Ex Parte Georgiev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

12188251 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/188,251 08/08/2008 Emil Markov Georgiev
61604 7590 05/24/2016
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.
231170-1 4654
EXAMINER
BRUTUS, JOEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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 EMIL MARKOV GEORGIEV, JASON A. POLZIN,
RYAN W. RINDY, MARK J. STEFKA, and ROBERT MEURER
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CAL VE, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Emil Markov Georgiev et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-16, and
18-21 in this application. The Board has jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies General Electric Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the subject
matter on appeal, and it recites:
1. A patient transport apparatus comprising:
a table configured to support a patient;
a base attached to the table;
a docking system attached to the base, the docking
system configured to couple to a mating docking system of an
MR imaging system;
a plurality of bays formed in the base, each bay
configured to receive a patient care module therein and
magnetically shield the patient care module from a magnetic
field generated by the MR imaging system; and
a control system configured to be electrically coupled to
each patient care module received within the plurality of bays
and configured to centrally control each patient care module;
wherein the table is detachable from the base and
configured to be transferred into a bore of an MRI system
magnet to enable an acquisition of MR images of the patient,
such that the patient care modules received in the plurality of
bays in the base are kept outside of the bore of the MRI system
during the acquisition of MR images.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahlman (US 2007/0124858 Al, pub. June 7, 2007),
Allred (US 2002/0123682 Al, pub. Sept. 5, 2002), and Schumacher
(US 6,175,977 Bl, iss. Jan. 23, 2001).
Claims 2, 7-9, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Rivas (US 2009/0036764 Al,
pub. Feb. 5, 2009), and Noble (US 2004/0103899 Al, pub. June 3, 2004).
2
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Pan (US 2003/0069493 Al,
pub. Apr. 10, 2003), Srinivasan (US 2005/0113668 Al, pub. May 26, 2005),
De La Huerga (US 2002/0038392 Al, pub. Mar. 28, 2002), and Hendrickson
(US 2005/0277096 Al, pub. Dec. 15, 2005).
Claims 11, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Pan, and Srinivasan.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Pan, Srinivasan, and De La Huerga.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Pan, Srinivasan, and Rivas.
ANALYSIS
A. Unpatentability based on Ahlman, Allred, and Schumacher
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 10
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Ahlman's patient support
platform 12 corresponds to the claimed "table," which is detachable from a
mobile cart with wheels to transfer a patient into an MRI system bore. Final
Act. 2-3, 16; Ans. 17. The Examiner further finds Ahlman discloses an
auxiliary IV support pole attached to table 12, but being detachable to allow
insertion of table 12 into the MRI system bore, thereby corresponding to a
patient care module being kept outside of the bore. Final Act. 2-3, 17;
Ans. 17. However, the Examiner finds Ahlman does not disclose the
claimed plurality of bays formed in a base, with each bay configured to
receive a patient care module. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
The Examiner finds Schumacher discloses patient support stretcher 1
with frame 2 "as the base" comprising a plurality of bays 1 OA, 11 A, 12A to
receive medical care modules 10, 11, 12. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to combine Ahlman and Schumacher
to use a plurality of bays in Ahlman to receive a plurality of patient care
modules, "thereby allowing simultaneous use of the different care
modules ... in order to assist the patient as desired." Id. at 4.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in determining the combination of
Ahlman and Schumacher discloses, as recited in claim 1, a patient support
table "detachable from" a base such that, when the table is transferred into
an MRI system bore, patient care modules received within bays in the base
"are kept outside of the bore." Appeal Br. 5-6. Appellants particularly
contend the Examiner errs in finding Schumacher's frame 2 is a "base" as
claimed, because Schumacher's stretcher 1 is "an integral structure"
including frame 2 inseparably joined to patient support surface 3. Id. at 7-8.
Appellants further contend that even if Schumacher's frame 2 can be
considered a base, Schumacher's patient care modules 10, 11, 12 are not
kept outside of an MRI system bore as claimed, because frame 2 is not
detachable from patient support surface 3. Id. at 8. Appellants contend
Ahlman does not cure this deficiency of Schumacher, because Ahlman's
patient care modules such as auxiliary IV pole holder 66 are attached to
table 12, which is inserted into the MRI system bore, rather than a base that
is detachable from table 12. Id. at 8-9; Reply Br. 4-5.
We are persuaded of Examiner error in determining it would have
been obvious, in light of Schumacher, to modify Ahlman to have a base
detachable from Ahlman's patient support table 12 and including bays for
4
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
receiving patient care modules. 2 The Examiner does not articulate
sufficiently what component in Ahlman would be modified to include
patient care module bays, and thereby correspond to the claimed base. The
Examiner refers to Ahlman's patient support table 12 being "positioned on a
mobile cart with wheels" and "interfac[ing] with the transfer frame," both of
which we understand to refer to Ahlman's transfer frame 32. Final Act. 2-3,
16; Ans. 16-17. However, the Examiner does not state transfer frame 32 is
found to be a "base," or indicate transfer frame 3 2 would be modified to
include the patient care module bays. Nonetheless, the Examiner appears to
treat Ahlman as disclosing a base because the Examiner finds that Ahlman
does not disclose a plurality of bays formed in the base. Final Act. 3. We
find that Ahlman does disclose a table (removable platform 12) that supports
a patient as illustrated in Figures 1-8. Ahlman i-fi-1241-248. Removable
platform 12 is detachable from a base (transfer frame 32) as illustrated in
Figures 9 and 10. Id. i-fi-1248-250.
Claim 1 also recites a docking system attached to the base and
configured to couple to a mating docking system of an MR imaging system.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). The Examiner appears to discuss Ahlman's
T-pins 86 engaging T-slots on table 12 in connection with the claimed
docking system (Final Act. 2), but that docking mechanism is attached to
table 12 not to transfer frame 32. See Ahlman, Fig. 1, i-fi-1233, 242, 248. In
failing to indicate clearly how Ahlman's transfer frame 32 corresponds to
2 The Examiner cites Allred as relating to magnetically shielding the patient
care modules in the base. Final Act. 4. Because the Examiner does not rely
on Allred as relating to placing patient care modules in a base that is
detachable from a patient support table, we need not discuss Allred further.
5
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
the claimed base that includes a docking system, the Examiner has not
established by a preponderance of evidence that Ahlman discloses the
claimed base and docking system.
The rejection further discusses Ahlman's disclosure that patient
support table 12 has patient care modules (such as an IV fluid support pole)
attached to it, which can be detached before table 12 is inserted into an MRI
system bore. Final Act. 2-3, 17 (discussing block 108 and adapter plugs 246
and 248 attached to table 12 to hold pole). However, patient support
table 12 cannot be the base of claim 1, because the base is required to be
"detachable" from the table. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
We also agree with Appellants that Schumacher does not overcome
these deficiencies of Ahlman or render obvious the claimed plurality of bays
and patient care modules. The Examiner has not shown by a preponderance
of evidence that Schumacher's support surface 3 is detachable from frame 2,
which includes the plurality of bays lOA, 1 lA, 12A for modules 10, 11, 12.
See Final Act. 3. Therefore, the Examiner has not explained adequately how
Schumacher teaches the concept of a table detachable from a base that has a
plurality of bays formed therein, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner's
treatment of module 29 of Schumacher as the claimed base does not explain
how module 29 forms a "plurality of bays" or a detachable "base" that has a
docking system attached thereto. Although the test for obviousness is not
whether features of one reference can be incorporated physically in another
reference, nonetheless, the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how
Schumacher's teachings of a plurality of bays lOA, 1 lA, 12A in frame 2 that
is not shown to be detachable from patient support surface 3, or module
carrier 29 that detaches from frame 27, can be used to modify Ahlman's
6
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
transfer frame 32 to include a plurality of bays, as claimed. If anything,
Schumacher teaches that bays and detachable modules are positioned on the
frame of the table, rather than on a separate base that is detachable from the
table. The Examiner's treatment of module carrier 29 as a "base" is an
unreasonably broad interpretation of that term as module carrier 29 does not
support frame 27 or a table, or include a plurality of bays, as claimed. See
Spec. i-fi-127-28.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1. The
rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, and 10 does not cure the noted deficiency
as to their common parent claim 1. Final Act. 2-5. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 as unpatentable over Ahlman,
Allred, and Schumacher.
Claim 16
Appellants argue independent claim 16 is patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons provided in connection with claim 1. Appeal
Br. 4-10. Claim 16 recites a table detachably coupled to a base, with the
base including patient care modules positioned in compartments. Id. at 18
(Claims App.). The rejection of claim 16 relies on the same analysis of
Ahlman and Schumacher discussed above in connection with similar
requirements of claim 1. Final Act. 2--4. We, therefore, likewise do not
sustain the rejection of claim 16.
B. Unpatentability based on Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Pan, and
Srinivasan
Appellants argue independent claim 11 is patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons provided in connection with claim 1. Appeal
Br. 11-12. Claim 11 recites a tab le detachable from a base, and an
7
Appeal2014-002748
Application 12/188,251
anesthesia system comprising a plurality of patient care modules, with the
anesthesia system positioned in a plurality of bays of the base. Id. at 16-17
(Claims App.). The rejection of claim 11 relies on the same analysis of
Ahlman and Schumacher discussed above in connection with similar
requirements of claim 1. Final Act. 8-10. The additional reliance on Pan
and Srinivasan, and the additional consideration of dependent claims 14 and
21, do not cure the deficiencies as to Ahlman and Schumacher noted above.
Id. at 10-12. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claims 11, 14,
and 21 as unpatentable over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, Pan, and
Srinivasan.
C. Remaining Rejections
The remaining rejections concern various dependent claims being
unpatentable over Ahlman, Allred, Schumacher, and one or more of Rivas,
Noble, Pan, Srinivasan, De La Huerga, and Hendrickson. Final Act. 6-8, 13-
16. The additional reliance on these other references in connection with the
dependent claims does not cure the deficiencies as to Ahlman and
Schumacher noted above. Id. We, therefore, do not sustain these rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8