Ex Parte Kawatahara et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 2010

10481397 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 2010)

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.
10/481,397 12/19/2003 Masanao Kawatahara 10921.192USWO 4777
52835 7590 03/10/2010
HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2902
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0902
EXAMINER
SIMS, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MASANAO KAWATAHARA,
YOSHIMI OOURA, and SHINGERU DOI
__________

Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397
Technology Center 1600
__________

Decided: March 10, 2010
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and STEPHEN WALSH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

WALSH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
information communication system. The Patent Examiner rejected the
claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to “an information communication system in
which information from a storage medium is inputted into an analyzer via an
information processing apparatus.” (Spec. 1:6-9.) Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13 and
15-19 are on appeal.1 Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. An information communication system comprising a storage medium
in which target information is stored, an information processor for
inputting the target information from the storage medium, and an
analyzer for inputting the target information from the information
processor;
wherein the target information from the storage medium is
inputted into the analyzer through the information processor;
wherein the analyzer includes a housing body, and a detection
unit removably attached to the housing body for outputting
information to the housing body;
wherein the housing body includes a calculating section for
performing calculation necessary for analyzing a particular
component contained in a measurement object;
wherein the detection unit includes a detection section for
obtaining calculation information necessary for the calculation from
the measurement object;
wherein the housing body includes a display for displaying an
analysis result;
wherein the information processor is located outside the
housing body for releasable connection to the analyzer for
downloading the target information to the analyzer; and
wherein the target information includes information for
changing an original function of the analyzer or for adding a new
function to the analyzer.

1 Claim 14 was cancelled, and claims 2, 3 and 7 are withdrawn. (App. Br.
5.)
Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-6, 8-13 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Brown.2 Claims 4-6, 8-13 and 15-19 have not
been argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANTICIPATION
The Issue
The Examiner’s position is that Brown described the claimed system
having all the claimed elements, including a health indicator analyzer and
target information for changing an original function of the analyzer. (Fin.
Rej. 3-7.)
Appellants dispute “[w]hether Brown et al. disclose[d] all the features
of claim 1” (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4). More specifically, Appellants contend
that Brown did not disclose “target information for changing an original
function of an analyzer or for adding a new function to the analyzer.” (App.
Br. 7-8.)
The issue with respect to this appeal is whether the evidence supports
the Examiner’s finding that Brown disclosed “target information … for
changing an original function of the analyzer or for adding a new function to
the analyzer.”

Findings of Fact
1. The Specification states: “there is provided an information
communication system comprising a storage medium in which target

2 U.S. Patent No. 6,450,955 B1, issued to Michael Wayne Brown et al., Sep.
17, 2002; application filed Apr. 28, 2000.
Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

4
information is stored in advance . . . . [t]he target information from
the storage medium is inputted into the analyzer through the
information processor.” (Spec. 3:20-27.)
2. The Specification states: “the target information may be information
necessary for realizing the operation of the additional information
processor. The target information may include a program for causing
the information outputted from the analyzer to correspond to the
communication protocol of the additional information processor
before the information is outputted.” (Id. at 4:21-27.)
3. The Specification discloses that the target information may also be
information that contributes to a game property when an additional
information processor is a game machine, a calculation program for
the analysis of an object at the analyzer, or a program for realizing a
function necessary for the operation of the analyzer but not directly
related with the calculation required for the analysis of an object. (Id.
at 5, ll. 15-26.)
4. Brown described a computer system that “monitors the physical
health of an individual from multiple physical health indicators
received from multiple diverse electronic health measurement
devices.” (Brown, Abstract.)
5. According to Brown, “health measurement devices 60a-60n” include
multiple diverse health measurement devices, such as a pulse monitor,
a blood pressure monitor, a glucometer, and any other monitoring
device. (Brown, col. 5, ll. 25-32.)
6. Brown disclosed that “[e]ach of health measurement devices 60a-60n
preferably includes a physical health indicator calculator 62a-62n” to
Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

5
“compute a numerical physical health indicator of physical health data
measured by health measurement devices 60a-60n.” (Id. at col. 5, ll.
33-38.)
7. Brown disclosed that “[p]hysical health indicators computed by
physical health indicator calculators 62a-62n are preferably converted
into a common transmittable data format by transmittable format
converters 61a-61n, such as XML, and transmitted via the
communications medium to computer system 10.” (Id. at col. 5, ll.
41-46.)
8. The Examiner found that “Brown et al. at col. 8, lines 1-34, discuss
target information from a data storage medium in the computer system
being transmitted to the health measurement devices.” (Ans. 4.)
9. The Examiner found that
Brown et al. at col. 7, lines 52-67 and col. 8, lines 1-15 discuss
a computer system, which comprises a health indicator
analyzer[, that] may transmit data, i.e. XML data file, for a
control signal to the electronic health measurement devices for
adding a new function to the analyzer such as a new amount of
glucose to inject or a different time schedule for taking blood
glucose measurements.

(Ans. 5.)
10. The Examiner found that “Brown et al. at col. 8, lines 58-63 discuss
the computer system being able to utilize the health indicators for
analysis and control of health control devices.” (Ans. 5-6.)
11. The Examiner found that “Brown et al. at col. 9, lines 15-22 teach that
the computer system may be customized and continuously upgraded
which reads on part vii).” (Ans. 6.)

Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

6
Principles of Law
“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. Anticipation is an issue of fact, and the question
whether a claim limitation is inherent in a prior art reference is
a factual issue.

In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).

Analysis
We begin with claim interpretation. Claim 1’s system has “target
information” in a storage medium, and the “target information from the
storage medium is inputted into the analyzer through the information
processor.” The last clause of claim 1 provides that the target information
“includes information for changing an original function of an analyzer or for
adding a new function to the analyzer.”
The Specification provides several examples of “target information.”
(FF2-3.) The Specification does not assign a particular meaning to “target,”
and we interpret “target” as simply meaning whatever information in the
storage medium that will be inputted into the analyzer. The Specification
also does not assign limiting definitions to “information,” “changing,” or
“original function.” We interpret those terms as broadly directed to
whatever information could accomplish either function listed in the last
clause of claim 1.
Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

7
We agree with the Examiner that Brown described a system having
the components of claim 1, including a storage medium, information
processor, and analyzer, and that Brown described information transmission
in both directions between the storage medium and analyzer. (FF4-7.)
Given the scope of claim 1, the question is whether Brown disclosed
inputting information into an analyzer that would cause any kind of change
to an original function of the analyzer. The Examiner cited Brown, col. 8, ll.
1-34, for its example of that kind of information. (FF8 and 9).
In the cited passage, Brown first described “[a]n example of an XML
data file for a control signal that might be transmitted from portable
computer system 10 to electronic health measurement devices 60a-60n.”
(Brown, col. 8, ll. 1-3.) The example signal is for a water infuser, and sets
the output to 0.5 Liters/hour. (Id. at ll. 5-9.) We agree with the Examiner
that a control signal that alters water infusion as described in Brown meets
the claim limitation requiring the information to be “for changing an original
function.” The cited passage contains a second example: rescheduling
times for measurements to be made. (Id. at ll. 16-34.) We agree with the
Examiner that a control signal that alters the times for measurements to be
made meets the claim limitation requiring the information to be “for
changing an original function.”

CONCLUSION
The evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that Brown disclosed
“target information for changing an original function of an analyzer or for
adding a new function to the analyzer.”

Appeal 2009-010241
Application 10/481,397

8
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8-13 and 15-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Brown.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

lp

HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2902
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-0902