Ex Parte Haechler et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201914271550 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/271,550 05/07/2014 23690 7590 06/03/2019 ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS OPERATIONS INC. 9115 Hague Road Indianapolis, IN 46250-0457 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joerg Haechler 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. 31569 US-pd 2057 EXAMINER HIXSON, CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1797 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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): j ackie.pike@roche.com pair_roche@firsttofile.com meg.ward@roche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOERG HAECHLER, FLORIAN SCHINDLER, and GEORGIOS SPITADAKIS 1 Appeal 2018-007 449 Application 14/271,550 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MARK NAGUMO, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 as unpatentable over Tokieda (US 2011/0162438 Al; July 7, 2011) in view of Russo (Mark F. Russo, Modeling, Analysis, Simulation and Control of Laboratory Automation Systems Using Petri Nets: Part 1. Modeling, JALA Tutorial, 172-81 (June 2005)), and Orsulak (Paul J. Orsulak, Stand-Alone 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc., which is identified as the real party in interest (Br. 2). Appeal 2018-007 449 Application 14/271,550 Automated Solutions Can Enhance Laboratory Operations, Clinical Chemistry 46:5, 778-83 (2000)). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant claims an automated laboratory system 100 for processing sample tubes 10 comprising: a conveyor 20 and a plurality of work cells 30-34, 40 wherein at least one work cell is an archiving module 40; a sample buffer module 50; and a sample workflow manager 60 configured to dispatch sample tubes from the buff er module to the work cells, to dispatch already processed sample tubes from the work cells to the buffer module for a first predetermined time, and to dispatch the already processed sample tubes from the buffer module to the archiving module for a second predetermined time that is longer than the first predetermined time (independent claim 1, Fig. 1 ). Appellant also claims a corresponding method for processing sample tubes (remaining independent claim 8). Further details of the claimed subject matter are set forth in representative claim 1, a copy of which taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief appears below. 1. An automated laboratory system for processing sample tubes, the system comprising: a conveyor and a plurality of work cells coupled as modules to the conveyor so that sample tubes can be transported by the conveyor to the work cells, wherein each work cell has a respective sample processing throughput and wherein at least one work cell is an archiving module; 2 Appeal 2018-007 449 Application 14/271,550 a sample buffer module coupled to the conveyor, the sample buffer module being in common to the plurality of work cells; a loading module coupled to the conveyor for loading sample tubes into the system; an unloading module coupled to the conveyor for unloading sample tubes from the system; and a sample workflow manager configured to dispatch sample tubes from the sample buffer module to the work cells via the conveyor with a frequency for each work cell that is equal to its respective sample processing throughput, wherein the sample workflow manager is further configured to dispatch already processed sample tubes from the work cells to the common sample buffer module for at least a first predetermined time, during which time additional processing by a same or different work cell can be requested and to dispatch the already processed sample tubes from the sample buffer module to the archiving module for a second predetermined time that is longer than the first predetermined time, during this second predetermined time additional processing of the sample tubes can be requested, and to dispatch the sample tubes to the unloading unit or to waste after the second predetermined time. Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under rejection (see Br. 14). Accordingly, the dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims, of which claim 1 is representative. We sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons given in the Non- Final Office Action (dated July 6, 2017), the Examiner's Answer, and below. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that T okieda discloses an automated sample processing system comprising function modules (i.e., work cells) paired with buffer units (i.e., buffer modules) wherein a control 3 Appeal 2018-007 449 Application 14/271,550 unit (i.e., workflow manager) determines sample transport through the system (Non-Final Action 6 (citing Tokieda Abst., Fig. 1, ,i,i 115-117)). The Examiner finds that Tokieda's control unit is not configured to dispatch sample tubes according to the frequency recited in claim 1 but concludes that it would have been obvious to so-configure the control unit in view of Russo (id. at 6-7). Appellant does not dispute this obviousness conclusion with any reasonable specificity (see generally Br.). The Examiner finds that the above modified system of T okieda does not include an archiving module or a control unit (i.e., workflow manager) configured to dispatch already processed sample tubes from the buffer module to the archiving module for a predetermined time as required by claim 1 (id. at 8). Concerning this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Orsulak discloses a system comprising an archiving module for storing processed samples (i.e., samples that tested positive and will be re-tested eventually), wherein the processed samples are located in the archiving module for a time longer than they were located in a buffer module (id.). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Tokieda's system with an archiving module and to configure Tokieda's control unit to dispatch processed sample tubes from the buffer module to the archiving module for a predetermined time as claimed in view of Orsulak (id.). Appellant argues none ofTokieda, Russo or Orsulak disclose both a sample buffer module and a separate archive module in the same system, where the already processed sample tubes are configured to be dispatched for a first predetermined time to the sample buffer module and a second [longer] predetermined time to an archive module ... by a sample workflow manager [ as claimed] 4 Appeal 2018-007 449 Application 14/271,550 (Br. 13). In response, the Examiner states that Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it "attacks the references in piecemeal" (Ans. 5 (underlining removed)) and that "one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references" (id.). In support of this latter statement, the Examiner cites In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.") (id.). We agree with the Examiner and emphasize that Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's characterization of the above quoted argument. Appellant is correct that no single one of the applied references discloses both a sample buffer module and a separate archiving module in the same system. However, Appellant fails to explain why the combined teachings of the references would not have suggested modifying Tokieda's system comprising a buffer module to include an archiving module of the type and for the reasons taught by Orsulak. Likewise, Appellant fails to explain why these combined teachings would not have suggested configuring the control unit of Tokieda's modified system to dispatch processed sample tubes to the buffer module and to the archiving module in the manner required by the sample workflow manager limitation of claim 1. Under these circumstances, the record of this appeal supports a determination that an artisan would have had a reason and the skill to combine the applied references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 5 Appeal 2018-007 449 Application 14/271,550 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation