Ex Parte Hahn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2018

12995118 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2018)

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.
12/995,118 03/02/2011 Andreas Hahn 395195 7957
25764 7590
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
PATENT DOCKETING - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
2200 WELLS FARGO CENTER
90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3901
EXAMINER
MENSH, ANDREW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2018 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):
PatentDocketing @ F aegreB D .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS HAHN and ERWIN KNOTT
Appeal 2017-003879
Application 12/995,118
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, JILL D. HILL, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andreas Hahn and Erwin Knott (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19—25 and 27—37.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sorin Group
Deutschland GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of LivaNova PLC. Br. 3.
2 Claim 1—18 and 26 are canceled. Br. 5.
Appeal 2017-003879
Application 12/995,118
CLAIMS
Independent claim 19, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
19. A life support system comprising:
a plurality of medical devices including at least a first
medical device, a second medical device and a third medical
device;
a control panel including at least a first control element, a
second control element and a third control element, each of the
control elements associated with one of the plurality of medical
devices, each of the control elements for operating the
associated one of the plurality of medical devices;
a designated control position; and
a display panel including at least a first display and/or
monitoring element, a second display and/or monitoring
element, and a third display and/or monitoring element, each
display and/or monitoring element associated with one of the
plurality of medical devices, each display and/or monitoring
element displaying and/or monitoring system and/or operating
conditions of an associated medical device;
wherein the control panel is configured such that the first
medical device, the first control element and the first display
and/or monitoring device are arranged along a first alignment
line,
the second medical device, the second control element
and the second display and/or monitoring device are arranged
along a second alignment line, and
the third medical device, the third control element and
the third display and/or monitoring device are arranged along a
third alignment line, where each of the first alignment line, the
second alignment line and the third alignment line extend to the
designated control position, and
wherein the first, second, and third display and/or
monitoring elements are positioned at a first polar angle 0i and
visible from a point of observation at the designated control
position, the first, second, and third medical devices are
positioned at a second polar angle 02 that is greater than the first
2
Appeal 2017-003879
Application 12/995,118
polar angle 0i and visible from the point of observation at the
designated control position, and the first, second, and third
control elements are positioned at a third polar angle 03 that is
greater than the second polar angle 02 and visible from the point
of observation at the designated control position.
App. Br. 18—19 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 19-25 and 27—37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dalke (US 6,071,258, issued June 6, 2000), Ausboume
(US 6,234,172 Bl, issued May 22, 2001), and Hahn (EP 0882462 Bl,
published Jan. 21, 2004).
OPINION
The Examiner finds that Dalke discloses a life support system
including, inter alia, a plurality of pumps 14, each having a control element
16 aligned therewith, and having all output displayed on a common monitor
30. Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner further finds that although Dalke does
not disclose a monitor for each respective pump, Ausboume discloses plural
monitors each associated with a medical device. Id. at 5. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the system of Dalke to include multiple displays, one for
each respective pump, “to individually observe a display for each medical
device and individually control each medical device without moving
substantially.” Id. (citing Ausboume 7:27—36). According to the Examiner,
the Dalke/Ausboume combination does not disclose device-controller-
display alignment lines extending to a designated control position, but
3
Appeal 2017-003879
Application 12/995,118
nonetheless, concludes that it would have been obvious for a person of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Dalke/Ausboume combination so that
the first, second and third alignment lines “extend/converge at the designated
control position, similar to that disclosed by Hahn, in order to provide a
compact/localized arrangement which significantly reduces the size of the
life support machine as suggested by Hahn.” Id. at 6 (citing Hahn 19).
Appellants argue that, because Hahn shows that “the blood pumps la
—Id and the control panel 3 are simply arranged around the oxygenator/heat
exchanger 2,” Hahn does not suggest the alignment lines extending as
recited. Br. 15. Appellants assert that Hahn’s “displays and the positions of
the control elements are not even described or illustrated.” Id. According to
Appellants, because the Examiner is adding elements that were not described
by Hahn “to achieve the claimed convergence of the alignment lines,” the
Examiner is using impermissible “hindsight to recreate the claimed
convergence of the alignment lines.” Br. 16.
The Examiner responds that Appellants are attacking the references
individually because the combination of Dalke and Ausboume already
teaches the medical devices, respective controls, and display elements along
vertical alignment lines, whereas Hahn is only cited to teach a more efficient
arrangement. Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, the conclusion of
obviousness is not based on improper hindsight reasoning, because the
reasoning is based on Hahn, which “suggests that the control panel is
provided with a plurality of controls,” and also suggests mounting poles for
other components, wherein the “display/monitoring elements can be
considered as ‘other components.’” Id. at 4 (citing Hahn || 10, 11).
4
Appeal 2017-003879
Application 12/995,118
Although we appreciate that the Examiner only relies on Hahn as
“teaching a more efficient arrangement,” the Examiner does not adequately
explain how “a plurality of medical devices, each of their respective control,
monitoring and display elements along vertical alignment lines, and a
designated control position are already taught and made obvious by the
combination of Dalke in view of Ausboume.” Ans. 3. Dalke teaches a
single monitor 30 that is not aligned on an alignment line with Dalke’s
pumps and controls. See Final Act. 4. Ausboume’s display 18 is in a
horizontal plane whereas Ausboume’s display 22 and unnumbered display
(below 22) are in vertical planes, and are stacked one on top of the other, and
it is this arrangement that provides “a centralized location” and allows an
operator to “monitor and control the operation of the various medical
devices 14(2—14/without moving about substantially.” Ausboume 7:30-32;
Figure 2. Moving monitors to a central location differs from aligning along
converging lines. The Examiner does not explain adequately how the
teachings of Ausboume result in a plurality of “display elements along
vertical alignment lines.” As Appellants correctly note, displays are “not
described or illustrated in Hahn.” Br. 16. Thus, we are persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is in
error, because the Examiner does not adequately explain how the combined
references teach or suggest devices and displays along vertical alignment
lines extending to a designated control position. We therefore do not sustain
the rejection.
5
Appeal 2017-003879
Application 12/995,118
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19—25 and 27—37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dalke, Ausboume, and Hahn.
REVERSED
6