Ex Parte Lillegard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612357063 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/357,063 0112112009 92556 7590 HONEYWELL/HUSCH Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 10/03/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory A. Lillegard 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. H0021082/8364/l 07403/2700 9971 EXAMINER HOEKSTRA, JEFFREY GERBEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3736 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): patentservices-us@honeywell.com amy.hammer@huschblackwell.com pto-chi@huschblackwell.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY A. LILLEGARD and CAMERON BRACKETT Appeal2015-001508 Application 12/357 ,063 1 Technology Center 3700 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc." Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2015-001508 Application 12/357,063 Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1, 8, 10, and 16 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: prior to placement of any electrodes of a monitoring unit on an individual person, providing instructions as to correct electrode placement; placing electrodes at various locations on the individual person; control circuitry of the monitoring unit determining when current sent from the individual person through the electrodes is indicative of user control correction including at least reversed electrodes; when the current sent from the electrodes is indicative of user control correction, the control circuitry evaluating the placement of the electrodes based on the current sent from the electrodes on the individual person; and the control circuitry providing at least verbal feedback relative to locations of the placed electrodes on the individual person including at least that two of the placed electrodes need to be S\vitched; and when the current sent from the electrodes is not indicative of user control correction, the control circuitry providing feedback for a user to call for service. Rejections Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gliner (US 6,178,357 Bl, iss. Jan. 23, 2001), Field (US 2007/0232946 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007), Stanczak (US 2006/0167367 Al, pub. July 27, 2006) and Bulkes (US 2008/0039904 Al, pub. Feb. 14, 2008). Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gliner, Field, and Stanczak. 2 Appeal2015-001508 Application 12/357,063 ANALYSIS Claims 1-7 The Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection, which includes a combination of teachings from Gliner, Field, Stanczak, and Bulkes, "fail[s] to establish any credible basis why one skilled in the art would have been led by the relevant teachings of the applied references to make the claimed invention." Appeal Br. 15. The Appellants point to the following limitation of independent claim 1, "control circuitry of the monitoring unit determining when current sent from the individual person through the electrodes is indicative of user control correction including at least reversed electrodes" (emphasis added). Id. at 10. The Appellants assert that Gliner discloses the use of an "an electrode pad 12 with defibrillation electrode disks 20 and sensors 50 having a fixed relationship with respect to the electrode pad 12." Id.; see also Final Act. 3 (citing Gliner, col. 3, 11. 23-24, 62---65). The Appellants distinguish Gliner's teaching of an electrode pad 12, which maintains electrodes in a fixed relationship, from Field's teaching of "ECG lead misplacement detection and correction system that generates data and alarms." See Appeal Br. 10, 15. In response to the Appellants' argument, the Examiner finds that Gliner discloses a "3-lead or 12-lead electrode set-up." Ans. 17 (citing Gliner, col. 2, 11. 32--42, col. 6, 11. 15-22). Indeed, Gliner discloses a placard 100, which "may be used with a 3-lead or 12-lead electrode set-up." Gliner, col. 6, 11. 11-22, Fig. 7. However, the Appellants correctly point out that "there is no disclosure within Gliner ... of how the placard 100 is used with 3-lead or 12-lead electrode set-ups." Reply Br. 3; see also id. at 4. And, the 3 Appeal2015-001508 Application 12/357,063 "incorporation of a 3-lead or 12-lead electrode set-up into the electrode pad 12 of Gliner ... would still result in an assembly in which the electrodes could not be reversed." Id. at 3. We determine that the Appellants' argument is persuasive. The Examiner's rejection appears to rely on speculation, i.e., that Gliner's electrode pad having a 3-lead or 12-lead electrode setup is not in a fixed relationship and as such, electrodes could be placed in a reversed position (see id. at 3--4). Additionally, we note that the Examiner does not find that Field's teaching of an ECG lead misplacement detection and correction system is used with or is beneficial for electrodes that have a fixed relationship. Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner's conclusion fails to articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds ... [require] some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness") (cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 as unpatentable over Gliner, Field, Stanczak, and Bulkes. Claims 8-20 The Examiner's rejection of claims 8-20 relies on the same conclusion discussed above, which fails to articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning. See Final Act. 8, 15-16. Thus, for similar reasons as discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-20 as unpatentable over Gliner, Field, and Stanczak. 4 Appeal2015-001508 Application 12/357,063 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation