Ex Parte Kuri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2019

15194656 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/194,656 06/28/2016 YamilKuri
66386 7590 02/26/2019
JACQUELINE TADROS, P.A.
P.O. Box 4564
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33338-9998
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.
Kuri- CIP 2541
EXAMINER
HOUGH, JESSANDRA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2019 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):
JTADROS@INTELLECTUALPROPERTYNOW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AMIL KURI
Appeal 2018-003424
Application 15/194,656
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Y amil Kuri ("Appellant") appeals under 3 5 U.S. C. § 134( a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 12-15 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as
anticipated by Matsumoto (US 2008/0214961 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2008). Final
Act. 2--4. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Claims 1-11 and 16-30 are withdrawn. Final Act. 1 (Office Action
Summary); Suppl. Appeal Br. 1--4, 6-10 (Claims App.).
Appeal2018-003424
Application 15/194,656
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 12 and 14 are independent. Claim 12, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.
12. A system for calculating an arterial compliance index for
determining the arterial stiffness of an artery of a subject,
consisting of:
a blood pressure monitoring device configured to measure
a systolic blood pressure reading and a diastolic blood pressure
reading for the artery of the subject;
a device for measuring a first diameter of the artery at a
peak systolic pressure and a second diameter of the artery at a
peak diastolic pressure;
a central processing unit configured to calculate the
arterial compliance index as a function of the subject's:
(a) systolic blood pressure reading as measured by
the blood pressure monitoring device;
(b) diastolic blood pressure reading as measured by
the blood pressure monitoring device;
( c) the first diameter of the artery determined at a
peak systolic phase of contraction of the subject's heart
muscle as measured by the device; and
( d) the second diameter of the artery determined at
a peak diastolic phase of relaxation of the subject's heart
muscle as measured by the device.
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments for independent claim 12 ( Appeal
Br. 7-14), and relies on the same arguments for independent claim 14 (id. at
14--16) and dependent claims 13 and 15 (id. at 16-18). We select claim 12
as representative of the issues that Appellant presents in the appeal, and
claims 13-15 stand or fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Matsumoto discloses all the limitations of
independent claim 12, including, in relevant part,
2
Appeal2018-003424
Application 15/194,656
[a] system consisting of: a blood pressure monitoring device
configured to measure a systolic blood pressure reading and a
diastolic blood pressure reading for the artery of the subject (e.g.
Figure 1; [0074]); [and] a device for measuring a first diameter
and/or area of the artery at a peak systolic pressure and a second
diameter and/or area of the artery at a peak diastolic pressure
( e.g. Figure 1; [0048]-cross-sectional area;[0075]-[0079];
[0082]).
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner also explains, in the Answer, that
Matsumoto's "pressure container and pressure controllers are components
that are used as the blood pressure measurement device (e.g. [0123]-[0124];
Fig 10)." Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that "[t]he use of the transitional term 'consisting'
[in claim 12] specifically excludes a pressure container (24) and a pressure
controller (74) to set the pressure Pc in the pressure container (24)." Appeal
Br. 12 (citing Matsumoto ,r 77). According to Appellant, Matsumoto's
pressure container ... is not used or configured to measure either
the systolic or diastolic pressure. The pressure in the container
is raised to a value higher than the systolic pressure by a pre-
determined value at a pre-determined rate and the blood pressure
measuring device measures the pressure in the container not the
subject.
Reply Br. 2 (underlining omitted) (citing Matsumoto ,r 125). These
arguments are unpersuasive for the following reasons.
Matsumoto discloses a first embodiment, depicted in Figure 1, that
includes "a blood pressure measuring unit 68 of the main unit 12 [that]
corresponds to a claimed blood pressure measuring means." Matsumoto
,r 74 (boldface omitted). Matsumoto discloses that cuff 36 is wound around
a subject's upper arm 34 to measure systolic blood pressure Ps and diastolic
blood pressure Pd. Id. ,r,r 67, 7 4. Matsumoto discloses that controller 7 4
3
Appeal2018-003424
Application 15/194,656
varies the pressure Pc inside pressure container 24 based on the systolic and
diastolic blood pressures Ps, Pd in evaluating the shape and diameter of an
artery in the subject's forearm 22. Id. ,r,r 72, 75-78. In other words, in
Matsumoto's first embodiment, blood pressure measuring unit 68 measures
the subject's systolic and diastolic blood pressures Ps, Pd using cuff 36, and
does not appear to require pressure container 24 or controller 74 to do so.
However, Matsumoto also discloses a second embodiment, depicted
in Figure 10, in which "the biological luminal body evaluating apparatus 90
differs from the above-described biological luminal body evaluating
apparatus 10 [(i.e., the first embodiment)] in that a blood pressure measuring
unit 68 uses the pressure container 24 in place of the cuff 36 during blood
pressure measurement." Id. ,r 124 (boldface omitted) (emphasis added). In
other words, Matsumoto's first embodiment measures a subject's systolic
and diastolic blood pressures Ps, Pd using cuff 36 (id. ,r 74), whereas the
second embodiment uses pressure container 24 (which is controlled by
controller 74) (id. ,r 124). See id. ,r 125 ("[T]he blood pressure measuring
unit 68 determines the pressure Pc in the pressure container 24 at
predetermined timing [in which the amplitude differential of the pulse wave
is maximized] as the diastolic pressure and the systolic pressure." (boldface
omitted) (emphasis added)); and id. ,r 127 (indicating that the second
embodiment obtains "the same effects" as the first embodiment with the
"advantage[] that the cuff 36, the pressure controlling valve 40, etc .... can
be eliminated" (boldface omitted)).
Appellant asserts that "[ t ]he pressure container ... does not replace a
cuff as used in a traditional blood pressure measuring device to measure
systolic and diastolic blood pressure." Reply Br. 3. Even assuming that
4
Appeal2018-003424
Application 15/194,656
blood pressure is measured differently when using a cuff as in the first
embodiment, as opposed to the pressure container as in the second
embodiment, Appellant has not adequately explained why the pressure
container of the second embodiment cannot reasonably be considered part of
the claimed "blood pressure monitoring device configured to measure a
systolic blood pressure reading and a diastolic blood pressure reading,"
particularly in light of Matsumoto's disclosure discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the Examiner's finding that Matsumoto discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 12 and discloses an embodiment that includes only those
elements specified in the claim in accordance with the scope of a claim
defined by the transitional phrase "consisting of." Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 12, and of claims 13-15 falling therewith, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Matsumoto.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Matsumoto is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5