Ex Parte Okuno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12621884 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/621,884
757 7590
BGL
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
11/19/2009
05/04/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ken'ichi Okuno
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.
11333/315 3319
EXAMINER
WRIGHT, PATRICIA KATHRYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1798
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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 KEN'ICHI OKUNO, HIROYUKI MORIHARA,
TADA YUKI YAMAGUCHI and TOMOMI SUGIYAMA
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 2-17. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify that the real party in interest as "Sysmex Corporation"
(Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2013 ("App. Br.") 2).
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
Claims 2-17 are finally rejected and appealed. Claims 2, 6, 10 and 13
are independent. Claims 2 and 10 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added):
2. A sample analyzer analyzing at least one analyte
contained in a sample, comprising:
an analyzing unit configured to assay the sample and analyze
the at least one analyte in the sample; and
a processor of a computer system which executes programs to
implement:
a communication interface that inter-links the sample analyzer
with a remotely located control device via a network to link a screen
of the sample analyzer and a screen of the control device so that the
screen displayed at the sample analyzer is displayed at the control
device;
a patient masking unit that prevents, when the sample analyzer
and the control device are inter-linked, patient information shown in
the screen of the sample analyzer from being displayed in the linked
screen of the control device; and
a remote control unit that accepts control operations from the
control device to have the sample analyzer operated under remote
control by the control device.
10. A control device configured to remotely control a sample
analyzer analyzing at least one analyte contained in a sample,
compnsmg:
a processor of a computer system which executes programs to
implement:
a communication interface that inter-links the control device
with a remotely located sample analyzer via a network to operate the
sample analyzer under remote control by the control device;
2
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
a display that displays a screen which is linked with a screen of
the sample analyzer so as to display the linked screen of the sample
analyzer, except for patient information shown in the linked screen of
the sample analyzer; and
a remote control unit that gives control operations to the sample
analyzer via the network to remotely operate the sample analyzer.
(Claims Appendix, App. Br. 24-26.)
The Appellants appeal the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)2 :
I. Claims 2-9 as unpatentable over Rosenbaum (US 6,584,430 Bl,
issued June 24, 2003) in view of Miller (US 5,550,968 issued August 27,
1996) (Final Rejection dated November 29, 2012 ("Final Rej.") 6-10; Ans.
2---6. ); and
II. Claims 10-17 as also unpatentable over Rosenbaum in view of
Miller (New ground of rejection, Ans. 6-9).
Appellants focus their arguments on independent claims 2 and 10.
App. Br. 19-23; Reply Br. 2--4. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to
independent claims 2 and 10.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of
2 The Examiner withdrew a prior 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection
of claims 10-17, as well as a 35 U. S.C. § 102( e) rejection of claims 10-17 as
anticipated by Rosenbaum (Ans. 10).
3
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the
Examiner's§ 103 rejections essentially for the reasons set out by the
Examiner in the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner found Rosenbaum discloses a sample analyzer, and a
control device configured to remotely control it, that contains all the
components of claims 2 and 10 (interlinked analyzer 18 and control unit 14
in Rosenbaum's Fig. 2) but for a "patient masking unit" that prevents
information shown in the screen of the analyzer from being displayed in the
linked screen of the control device (Ans. 3 and 6, 7). The Examiner found
that Miller teaches a communication interface that inter-links, via a network,
a screen of a local computer with screens of remotely located control users
and further teaches obscuring patient information from being displayed on
screen panels of the control device when the screens are inter-linked
("patient masking unit") (Ans. 3, 5 and 7; l'viiller, Figs. 2 and 4). The
Examiner further found Miller teaching that not all users of the data
processing system need to access all available information, that some
information may be privileged, and that it is preferable to restrict access to
certain users without having to redesign a specific panel for each user's level
of access (Ans. 3, 5 and 7). The Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to have included Miller's "patient masking unit" in
Rosenbaum's system in view of Miller's teachings so that the system can
restrict access of privileged information from certain users without having to
redesign entire panels for each specific user (Ans. 3-5, 7 and 8).
Appellants' principal argument is that neither Rosenbaum nor Miller
teaches a communication interface inter-linking via a network the screen of
4
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
the sample analyzer with that of the control device wherein the screen
displayed on the analyzer is displayed on the control device (App. Br. 19-
21 ). However, the Examiner aptly points out that Rosenbaum teaches a
screen of an analyzer interlinked via a network to a screen of a control
device (Ans. 10). The Examiner further points out that Rosenbaum discloses
conference tool 48 which allows a remotely located service technician to see
all the information from the screen of analyzer 18 on the monitor of its
control device, which is interlinked remotely with the analyzer via a network
(Ans. 10-12). Appellants have not adequately shown why the claims do not
encompass Rosenbaum's communication-interface as set forth by the
Examiner. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (In construing claims, "the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation .... as applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.")
Appellants further argue that Miller is silent as to having the screen of
an analyzer linked to the screen of a control unit via a network wherein the
sample analyzer prevents the information from being displayed on the screen
of the control unit (App. Br. 21 ). We are not persuaded by this argument
because, as discussed previously, the Examiner has shown that Rosenbaum
teaches an analyzer screen and a control unit screen inter-linked via a
network and that Miller is relied upon for teaching monitoring access to
patient information (Ans. 12-13). One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
5
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also argue, with respect to dependent claim 16, that the
cited prior art does not teach a remote control remotely logging onto the
analyzer (App. Br. 16). A preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner's obviousness determination of this claim since Rosenbaum
discloses conferencing tool 48 which permits a user, such as a technician, to
remotely log onto the analyzer (Ans. 11 ).
Consequently, after full consideration of Appellants' arguments
(Appeal Br. 19--23; Reply Br. 2--4), we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's determination of obviousness. Appellants' arguments do not
adequately address the Examiner's reasoning for combining the prior art.
Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would
not have combined Rosenbaum's analyzer/system with Miller's teachings
regarding preventing/monitoring access to patient information. A person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to modify Rosenbaum' s
analyzer/system and incorporate Miller's teachings to attain a resultant
analyzer/system having a computer program wherein personal information
displayed in the analyzer screen (e.g. patient records) is prevented from
being displayed in a monitor screen of remote user (such as a technician).
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (The combination of
familiar elements or steps according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results); Ball Aerosol
and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court,
6
Appeal2014-006031
Application 12/621,884
the PTO must take account of the "inferences and creative steps," as well as
routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
2-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons given above and presented by
the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner's prior art rejections are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
7