Ex Parte Nielsen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 201412094213 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LARRY NIELSEN and MOHAMMED SAEED ____________ Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,2131 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, LORA M. GREEN, and ELIZABETH A. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judges. LaVIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner finally rejected claims 1–5, 7–18, and 20–24. Appellants seek reversal of the Examiner’s rejections, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The Specification generally describes medical monitoring systems with user-defined monitored parameters. (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1 is representative: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 2 1. A medical monitoring system comprising: one or more biometric monitors configured to collect time- stamped samples of a plurality of monitored biometric parameters; an expression evaluator configured to evaluate a user-defined expression incorporating one or more of the monitored biometric parameters to generate time-stamped samples of a user-defined biometric parameter having the same format as the collected time-stamped samples of the monitored biometric parameters; and a further processing component configured to perform processing and display of time-stamped samples of at least one parameter selected from the monitored biometric parameters and the user-defined biometric parameter, the further processing component performing the processing and display of time- stamped samples in the same way regardless of whether the at least one parameter is selected from the monitored biometric parameters or the user-defined biometric parameter. (Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.) (emphases added).) REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–5, 7–16, 18, and 20–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schoenberg2 in view of Marlin.3 (May 19, 2008 Office Communication; Ans. 7.) 2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schoenberg in view of Marlin, and in further view of Warring- Davies.4 (Ans. 19–20.) 2 U.S. Patent No. US 7,374,535 B2, issued May 20, 2008. 3 U.S. Patent No. 5,715,451, issued Feb. 3, 1998. 4 U.S. Patent No. US 7,338,453 B2, issued Mar. 4, 2008. Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 3 FINDINGS OF FACT We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact, which are set forth on pages 6–20 of the Answer. We add the following for emphasis. Schoenberg describes a medical information system that receives and displays multiple types of patient data. (Schoenberg Abstract.) The Examiner summarizes Schoenberg’s teachings as follows: The system includes a plurality of medical monitors (biometric monitors) capable of acquiring medical data from a patient; a display controller (processing component) configured to process and display medical information based on a user selection. The system is configured with a medical calculator (expression evaluator) which is capable to access stored data based on a user-specified formula. Time-stamped medical information can be acquired and displayed by the system. (Ans. 11.) The Examiner relies on Schoenberg as teaching all the limitations of claim 1, except that Schoenberg does not expressly disclose “that the expression evaluator is configured to incorporate the measured biometric parameters into the user defined formula to produce a plurality of time- stamped samples of a user defined biometric parameter or that the user defined parameter and the biometric parameter are displayed and processed in a similar manner.” (Id.) For this, the Examiner turns to Marlin. Marlin describes the construction of formulae for processing medical data, in which a user can select time-indexed medical values and intervals, and associated functions. (Marlin Abstract.) The Examiner finds that Marlin’s generated output parameters are user-defined, and based on time- indexed medical-input (biometric) parameters. (Ans. 14.) The Examiner reasons that in Marlin, “[s]ince the time intervals of the input parameters Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 4 (biometric parameters) can be specified relative to the output parameters . . . the generated output parameters (user defined parameters) will have the same format as the input (biometric parameters).” (Id.) Accordingly, the Examiner finds that “[t]he processing, display and storage of either of these two will be the same since there is no[] distinction in the data set per se.” (Id.) Further, Marlin’s system can be used to generate higher-level patient information and preliminary medical treatments. (Marlin col. 2, ll. 45–59; Ans. 24.) While the output can be in textual form, the Examiner finds Marlin’s outputs are not so limited. (Ans. 24.) For example, Marlin provides a formula for summing the volumes of intravenous infusions administered to the patient; the numeric output of this formula becomes the input for another formula to calculate the patient’s total fluid intake. (Marlin col. 9, ll. 6–25.) The Examiner concludes that combining Schoenberg and Marlin would have been obvious, to achieve the predictable result of “simplifying medical data analysis and visualization . . . for example by incorporating M[a]rlin’s methods into the processing system of Schoenberg such that the two data sets can be processed, displayed and stored. . . .” (Ans. 15.) Furthermore, “[s]imultaneous display of patient parameters as well as the values for the parameters obtained by the formula would aid a clinician in determining a treatment or action by providing a future or probable trend visualization.” (Id.; see also id. at 17 (noting Schoenberg’s teachings of real-time display of information and of presentation (in Figure 2A) of numeric and trend data).) Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 5 DISCUSSION A. Claim Construction Before turning to the obviousness rejections, we begin with claim construction. During prosecution, an application’s claims take their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, as one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret them. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 recites time-stamped samples of a user-defined biometric parameter “having the same format” as those of monitored biometric parameters, and processing and displaying the time-stamped samples “in the same way,” regardless of whether the parameter is monitored or user- defined. (Claims App.) The other independent claims contain similar language.5 The Examiner interprets “in the same way” to mean “in a similar manner.” (Ans. 5.) As such, “within the context of the invention . . . the generated and measured parameters are displayed, trended and stored in a similar manner, that is, the system does not distinguish whether the parameter is a measured time-stamped value or a generated from a user formulae.” (Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 28).6) Further, the Examiner notes that “there 5 Claim 20 recites a medical monitoring system, including a further processing component “performing the same processing and display of data regardless of . . .” the source of the data. (Claims App.) Claim 22 recites a medical monitoring method, including a processing step “performed in the same way . . .” for monitored and user-defined parameters. (Id.) Claim 24 recites a computer device, with processing operations “performed in the same way” for monitored and user-defined parameters. (Id.) 6 The Examiner cites to paragraph 28 of the Specification for this point, apparently referring to the paragraph numbers in the published version of the Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 6 is no specific recitation of what a processing of data ‘in the same way’ requires or any structural or functional limitations of the system providing a specific processing capability so as to process ‘in the same way’ as opposed to in a different way.” (Ans. 20–21.) Appellants argue that this interpretation is not consistent with the plain meaning of the phrase “in the same way,” but offer no definition of their own. (See Reply Br. 3.) In support, Appellants point to Figure 1 of the Specification as showing trending of user-defined and monitored parameters as processed and displayed “in the same way.” (Id. at 4.) While Figure 1 shows trend data displayed as waveforms for both monitored parameters and a user-defined parameter (see Spec. 7, l. 30–8, l. 13), we fail to discern some limiting definition of “in the same way” from Figure 1. Moreover, as can be seen from Figure 1, “in the same way” must necessarily encompass something less stringent than “identically,” as the trend lines displayed in Figure 1 are not displayed one atop the other, for example, but rather in similar locations adjacent to one another. This is consistent with the description in the Specification: As representatively illustrated in FIGURE 1, the user-defined biometric parameter ‘U1’ is displayed as a real-time waveform in the third display region 56 in the same way that the monitored electrocardiographic (ECG) is displayed or is displayed as trend data in the same way that the blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) biometric parameters are trended in the display regions 54, 55, respectively. Application. However, the Specification as filed on May 19, 2008 lacks paragraph numbers. By comparing the two, we interpret the Examiner’s citation to paragraph 28 of the Specification as referring to page 7, lines 18– 29. Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 7 (Spec. 7, l. 32–8, l. 4.) Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation of “in the same way” as “in a similar manner” is consistent with that Figure, as well as the Specification. Appellants also argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of “in the same way” to mean “in a similar manner” is flawed because “‘in a similar manner’ is indefinite on its face.” (Reply Br. 3.) Appellants ask: “[h]ow similar is sufficiently similar to be ‘in a similar manner’?” (Id.) The Examiner’s interpretation, however, is consistent with the Specification, which uses similar language: “[t]he generated time-stamped samples of the user-defined biometric parameter are subsequently treated by further processing components in the same way as the monitored biometric parameters, and can be similarly stored, trended, displayed in real-time, or so forth. (Spec. 7, ll. 18–21 (emphasis added).) Further, we agree with the Examiner that the claims and Specification fail to articulate any particular definition of “in the same way” that would limit the claims in the manner Appellants seek. Indeed, Appellants’ arguments fail to address the crux of the Examiner’s position: Thus, what the processor ‘sees’ or receives is data, binary data. There is nothing in the disclosed specification that indicates that the time-stamped samples generated from the biometric monitors and the ones generated from the expression evaluator are different sets of data distinguishable from each other so as to require different processing architectures or algorithms. There is nothing in the specification indicating that the processing component is configured, structurally or functionally to distinguish the origin of two sets of binary data. (Ans. 21.) The Examiner finds that the system described in the Specification does not distinguish between monitored and user-defined sources in terms of how the binary data are treated. If Appellants desired a narrower scope, they Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 8 should have amended their claims accordingly. See Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364 (it is during prosecution that applicants have “the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage”). We thus conclude that the Examiner did not err in interpreting “in the same way” to mean “in a similar manner,” under the broadest reasonable construction standard, consistent with the Specification. With this guidance in hand, we turn to the obviousness rejections. B. Rejection 1 Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–16, 18, and 20– 24, Appellants address claims 1, 9, 11, 20, 22, 23, and 24 specifically. (See Appeal Br. 13–20.) As described below, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Because Appellants do not separately argue claims 2–5, 7, 8, 10, 12–15, 18, and 21, we treat claim 1 as representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). As we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, claims 2–5, 7, 8, 10, 12–15, 18, and 21 fall with claim 1. 1. Claim 1 Appellants summarize their arguments with respect to claim 1 as follows: Marlin’s monitored biometric parameter (heart rate) has a numeric format as appropriate for a numeric value, and Marlin’s user-defined formula outputs a text format as appropriate for the outputted textual value. The values of the monitored biometric parameter and of the user-defined function do not have the same format (or even a similar format). Indeed, they do not even share the same data type. They cannot be processed in the same way, any more than the values 75.6 and “Statue of Liberty” could be processed in the same way. Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 9 (Appeal Br. 16.) Appellants summarize deficiencies in Schoenberg, including those acknowledged by the Examiner, but argue Marlin fails to cure these deficiencies, and thus the combined references do not render claim 1 obvious. (See id. at 13–14.) Thus, Appellants’ arguments turn on whether Marlin teaches monitored and user-defined biometric parameters that are “the same format” and are processed “in the same way.” In view of our agreement with the Examiner’s construction of “in the same way” as meaning “in a similar manner,” such that binary data are processed by the claimed system in the same way whether they are derived from monitored biometric parameters or user-defined biometric parameters, Appellants’ argument is unavailing. However, even if textual and numeric data are not in “the same format” within the scope of claim 1 by virtue of both being represented in binary format to the processor, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner that Marlin teaches numeric data for user-defined parameters as well as for monitored parameters. As discussed in our Findings of Fact above, the Examiner explains that Marlin is not limited to textual outputs for user-defined parameters: “Marlin’s method and system allow for the construction of a user defined formula which incorporates a monitored parameter (time-indexed input) to generate values (time-indexed values).” (Ans. 24.) Indeed, Marlin specifically contemplates using numeric outputs from user-defined formulas (which are themselves generated from numeric monitored inputs) as inputs for additional formulas. (See Marlin col. 9, ll. 6–25.) Thus, Marlin encompasses using numeric data, i.e., data having “the same format,” both as inputs and outputs of user- Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 10 defined formulas. Appellants’ assertion that the examples provided in Marlin “appear to be text outputs,” (Reply Br. 4), is not persuasive. Accordingly, Appellants have demonstrated no reversible error by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Schoenberg in view of Marlin. 2. Claims 9 and 11 For claims 9 and 11, which recite displaying a “trend” of the time- stamped samples (claim 9) or a display that “trend[s] in real time” (claim 11), Appellants argue that the combined references thus fail to teach “a display configured to trend in real time time-stamped samples in the same way regardless of whether the at least one parameter is selected from the monitored biometric parameters or the user defined biometric parameter.” (Appeal Br. 17.) As with claim 1, Appellants allege Marlin receives numeric biometric parameters into a user-defined formula, from which it outputs textual values. (Id.) Further, Appellants note that the Examiner has failed to offer any specific rationale supporting the obviousness rejection of these claims. (See Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 5–6.) Appellants identify no error by the Examiner other than that which we have already found unpersuasive as to claim 1. Claims 9 and 11, unlike claim 1, specifically recite displaying trends in real-time. However, this is not sufficient to rescue claims 9 and 11 from the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner finds that Schoenberg teaches presentation of real- time and trend data (see Ans. 17) and that the combination of Schoenberg and Marlin would “would aid a clinician in determining a treatment or action by providing a future or probable trend visualization,” (id. at 15). Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 11 As we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 9 and 11 for the same reasons as their arguments regarding claim 1, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 11. 3. Claims 20, 22, and 24 Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 20, 22, and 24 are indistinguishable from Appellants’ same format/same way argument for claim 1. In other words, as to these claims, Appellants argue that Marlin does not process the monitored biometric parameters and the user-defined parameters in “the same way.” (See Appeal Br. 18 (claim 20), 18–19 (claim 22), 20 (claim 24).) Because we reject this argument with respect to claim 1, we likewise reject it with respect to claims 20, 22, and 24. 4. Claim 23 As for claim 23, Appellants again recapitulate the same format/same way argument from claim 1, and further argue the references fail to teach the recited “trending” on the basis that the alleged textual output of Marlin is not amenable to trending. (Appeal Br. at 19.) As with claims 9 and 11, the “trending” argument here is inseparable from the same format/same way argument. Because we have already rejected the former with respect to claim 1 and the latter with respect to claims 9 and 11, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. C. Rejection 2 As for the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, Appellants reference their arguments regarding claim 1, and assert the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is defective for the same reasons. (See Appeal Br. 21.) Because we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we therefore also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Appeal 2012-007098 Application 12/094,213 12 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1–5, 7–18, and 20–24 are affirmed for the reasons of record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation