Ex Parte Menzel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12638821 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/638,821 12/15/2009
83554 7590 09/21/2016
Mindray DS USA, Inc, c/o Stoel Rives LLP
201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Frank Menzel
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.
32924/14 5738
EXAMINER
YANG, JAMES J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
slcpatent@stoel.com
kdchristensen@stoel.com
mehowlett@stoel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANK MENZEL
Appeal2015-005079
Application 12/638,821
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-22, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mindray DS USA, Inc.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-005079
Application 12/638,821
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention generally relates to a "patient monitoring
system[, which] allows medical personnel to customize multi-parameter
alarms for particular patients and/or medical conditions." (Dec. 15, 2009
Specification ("Spec.") i-f 2.) Specifically, according to the Specification,
Appellant's invention "provides a user interface that allows medical
personnel to create custom alarms by selecting patient parameters, desired
levels or limits, comparators, and logic connectors to define an alarm
condition that includes boundary conditions for a plurality of different
patient parameters." (Id.) Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A method for monitoring a patient using user-
customizable alarm profiles in a patient monitor system, the
method comprising:
providing a user interface to a user of the patient monitor
system for the selection of a multi-parameter alarm condition
based on measured values associated with a combination of
multiple patient parameters;
receiving, through the user interface, a first boundary
condition associated with a first patient parameter selected by the
user, the first patient parameter corresponding to a plurality of
measured values of a first type of monitored patient
physiological data received through a sensor interface of the
patient monitor system;
receiving, through the user interface, a second boundary
condition associated with a second patient parameter selected by
the user, the second patient parameter corresponding to a
plurality of measured values of a second type of monitored
patient physiological data received through the sensor interface
of the patient monitor system, wherein the second type of
monitored patient physiological data is different from the first
type of monitored patient physiological data;
2
Appeal2015-005079
Application 12/638,821
rece1vmg, through the user mterrace, a first logic
connector that relates the first boundary condition of the first
patient parameter to the second boundary condition of the second
patient parameter to define the multi-parameter alarm condition;
measuring, with the patient monitor system, values of the
first patient parameter and the second patient parameter; and
triggering an alarm based on the measured values, the first
boundary condition, the second boundary condition, and the
defined multi-parameter alarm condition.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Lawson et al.
("Lawson")
US 2004/0249249 Al Dec. 9, 2004
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lawson. (See Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 9, 2014)
("Final Act.") 2-24.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites "triggering an alarm based
on ... the defined multi-parameter alarm condition." Appellant argues that
"[t]here is no suggestion within Lawson for a single alarm based on multiple
patient parameters." (Br. 12-13.) Instead, according to Appellant, "Lawson
teaches an alarm condition on a patient monitor that 'indicates a state of!!.
physiological parameter."' (Id., emphasis in original.) The Examiner finds
3
Appeal2015-005079
Application 12/638,821
that "the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term 'parameter' ... may
include other monitored conditions." (Ans. 3, emphasis added.) Therefore,
according to the Examiner, Lawson teaches or suggests this limitation
because it "teaches 'checking for the signaling of other alarms based on
other criteria' when sending an alarm (see Lawson, Paragraph [0043])."
(Id.) Specifically, "one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that other
monitored physiological parameters could generate the alarms that are
checked by the system, similarly to how the system generates an alarm for
heart rate (see Lawson, Paragraphs [0028], [0043], and [0072])." (Id.)
We agree with Appellant that the portions of Lawson cited by the
Examiner do not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. Specifically, the
claim limitation requires, "triggering an alarm based on ... the defined
multi-parameter alarm condition." Assuming arguendo that Lawson teaches
that an alarm can be triggered based on different types of parameters (see
Ans. 3 (citing Lawson i-f 43), Lawson i-f 34), each alarm is still triggered
based on a single parameter condition-not a multiple-parameter alarm
condition, as required by the claim. While Lawson teaches "additional
steps" that may include checking other conditions for potential alarms, these
"additional steps" occur after the alarm has already been triggered at step
106. (Lawson i-f 43.) Accordingly, any alarms triggered by the additional
conditions would necessarily be different than the alarm that was already
triggered at step 106. (See id.) Paragraph 43 of Lawson also does not teach
or suggest that any one of these subsequent alarms is based on a multiple-
parameter alarm condition.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 1 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
4
Appeal2015-005079
Application 12/638,821
.. ,., ....-....- T .. .. ' ' • '.. ,...,. ,.. TT r"I "" n .. A,...,. • ' • ro .. • ,..... ,......
l.~ we a1so ao not sustam me j) u.~.L. s lUj reJecuon or ciam1s L-"},
which depend from claim 1. Independent claims 10, 19, and 22 contain a
similar limitation at issue and the Examiner cites to the same passages of
Lawson for the limitation and makes similar findings. (Final Act. 10-12,
17-19, 21-24; Ans. 5---6.) Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 10, 19, and 22, as well as
claims 11-18, 20, and 21, which depend from independent claims 10 or 19.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons
discussed herein, we need not address Appellant's further arguments. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a single
dispositive issue").
5