Ex Parte Kiani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

12904377 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

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.
12/904,377 10/14/2010 Massi Joe E. Kiani MASIM0.756A2P1 5803
64735 7590 03/21/2017
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
MASIMO CORPORATION (MASIMO)
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
JIANG, YONG HANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAS SI JOE E. KIANI, ANAND SAMPATH,
and BILAL MUHSIN
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,3771
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JUSTIN BUSCH, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—9, 11, and 15, which constitute all of the claims
pending in the application. Claims 10 and 12—14 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Masimo Corporation as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,377
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to configurable patient
monitoring devices in the health care field. Abstract. Claims 1 and 7 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and
reads as follows, with the disputed limitations in italics'.
1. A medical patient monitoring device for monitoring
physiological information, the medical patient monitoring device
comprising:
an interface configured to receive physiological
information associated with at least one patient; and
a detector for detecting the physical presence of a clinician
token within first and second detection areas in the vicinity of the
same medical patient monitoring device, the clinician token
being indicative of the identity of a clinician,
wherein the medical patient monitoring device further
comprises a processor that is configured to allow the clinician
access to the medical patient monitoring device when the
clinician is in the first detection area or the second detection area,
and to take an action that is based at least in part on whether the
clinician token is detected in the first detection area or the
second detection area, the processor being configured to take a
first predetermined action in response to detection of the
clinician token in the first detection area, and to take a second
predetermined action, that is different from the first
predetermined action, in response to detection of the clinician
token in the second detection area, the first and second
predetermined actions being associated with the identity of the
clinician.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,377
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Music et al. (US 7,706,896 B2; Apr. 27, 2010) (“Music”)
and Torok et al. (US 2006/0288095 Al; Dec. 21, 2006) (“Torok”). Final
Act. 5—8.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Music, Torok, and Long et al. (US 6,380,853 Bl; Apr. 30, 2002) (“Long”).
Final Act. 8—9.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Music, Torok, and Huppi et al. (US 2007/0075965 Al; Apr. 5, 2007)
(“Huppi”). Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 7—9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Music and Hines et al. (US 2001/0040512 Al; Nov. 15,
2001) (“Hines”). Final Act. 10-12.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Music, Torok, and Ishibashi (US 2008/0174551 Al; July 24, 2008).
Final Act. 12—13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to the obviousness rejections of claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2—6 and 15, we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred on the record before us. With respect to
the obviousness rejections of the remaining claims, however, we agree with
3
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,377
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. We
provide the following to highlight and address specific arguments.
Claims 1—6 and 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches a processor configured to “allow the clinician access to the medical
patient monitoring device . . . and to take an action that is based at least in
part on whether the clinician token is detected in the first detection area or
the second detection area,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—7 (emphasis
added); Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants argue the Examiner has conflated the
separate limitations “allow . . . access” and “take an action” as recited in the
claim, and improperly finds the same element in Music as teaching both
claim limitations. Reply Br. 2. We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
The Examiner finds “Music . . . [teaches] the medical monitoring
device allows the clinician access to the medical patient monitoring device
(via once the medical device 164 is unlocked when the caregiver is detected,
access is granted[)].” Ans. 2 (citing Music col. 12,11. 3—10) (emphasis
added). The Examiner further finds Music teaches the recited “action” in its
description of a “caregiver detected by bed sensor 250 [resulting in] access
to medical device 164 unlocked” and “caregiver detected by door sensor 172
[resulting in] access to medical device 164 unlocked.” Ans. 2 (citing Music
col. 11,11. 26-40; Music col. 12,11. 3—10) (emphasis added). As Appellants
argue, however, the foregoing teachings all relate to granting “access” to the
device. Reply Br. 3. Although Music alternatively refers to “unlocking”
(and “unlocking access” to) the device, unlocking as referenced in Music is
simply a synonym for allowing access. Music col. 12,11. 3—10.
4
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,377
Accordingly, although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Music teaches allowing a clinician “access” to a monitoring device when the
clinician is detected, the Examiner cites to no teaching in Music of the
additionally recited “action” based on whether the clinician token is
detected. The Examiner further does not, on the record before us, rely on
Torok as teaching the disputed element in combination with Music. Final
Act. 5—6 (finding the combination of Torok with Music cures a deficiency in
Music regarding a subsequent claim limitation, i.e., “different from” the first
predetermined action “based on where the clinician token is detected”)
(emphasis added); see also Torok 138 (presenting a user “location
dependent context data”).
For the foregoing reasons we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over Music and Torok. We also do not sustain the obviousness
rejections of claims 2—6 and 15, all of which depend from claim 1, because
the Examiner has not demonstrated that any of the additional references
cited in rejecting the dependent claims cure the deficiencies with respect to
the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 7—9 and 11
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Hines teaches a
“signal strength adjustment value [i] is related to clinician identification
information stored on the clinician token and [ii] is based on the clinician’s
preference as to the manner of wearing the clinician token,” as recited in
independent claim 7. App. Br. 11—13. We address the two disputed
limitations in turn.
5
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,377
First, as the Examiner finds, Hines teaches RFID tags “installed
throughout the premises,” each of which “is provided with a unique
identification code.” Hines 110; Ans. 5. Hines further teaches
“normalization” (i.e., signal strength adjustment) of the RFID signals due to,
among other factors, “manufacturing variations” among the RFID units.
Hines 142. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would understand the
“normalization” taught in Hines may depend on the identification
information for each particular unit, as recited in claim 7. Ans. 5. The fact
that claim 7 recites “clinician” identification information, as opposed to a
device ID, App. Br. 13, does not distinguish claim 7 from the teaching in
Hines and, moreover, the Examiner relies on the combination of Hines with
Music’s teaching of clinician ID tags. Id.', see also 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.”). We are, therefore,
unpersuaded by Appellants’ first argument.
Second, as the Examiner further finds, Hines teaches the RFID signal
normalization corrects for “variations in the field strength” of the RFIDs
“due to the[ir] particular placement.” Hines 142; Ans. 5. Appellants argue
the “manner of wearing” recited in claim 7 is distinct from the physical
location of RFIDs in Hines, which teaches placement of devices throughout
a building rather than on a person. App. Br. 12. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding, however, that one of ordinary skill would understand
Hines’ teaching of location is not limited to placement within a building.
Ans. 5; see KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (person
of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
6
Appeal 2016-003146
Application 12/904,377
automaton.”). The pertinent teaching in Hines is that signal strength
detection is normalized based on the placement of the device. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that this teaching of Hines, in combination with
Music’s teaching of clinician IDs, teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 5.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 7 as obvious over Music and Hines. Appellants do not argue
dependent claims 8, 9, and 11 separately and, therefore, we also sustain the
obviousness rejections of those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 7—9 and 11.
We reverse the decision rejecting claims 1—6 and 15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7