Ex Parte Okuno et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 3, 201612621884 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation