Ex Parte Lachenbruch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13039409 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/039,409 03/03/2011
63565 7590 08/30/2016
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles A. Lachenbruch
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.
Nl-23065 1851
EXAMINER
POLITO, NICHOLAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 CHARLES A. LACHENBRUCH and RACHEL WILLIAMSON
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charles A. Lachenbruch and Rachel Williamson ("Appellants") 1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 23-27, 29, and 30 in this application. 2 The Board has jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hill-Rom Services, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-22 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 2. The Examiner objects to
claim 28 as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicates claim 28
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Non-Final Act. 5;
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 30 is the sole independent claim, with each of claims 23-27
and 29 depending directly from claim 30. Claim 30 recites:
30. An occupant support comprising:
a mattress;
at least one layer of repositioning bladders;
a sensor array;
a controller capable of receiving information from the
sensor array, identifying suboptimal positioning of an occupant
of the occupant support as a function of the received information
and also capable of issuing commands in response to the
identification of suboptimal positioning; and
a pump capable of inflating selected repositioning
bladders in response to the issued commands;
the issued commands and bladder inflation being such as
to establish an elevation gradient compatible with moving the
occupant laterally and/or longitudinally across the support
surface from an existing occupant position to a target position.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Schaller (US 7 ,251,845 B2, iss. Aug. 7, 2007).
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schaller and Graebe (US 5,561,875, iss. Oct. 8, 1996).
ANALYSIS
A. Anticipation by Schaller
Claims 23 and 30
Appellants argue for the patentability of claims 23 and 30 together as
a group. Appeal Br. 5. We select claim 30 to decide the appeal as to these
2
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
claims, with claim 23 standing or falling with claim 30. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
In rejecting claim 30, the Examiner finds Schaller discloses an
occupant support including controller 6 capable of receiving information
from sensor array 5, 9 to identify suboptimal positioning of an occupant.
Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Schaller, Figs. 1-3). The Examiner also finds
controller 6 is capable of issuing commands to inflate selected repositioning
bladders, to establish an elevation gradient compatible with moving the
occupant laterally and/or longitudinally across a support surface. Id. at 3
(citing Schaller, 4:7-5:42, 7: 1-17) and 6 (further citing Schaller, 5:20-24,
7:18-24, 9:42-10:5, 10:17-23).
Appellants argue Schaller fails to disclose "establishing an elevation
gradient compatible with actually moving the occupant laterally and/or
longitudinally across the support surface," as required by claim 30. Appeal
Br. 6. Appellants contend Schaller "instead discloses determining a baseline
occupant position which can be stored to facilitate placing the occupant in
substantially that same position at a later time." Id. at 6-7. That is,
according to Appellants, Schaller' s disclosure is limited to storing the
individual heights of several height adjustable elements when a patient lies
on the apparatus at a first time, and then reproducing that three-dimensional
negative patient contour at a later time, to perform imaging of the patient in
the same position. Appeal Br. 7-8 (citing Schaller, 5:1--4, 6:18-53, 1:62-
2: 8). Appellants further contend Schaller' s various descriptions of a
"positioning means" and a "positioning unit" similarly do not disclose the
claimed movement of a patient across the support surface by bladders. Id. at
8-10 (citing Schaller, 1:14, 2:47-53, 3:2, 2:66-67, 4:36--41, 4:49, 5:10-19,
3
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
5:25--42, 7:25--43). In Appellants' view, Schaller moves the patient across
the support surface by a user, rather than by bladders. Id. at 10-11 (citing
Schaller, 5:31--42). Appellants further rely on the Schaller disclosure at
column 6, lines 46-53, which describes the apparatus establishing the
negative patient contour "before the patient P reclines," thus indicating (in
Appellants' view) the height adjustable elements "do not establish an
elevation gradient for actively repositioning the patient." Id. at 11.
In answer, the Examiner maintains Schaller "provides two alternatives
for moving a patient[:] movement of the patient bed or movement of the
height adjustment [bladder] elements." Ans. 2. The Examiner particularly
refers to the following disclosure in Schaller:
[A] reproducible supporting of the patient P is accomplished
using the support pegs 3 [or the alternatively disclosed bladders].
A positioning and/or repositioning of the patient P for the
examination/treatment can ensue using the [bladders] with their
sensors and other auxiliary means (such as cameras, optical
markers) or by a movement of the patient bed 1 \'l1ith the reclining
patient.
Schaller, 7 :37--43 (emphasis and alterations added); Ans. 2 (paraphrasing
disclosure).
In reply, Appellants argue Schaller's "Description of the Prior Art"
section "speaks extensively of reproducing a previous position, not of
moving the patient laterally or longitudinally across the support surface to
any appreciable degree." Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants focus on the MRI and
CT imaging context of Schaller's disclosure, in which Appellants contend
"moving the patient as a whole laterally or longitudinally across the support
surface would not be an issue," because "a simple command to the patient
such as 'slide down' or 'move to the left' would suffice." Id. at 5---6 (citing
4
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
Schaller 1:10-11, 1:18-19, 2:25--42, 2:54--3:4, 4:45--46). The Reply Brief
does not address the Schaller disclosure at column 7, lines 37--43, as cited in
the Examiner's Answer. Id. at 3---6.
We determine a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's finding that Schaller discloses using bladders to establish an
elevation gradient to move a patient laterally and/or longitudinally across a
support surface. Schaller discloses the patient support has a region in which
support pegs (or alternatively bladders) "are not loaded by the weight of the
patient P ... around the patient P." Schaller, Fig. 2, 6:63-7:2, 3:21-27.
Schaller further discloses bringing a current position of patient P on the
support into agreement with a previously assumed position by "bring[ing]
the region 8 (the [un]loaded [bladders]) into congruence in the previous and
the current positions." Id. at 7:4--8. In one embodiment, this repositioning is
accomplished by providing "optical and/or acoustic commands or signals"
directing how to move the patient across the support surface to achieve the
desired congruence. Id. at 7:8-17. We agree with Appellants' argument that
this embodiment of repositioning patient P on the support surface without
the use of bladders is different from claim 30.
Nonetheless, in an "alternative" to directing how to move the patient
across the support surface without the use of bladders, Schaller discloses
"the position of the patient bed 1 itself can be changed," including "variation
of the height hxy of the [bladders]" to achieve the desired congruence. Id. at
7: 18-24. In particular, Schaller states "a reproducible supporting of the
patient Pis accomplished using the [bladders,]" and "[a] positioning and/or
repositioning of the patient P for the examination/treatment can ensue using
the [bladders] with their sensors." Id. at 7:37--43 (emphasis added). The
5
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
described "repositioning" of the patient "using" bladders, in order to achieve
a congruence of unloaded region 8 with a previous positioning of the patient,
corresponds to the recitation in claim 30 of establishing an elevation gradient
to move the patient laterally and/or longitudinally across the support surface.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 23 and
30 as anticipated by Schaller.
Claims 25 and 26
Claims 25 and 26 each depend from claim 30, and specify in part that
the bladders "are dedicated to" repositioning of the occupant across the
support surface. Appeal Br. 21-22 (Claims App.). Appellants contend the
Examiner errs in finding Schaller discloses its bladders are dedicated to such
occupant repositioning. Appeal Br. 15-17. Appellants rely on the following
description in the Specification:
The repositioning bladders described above are dedicated
to occupant positioning. i.e. they serve no other purpose.
However as already noted, some beds employ base mattresses in
which inflated air bladders contribute to long-term occupant
support. In such beds it may be possible to use these support
bladders to carry out occupant repositioning, in addition to
carrying out their long-term support function, rather than using
dedicated repositioning bladders.
Spec. i-f 28 (emphases added); Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants urge Schaller's
bladders provide both "occupant repositioning" and "long-term support" as
described in the Specification, and therefore, Schaller' s bladders are not
dedicated to occupant repositioning. Appeal Br. 16-1 7.
The Examiner responds that Schaller' s bladders "can be both
dedicated to repositioning and provide support depending on the mode of
operation." Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner posits "when the repositioning
6
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
bladders are static they also provide support, and when the repositioning
bladders are in operation to reposition a patient, they are dedicated to
repositioning." Id. (emphasis added). Further, according to the Examiner,
paragraph 38 of the Specification "does not provide specific guidance as to
the structural definition of 'dedicated,'" and "'dedicated' repositioning
bladders does not denote a different structural feature, just a usage of the
bladders." Ans. 3. In the Examiner's view, Schaller discloses "'dedicated'
bladders or dual purpose bladders based upon the usage of the bladders," and
one bladder "may be considered 'dedicated' or dual purpose based upon ...
usage." Id.
We determine the Examiner errs in finding Schaller discloses bladders
that are dedicated to occupant repositioning. We agree with Appellants'
argument that paragraph 3 8 of the Specification establishes such a bladder
serves the sole purpose of occupant repositioning, and serves no other
purpose, for example, long-term support. Spec. ,-r 28. The Examiner's
rejection fails to establish a preponderance of the evidence supports a
finding that any one of Schaller' s bladders are so dedicated. We, therefore,
do not sustain the rejection of claims 25 and 26 as anticipated by Schaller.
Claim 27
Claim 27, like claims 25 and 26 discussed above, depends from
claim 30 to specify in part that the bladders "are dedicated to" occupant
repositioning. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Appellants argue for the
patentability of claim 27 separately from claim 30. Id. at 17. For the
reasons provided above, the Examiner errs in finding Schaller discloses its
bladders are dedicated to occupant repositioning, and we therefore do not
sustain the rejection of claim 27 as anticipated by Schaller.
7
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
Claim 29
Claim 29 depends from claim 30 to specify "the controller commands
inflation and deflation of the bladders to an extent and in a sequence
responsive to changing characteristics of the suboptimal positioning."
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Appellants argue for the patentability of
claim 29 separately from claim 30, on the basis that Schaller fails to disclose
"any sequence of inflation/ deflation." Id. at 1 7. In particular, according to
Appellants, Schaller discloses adjustment of bladders "to reproduce results
such as load pressures (e.g. claim 22) or heights of individual height-
adjustable elements (e.g. claim 25)" to minimize "a deviation (an error term)
between present measurements and previous measurements." Id. at 18.
Appellants contend such disclosure is not the claimed "response to changing
characteristics of the suboptimal positioning." Id.
In answer, the Examiner maintains Schaller discloses inflating and
deflating its bladders to an extent and in a sequence responsive to changing
characteristics of suboptimal positioning. Ans. 4 (citing Schaller, 3:21--4:35,
5:5-9, 7:2-8, 7:37--48). We agree. In particular, Schaller discloses that the
bladder-induced movement of the patient across the patient support surface
continues until either unloaded region 8 matches a prior patient position
(Schaller, Fig. 2, 6:63-7:24, 7:37--48), or until the patient position within
grid pattern 9 matches a prior patient position (id. at 7:25--48). Using either
condition is responding to suboptimal patient positioning. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claim 29 as anticipated by Schaller.
B. Obviousness based on Schaller and Graebe
Appellants do not argue for the patentability of claim 24 separately
from its parent claim 30. Appeal Br. 5. Thus, for the reasons provided
8
Appeal2014-007744
Application 13/039,409
above in connection with claim 30, we sustain the rejection of claim 24 as
unpatentable over Schaller and Graebe.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 23, 25-27, 29, and 30 as
anticipated by Schaller is affirmed as to claims 23, 29, and 30, and reversed
as to claims 25-27.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 24 as unpatentable over
Schaller and Graebe 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9