Ex Parte Hasan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 17, 2019

14954154 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/954,154 11/30/2015
6147 7590 04/19/2019
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GLOBAL RESEARCH
1 RESEARCH CIRCLE
Kl - 3A59
Niskayuna, NY 12309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SM Shajedul Hasan
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.
279906-1 1791
EXAMINER
WENDELL, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2019 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):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
preisman@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SM SHAJEDUL HASAN, STEVEN WILLIAM WIK,
DAVID MICHAEL DAVENPORT,
AGHOGHO ATEMU OBI, and
STANISLA VA SORO
Appeal 2018-007349 1
Application 14/954, 154
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of
all pending claims 1-7, 10-20, and 22-25, all pending claims of the
application.2 Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We
affirm.
1 Appellants assert the real party in interest is General Electric Company.
Appeal Brief 3.
2 Hereinafter in this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
March 12, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 9, 2018), the
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates generally to network data transfer for
monitored data for a mobile patient. Spec. ,i 1. According to Appellants,
when monitoring patient data in a medical facility, transferring that data to
monitoring systems via hard-wired connections limits mobility of the patient
in the facility. Id. ,i 2. Appellants further contend that even wireless
connections limit patient mobility because there are no systems to easily
transfer user data within the network as a patient is moved within the
facility. Id. According to Appellants, "lack of continuity when
disconnecting and reconnecting the patient from stations/hubs presents
additional problems" in which other devices may interfere with the accurate
wireless transmission of data. Id. ,i 3.
Appellants purport to resolve these issues by providing a system
comprising a plurality of hubs, each hub comprising a Medical Body Area
Network ("MBAN") interface and a "short range" interface. Id. ,i 7. The
MBAN interface couples the hub with one or more sensors collecting patient
medical data. Id. The short range interface couples the hub with another
hub to transfer collected patient data to the other hub through its short range
interface. Id. In an embodiment, the short range interface may be a Near-
Field Communication ("NFC") interface. Id. ,i 9.
Figure 1 of the application is reproduced below.
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 8, 2018), the Advisory Action
("Adv. Act.," mailed January 5, 2018), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed October 16, 2017), and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
November 30, 2015).
2
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
(tl}
Pa.tient prepped
for ti:anspnrt
{c}
:ra:f.i1111t is mobik
116
104
MBAN
100
\..,_
Fig.1
\ViFi
or
W!).·ITS/Cdfol.ar
··.·.· .. -..... ·.·F**
113
Figure 1, reproduced above, depicts an embodiment of a system in
accord with the invention. In Figure la, sensors 102 are connected to patient
100 in a room and send monitored patient data wirelessly through MBAN
104 to monitoring device 106. Id. ,-i 19. Monitoring device 106 is coupled
with nursing station 108 via wireless ("Wi-Fi") or wired network 107. In
Figure 1 b, the patient is being prepared to move to another location and
ambulatory hub 110 is brought near device 106 to receive patient data via
3
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
MBAN 104 and NFC 112 while the patient is moving to a new location. Id.
,-J 22. In Figure le, the patient has been moved to a new location (e.g., into a
wheelchair) and MBAN 104 is now connected to hub 110. Hub 110 may
continue to transfer monitored patient data to the same or another nursing
station 108 via network 120. Id. ,-i,-i 23, 24.
Independent apparatus claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A system for managing transfer of data in a medical
body area network (MBAN) to wirelessly mobilize a patient
compnsmg:
one or more sensors collecting data and configured to
interconnect with a patient in a medical body area network
(MBAN), each sensor comprising a sensor node having a unique
identifier and a corresponding network address;
a plurality of hubs, including at least a first hub and at least
a second hub, each hub having a dual communication interface
including an MBAN interface and a short range interface
including a near field communication (NFC) interface; each hub
comprising a wireless transceiver and a processor which
manages a time divided protocol comprising:
one or more data slots to monitor a plurality of
medical devices, and
one or more control slots designated to manage
transfer of the MBAN within the time divided protocol
from the first hub to the second hub, the control slots
including a transmit node and a receive node;
wherein the first hub transmits a packet of data and
the second hub receives a packet of data within the control
slots when the second hub detects a NFC tag unique
identifier (UID) of the first hub.
App. Br. 15. Independent claim 13 includes similar recitations in the style
of a method claim.
4
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 10-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication
No. 2015/0215925 Al, published July 30, 2015) ("Wang"), Madrid et al.
(US Patent Publication No. 2010/0211336 Al, published Aug. 19, 2010)
("Madrid"), and Baker (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0343967 Al,
published Nov. 20, 2014). Final Act. 2-7.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wang, Madrid, Baker, and Comdorf (US Patent Publication No.
2008/0044025 Al, published Feb. 21, 2008). Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed the
Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
has erred. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 1-8. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and as
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1 and 13
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the Examiner finds Wang
teaches most elements but relies on Madrid in the proposed combination for
disclosing managing "a time divided protocol" and relies on Baker for
5
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
disclosing "a short range interface including a near field communication
(NFC) interface." Final Act. 2-4. The Examiner articulates reasons an
ordinarily skilled artisan, at the time of the invention, would have combined
the references. Id. at 3-4.
Appellants argue Wang teaches away from the claimed invention
requiring a hub including both an MBAN interface and a short range
interface. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue Wang expressly
teaches a hub includes an MBAN interface and a long range interface, thus,
expressly teaching away from the requirement of a short range interface. Id.
( citing Wang ,-J 28). Therefore, Appellants contend the ordinarily skilled
artisan would not be motivated to modify Wang to use a short range
interface as taught in Baker. Id. at 13.
A prior art reference does not teach away from the claimed subject
matter unless the prior art reference criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004); see also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.
The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the
particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it
suggests that the line of development flowing from the
reference's disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result
sought by the applicant.
In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument that Wang discredits the use of a short range interface
6
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
in view of its reference to a long range network interface. First, Wang
merely discloses that its network interface "is typically long-range compared
to the MBAN 22." Wang ,-J 28. Second, Wang expressly identifies
"Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or 3G/4G cellular network" as examples of the typical
long range network interface. Each of those exemplary interfaces, though
capable of interacting over long distances, are just as capable of operating
over shorter distances. Nothing in these recitations precludes or discredits
the use of a short range network interface including an NFC interface.
Appellants further argue that modifying Wang to use NFC as taught in
Baker would render Wang inoperable because "the other communication
device of Wang does not transmit a[ n] NFC tag unique identifier for the
other communication device to able to detect, and vice versa." App. Br. 13.
We remain unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants'
argument is circular, in essence asserting that changing Wang's second
interface to an NFC interface would render it inoperable because it does not
use an NFC interface. Wang discloses its second interface could be any of a
variety of interfaces-e.g., Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular. Clearly, whatever
interface is employed within Wang's hub would be compatible with another
device or network with which it would communicate. If Wang were
modified to use NFC as taught by Baker, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
clearly have understood that it would be used with a compatible device or
network.
Furthermore, "[i]t is well-established that a determination of
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements. . . . Rather, the test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
7
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
those having ordinary skill in the art." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-
33 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[t]he test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference" ( citation omitted)), cert. denied,
137 S. Ct. 292 (2016). The proposed combination of references teaches or
suggests that the second interface of Wang's hub could be an NFC interface
as taught by Baker.
We have reviewed Appellants' further arguments in the Reply Brief
but, for essentially the same reasons, we remain unpersuaded of Examiner
error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. For essentially the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection
of independent claim 13. Claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24 each
depend, directly or indirectly from one of claims 1 and 13. Appellants do
not separately argue the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-20,
and 22-24. See App. Br. 11-13. Thus, for the same reasons as claims 1 and
13, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24.
Claim 25
Claim 25 depends from claim 13, and Appellants do not argue the
rejection of claim 25. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 13, we sustain the
rejection of claim 25.
8
Appeal 2018-007349
Application 14/954, 154
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting all pending
claims 1-7, 10-20, and 22-25 is affirmed.
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
9