Ex Parte Lach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2016

12004004 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/004,004 12/19/2007
7590 07/07/2016
THOMAS E. LACH, PRESIDENT
DECA-MEDICS, INC.
P.O. BOX 163483
COLUMBUS, OH 43216
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas E. Lach
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.
D24-3 8244
EXAMINER
THANH, QUANG D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3771
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS E. LACH
Appeal2014-005404
Application 12/004,004
Technology Center 3700
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Cantrell (US 6,676,613 B2, iss. Jan. 13, 2004) and Geeham (US 5,295,481,
iss. Mar 22, 1994). 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Examiner also objected to claims 21-26 as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but indicated that such claims would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims. Final Action 8.
Appeal2014-005404
Application 12/004,004
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to an apparatus for performing CPR on a
patient in cardiac arrest. Spec. 2-5. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus for increasing the flow of blood in a
patient, the apparatus comprising:
(A) a base contoured to seat near a central region of a
patient's chest;
(B) an actuator;
(C) a substantially inelastic belt configured to wrap around
said patient's chest substantially in a plane; and
(D) a force converter, mounted on said base, coupled to said
actuator, and having belt connectors coupled to opposite
extremities of said belt with said belt substantially in
said plane, converting into belt. tightening resultants
applied to said belt connectors directed substantially
tangentially to said chest a force manually applied .to
said actuator by a person placing two hands at two
spatially separated points along a line making a nonzero
angle to said plane and directed toward said chest, said
force converter providing a substantially predefined,
substantially linear path generally toward said chest for
said two points to move along as said force is manually
applied to said actuator at said two points.
OPINION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Cantrell discloses all of the limitations of the
claimed invention except for the hand grip being used by a person placing
two hands at two spatially separated points as claimed. Final Action 2. The
Examiner relies on Geeham as disclosing the hand grip limitation. Id. at 2-
3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Cantrell's
2
Appeal2014-005404
Application 12/004,004
hand grip with the hand grip taught by Geeham. Id. at 3. According to the
Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to
provide a suitable ergonomic hand grip that allows the user to conveniently
place two hands on the handles along a line that makes a non-zero angle to
the plane of a belt wrapped around a patient's chest.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by arguing, among other
things, that the Examiner's proposed combination will not result in a force
converter providing a substantially linear path toward a patient's chest as
claimed. Appeal Br. 45. Appellant argues that a Cantrell/Geeham combined
device will exhibit a handle bar that will occupy a horizontal orientation at
only one point in the vertical stroke toward the patient's chest. Id. at 47.
According to Appellant, this follows from the fact that lever arm 336 rotates
around hinge 335 during the vertical stroke. Id. at 41. Appellant points out
that affixing the T-handle of Gee ham to lever arm 3 3 6 of Cantrell will cause
it to rotate in the same manner as the lever arm 336 itself. Id. at 42.
Appellant argues that rigidly affixing Geeham's handles to Cantrell's lever
arm 336 results in substantial sidewise forces being applied to box 310
during operation. Id. at 43.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges that Cantrell teaches that
hand grip 337 is fixedly attached to the device with no rotational attachment
point or hinge. Ans. 20. The Examiner states that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would use a conventional method to simply replace hand grip 337
with Geeham's handle 18a-b and attach it to the same attachment point of
Cantrell's device. Id. The Examiner finds that such a modified handle does
not rotate and "remains level" just like the original hand grip 337. Id. We
disagree.
3
Appeal2014-005404
Application 12/004,004
Cantrell discloses a lever arm 336 that pivots about hinge 335.
Cantrell, Fig. 12, col. 8, 11. 9-11 ("Lower lever arm 334 is attached by
hinge 335 to upper lever arm 336. Hand grip 337 is attached to the upper
end of upper lever arm 336"). Figure 12 further shows that hand grip 337 is
attached to lever arm 336 by means of an unnumbered stem that extends in a
substantially perpendicular direction relative to the longitudinal axis of lever
arm 336. See Fig. 12. As a downward stroke is applied to Cantrell's device,
it can be seen that lever arm 336 will rotate relative to the horizontal plane
by pivoting about hinge 335. As the lever arm 336 departs from the
horizontal plane, the unnumbered stem between arm 336 and grip 337 will
correspondingly depart from the vertical plane. See Fig. 12.
If Geeham's handle 18a-b were substituted for Cantrell's
handgrip 337 as proposed by the Examiner and the connection were fixed as
also proposed by the Examiner (Ans. 15-18), the arms of such a T-shaped
handle would not remain in a horizontal disposition. Rather, they would
rotate out of the horizontal plane to the same extent that lever arm 336 and
the unnumbered stem rotate about hinge 335. See Cantrell, Fig. 12.
The Examiner's analysis of Cantrell as modified by Gee ham is
erroneous. See Ans. 18-19. In particular, the Examiner's finding that the
modified handle would remain in a horizontal orientation during a
downward stroke despite it having no rotational connection and,
nevertheless, apply a downward, vertical force toward the patient's chest
with no horizontal or tilting effect is not supported by the teachings of the
references. The Examiner does not otherwise explain how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have attached Geeham's handle to Cantrell's
device in a manner that would allow the handle to remain in a horizontal
4
Appeal2014-005404
Application 12/004,004
disposition so as to deliver a downward stroke toward the patient's chest
without introducing an undesired horizontal or rotational force component.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 1.
Claims 2-20
Claims 4, 7, and 10 are independent claims. Claims App. The
remaining claims, namely claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-20, depend, directly
or indirectly, from either of claims 1, 4, 7, and 10. Id.
With respect to each of claims 4, 7, and 10, the Examiner relies on a
substantially similar factual finding with respect to modifying Cantrell's
hand grip 3 3 7 with a T -shaped handle as taught by Gee ham that we
previously determined constituted reversible error in connection with the
rejection of claim 1. Final Action 6. Thus, the Examiner's rejection of each
of claims 4, 7, and 10 also suffers from substantially the same infirmity that
we have identified above with respect to claim 1.
For essentially the same reasons articulated above with respect to
claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7, and 10. For similar
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,
and 11-20. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious ).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5