting and a boost angular orientation setting; and
an adjustment system for adjusting the adjustable settings
to the desired values in response to inputs to the interface and
for adjusting the elevation, profile and angular orientation to the
boost configuration settings in response to input applied to the
single-action boost control.

OPINION
In reference to the claimed term “single-action boost control” the
Specification states that “[t]he boost control is referred to as a single action
control because a single action, such as a user applying pressure on the key
Appeal 2011-003351
Application 12/324,497

3
126, affects all the adjustments defined by the boost configuration.” Spec. 7:
27-31 (italics added). Moreover, claim 1 requires a boost configuration with
three settings: (1) a boost elevation setting; (2) a boost profile setting; and
(3) a boost angular orientation setting. The Specification references: (1) the
boost elevation setting as “H”; (2) the boost profile setting as “α” and “β”;
and (3) the boost angular orientation setting as“ϴ.” Fig. 5. See Spec. 5: 12-
20, 8: 7-11. See also Reply Br. 3-4. Consequently, the Examiner
misconstrues claim 1 by determining that “[c]laim 1 only requires a control
for commanding one of an elevation setting, a profile setting and an angular
orientation setting.” Ans. 9 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Luff teaches “a single-action boost control
(270) for commanding a boost configuration comprising a boost elevation
setting, a boost profile setting and a boost angular orientation setting.”
Ans. 4. Concerning the three boost configuration settings recited in claim 1,
Luff’s memory button 270 only controls one of the three settings. Indeed,
memory button 270 controls the positional settings of the associated
articulating deck 90 which corresponds to the second setting, i.e., the boost
profile setting “α” and “β.” Luff, col. 12:22-28, figs. 1, 1A, 3; App. Br. 7-8.
More specifically, Luff discloses that motors 60, 61 articulate decks 90 by
use of links 69 that control angles between head and seat sections 91, 92 and
thigh and foot sections 93, 94. See Luff, col. 5:48 – 6:3, figs. 1, 1A.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s finding that Luff’s head-up and head-down
buttons 276, 278 correspond to angular orientation ϴ is incorrect. See App.
Br. 7-8; Luff, col. 12:28-30. Contra Ans. 4. Hence, Luff’s memory button
270 merely discloses controlling one of the three boost configuration
settings recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-003351
Application 12/324,497

4
The Examiner also finds that “Wilson teaches individually
commanding an elevation, a profile and an angular orientation” (Ans. 9) and
concludes that “it would have been obvious . . . to combine the elevation
mechanism of Wilson with the adjustable bed of Luff to provide proper
support in all positions while maintaining easy accessibility, convenience,
flexibility and ease of operation by personnel or by the patient.” Ans. 4.
However, the combined teachings of Luff and Wilson do not result in “a
single-action boost control for commanding a boost configuration
comprising a boost elevation setting, a boost profile setting and a boost
angular orientation setting,” as recited in claim 1.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-20, as
unpatentable over Luff and Wilson, is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-20.

REVERSED

mls