Ex Parte MOON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2019

12560138 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/560, 138 09/15/2009 Jim MOON
35938 7590 02/04/2019
Acuity Law Group, P.C.
12707 High Bluff Drive
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-2037
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.
TWI-32000-UT 9728
EXAMINER
WEARE, MEREDITH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
docketing© acuity lg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIM MOON, HENK VISSER, and ROBERT HUNT
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138 1
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--21. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on January 15,
2019.
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, "[t]he real party in interest in the present
appeal is Sotera Wireless, Inc." Br. 4.
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A system for monitoring vital signs from a group of patients,
compnsmg:
(a) a monitoring device configured to be worn on the body
of each patient in the group, each monitoring device comprising:
a wireless system;
a first sensor configured to generate a first time-dependent
waveform indicative of one or more contractile properties of the
patient's heart;
a second sensor configured to generate a second time-dependent
waveform indicative of one or more contractile properties of the
patient's heart; and
a processing component configured to: (i) receive a first signal
representing the first time-dependent waveform; (ii) receive a
second signal representing the second time-dependent
waveform; (iii) calculate a blood pressure value from a pulse
transit time measured between the first and second signals or
versions thereof; and (iv) transmit the blood pressure value with
the wireless system; and
(b) a remote display device in communication with each
monitoring device through the wireless system comprised by the
monitoring device, the remote display device configured to
simultaneously display a blood pressure value for each patient in
the group when a signal strength corresponding to the wireless
system comprised by each monitoring device is below a pre-
determined threshold value, and further configured to
automatically reconfigure the display device to display a blood
pressure value for only a particular patient when the signal
strength from the wireless system worn by the particular patient
exceeds the pre-determined threshold.
2
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a):
I. claims 1, 4--7, 9-12, 14, 15, 20, and 21 as unpatentable
over Gao2, Inukai3, West4, and Agrawal 5, and alternatively, Gao,
Graves6, Inukai, West, and Agrawal;
II. claim 8 as unpatentable over Gao, Inukai, West,
Agrawal, and Evans 7, and alternatively, Gao, Graves, Inukai, West,
Agrawal, and Evans;
III. claims 13, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Gao, Inukai,
West, Agrawal, and McCombie8, and alternatively, Gao, Graves,
Inukai, West, Agrawal, and McCombie;
IV. claim 13 as unpatentable over Gao, Inukai, West,
Agrawal, and Stivoric9, and alternatively, Gao, Graves, Inukai, West,
Agrawal, and Stivoric;
V. claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Gao, Inukai, West,
Agrawal, and Janetis 10, and alternatively, Gao, Graves, Inukai, West
and Agrawal, and Janetis; and
2 Gao et al. (US 2009/0069642 Al, pub. Mar. 12, 2009) ("Gao").
3 Inukai et al. (US 2007/0066910 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2007) ("Inukai").
4 West et al. (US 2002/0013517 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2002) ("West").
5 Agrawal et al. (US 2007/0287386 Al, pub. Dec. 13, 2007) ("Agrawal").
6 Graves et al. (US 2008/0169927 Al, pub. July 17, 2008) ("Graves").
7 Evans et al. (US 2006/0200029 Al, pub. Sept. 7, 2006) ("Evans").
8 McCombie et al. (US 2010/0298658 Al, pub. Nov. 25, 2010)
("McCombie").
9 Stivoric et al. (US 2008/0167535 Al, pub. July 10, 2008) ("Stivoric").
10 Janetis et al. (US 2009/0040041 Al, pub. Feb. 12, 2009) ("Janetis").
3
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
VI. claims 18 and 19 as unpatentable over Gao, Inukai, West,
Agrawal, and Schuman 11 , and alternatively, Gao, Graves, Inukai,
West, Agrawal, and Schuman.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
The Appellants' invention relates to a body-worn vital sign monitor
that wirelessly communicates with a remote device through a hospital
network or peer-to-peer connection. See Spec., Title, ,r 25. In one aspect of
the invention, "the remote device is configured to simultaneously display
vital signs for each patient in a group when a signal strength corresponding
to each wrist-worn transceiver in the group is below a pre-determined
threshold value" and "[ w ]hen the signal strength from the wireless system
worn by a patient exceeds the pre-determine[ d] threshold, the remote
monitor displays information for that particular patient." Id. ,r 25; see id.
,r,r 27, 107. In other words, the remote device may automatically change its
display of data based on a determination of proximity or location. This
proximity-based or location-based determination may be also understood
through the situations where the remote device would automatically change
its display of data. The Specification provides such a situation; "for
example, if a tablet computer [(i.e., remote device)] normally disposed at a
central nursing station was brought into the patient's room." Id. ,r 25.
Independent claim 1, lays out the change in the remote device's
display in limitation (b ):
11 Schuman, Sr. et al. (US 2009/0212925 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009)
("Schuman").
4
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
(b) a remote display device in communication with each
monitoring device through the wireless system comprised by the
monitoring device, the remote display device
configured to simultaneously display a blood
pressure value for each patient in the group when a signal
strength corresponding to the wireless system comprised
by each monitoring device is below a pre-determined
threshold value, and
further configured to automatically reconfigure the
display device to display a blood pressure value for only a
particular patient when the signal strength from the
wireless system worn by the particular patient exceeds the
pre-determined threshold.
Br., Claims App. (paragraphing added).
The Examiner's rejection of claim 1 relies primarily on Gao's wireless
monitoring system to teach and suggest core aspects of the claimed remote
display device. See Final Act. 4--5. Notably, Gao's wireless monitoring
system includes patient-worn devices that monitor physiological data ( e.g.,
vital signs), client devices for clinicians to view patient data, and other
network equipment (e.g., repeater, gateway). See Gao ,r,r 6, 23, 46, 78, 113,
121, 127, 133, 136, Figs. 1, 5. Additionally, Gao teaches using location
detection between monitors by determining the number of hops in a wireless
network. See id. ,r,r 59, 86, 114, 133, 136.
The Examiner finds that Gao is lacking, among other reasons, because
Gao fails to expressly disclose the automatic switching (i.e., reconfiguration)
of the claimed remote display device; yet, the Examiner determines that
"Gao ... suggests automatically switching between a display for multiple
patients and a display for a particular patient in certain situations." Ans. 7;
See Final Act. 20; Ans. 3. Based on this suggestion, the Examiner appears
to propose a modification of Gao' s remote display device to automatically
5
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
switch between two display configurations: a default configuration; and a
bedside visit configuration. See Ans. 5. The default configuration would
display vital sign data for all patients in a situation where no patients are
relatively nearby, and the bedside visit configuration would display vital
sign data only for a patient in a situation where that particular patient is
relatively nearby. Id.
The Appellants argue that Gao does not teach "a device configured to
automatically reconfigure between displaying vital signs from a group of
patients and a vital sign value for a particular patient based on the proximity
of the particular patient as determined from the signal strength of the
patient's monitor, as required by the present claims." Br. 8. Additionally,
the Appellants argue "[t]hat teaching is derivable only from Appellants'
disclosure." Id. The Appellants' arguments are persuasive.
Here, in order for the Examiner's rationale to be adequately
supported, the situational basis for the Examiner's modification should be
aligned with similar situations in Gao' s teachings. The Examiner primarily
relies on two separate situations described in Gao where a monitor is used by
a clinician. See Final Act. 4--5, 8, 9-10; Ans. 3-5.
The first situation is directed to re-purposing a multimodal patient
monitor, which is worn by a patient. See Gao ,r 136. The multimodal
patient monitor initially functions as a patient monitor and is temporarily
repurposed to be a client viewer by a clinician (e.g., a nurse) during a
bedside visit. See id. This situation is antithetical to the Examiner's
proposed default configuration - a situation where no patients are relatively
nearby- because a monitored patient is always nearby; i.e., the multimodal
patient monitor remains worn by a patient.
6
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
The second situation is directed to a client monitor M that only
accepts data from patient monitors A-D, which Gao describes as "useful,
for example, in triage situations where the medical professional who is
performing triage may only be interested in seeing data from monitors A-D
that are immediately proximate to him or her." Gao ,r 133, Fig. 5. In this
situation, Gao teaches using proximity detection between monitors by use of
determining the number of hops in the wireless network. See id. ,r,r 59, 86,
114, 133, 136. In this triage situation, client monitor M excludes vital sign
data from other patient monitors that are more than one hop away. This
situation is also antithetical to the Examiner's proposed default configuration
- again, a situation where no patients are relatively nearby-because
when no patient is nearby, i.e., all patients are more than one hop away, no
patient data is displayed.
In view of the foregoing, we determine that the Examiner's rejection
lacks a rationale that is adequately supported. Additionally, the Examiner's
further reasoning and modifications to Gao' s teachings in view of Inukai,
West, and Agrawal and alternatively, Graves, Inukai, West, and Agrawal, do
not cure the inadequately supported rationale discussed above. For example,
the Examiner relies on West to teach a remote display device that displays
vital sign data from multiple patients (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 6) and Graves to
teach a remote display device that automatically reconfigures a display to
particular patient when in proximity to the particular patient during a bedside
visit (Final Act. 5; Ans. 7). However, the Examiner fails to adequately
explain how these teachings would be used within Gao' s situations to teach
the proposed default configuration.
7
Appeal2017-001153
Application 12/560, 138
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--7, 9-
12, 14, 15, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Gao, Inukai, West, and Agrawal
and alternatively, as unpatentable over Gao, Graves, Inukai, West, and
Agrawal.
Rejections II-VI
The remaining rejections based on Gao, Inukai, West, and Agrawal or
alternatively, Gao, Graves, Inukai, West, and Agrawal, in combination with
Evans, McCombie, Stivoric, Janetis, or Schuman rely on inadequately
supported rationale as discussed above. Each of the remaining rejections is
not cured by additional findings and/or reasoning associated therewith.
Thus, we do not sustain the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 8, 13, and 16-19.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4--21.
REVERSED
8