Ex Parte Panken et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201612432993 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/432,993 0413012009 13582 7590 08/30/2016 Medtronic Inc. (Neuro) 710 Medtronic Parkway NE MS: LC340 Legal Patents Minneapolis, MN 55432 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric J. PANKEN 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. P0034557.00/LG10137 8193 EXAMINER MAHMOOD, NADIA AHMAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3762 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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): medtronic _neuro _ docketing@cardinal-ip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC J. P ANKEN and DENNIS M. SKELTON Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 Technology Center 3700 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Eric J. Panken and Dennis M. Skelton (Appellants) 1 seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-55. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Medtronic, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 The disclosed subject matter "relates to posture detection techniques, and more particularly, to medical devices that detect posture states." Spec. 1, 11. 18-19. Claims 1, 25, 38, 45, and 46 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below, with emphasis added: 1. A method of classifying a posture state of a patient, comprising: obtaining a defined vector from at least one sensor disposed in a substantially fixed manner relative to the patient, the defined vector being described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor and without regard to an orientation in which the sensor is disposed in relation to the patient; obtaining a detected vector from the at least one sensor, the detected vector being described in the coordinate system of the at least one sensor and being indicative of the posture state of the patient; comparing the detected vector and the defined vector; classifying the posture state of the patient based on the comparison and without regard to the orientation in which the sensor is disposed in relation to the patient; and initiating via a medical device an action related to providing care for the patient, the action being based on the posture state classification. REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-33, 35-38, 40-52, 54, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable 2 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 over Wang '056 (US 2007/0118056 Al, published May 24, 2007) and Clarkson (US 2006/0284979 Al, published Dec. 21, 2006). 2 2. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and Sanghera (US 2008/0188901 Al, published Aug. 7, 2008). 3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and McNeil (US 2007/0032748 Al, published Feb. 8, 2007). 4. Claims 20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and Kim (US 6,879,352 Bl, issued Apr. 12, 2005). 5. Claims 23, 26, 39, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and Wang '277 (US 2007/0115277 Al, published May 24, 2007). 2 As noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 7 n.44), claim 21 is not listed in the header for Rejection 1 (see Final Act. 2-3 (dated Apr. 9, 2013); Ans. 2)) but the Examiner discusses claim 21 in the body of Rejection 1 (see Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 5) and lists claim 21 in the Office Action Summary (Final Act. 1 ). As such, we consider claim 21 to be rejected. Further, although claim 20 is listed as rejected in the header for Rejection 1 (Final Act. 2; Ans. 2), the Examiner does not discuss that claim in the body of Rejection 1. See Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 2-8. As such, we do not consider claim 20 as rejected under Rejection 1. The Examiner does, however, address claim 20 under Rejection 4. See Final Act. 10-11. 3 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 DISCUSSION Rejection I -The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-33, 35-38, 40-52, 54, and 55 under 35 US.C. § 103(a) A. Claim 1 (and claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, and 24) Independent claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "obtaining a defined vector from at least one sensor disposed in a substantially fixed manner relative to the patient, the defined vector being described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor," "obtaining a detected vector from the at least one sensor, the detected vector being described in the coordinate system of the at least one sensor" and "comparing the detected vector and the defined vector." Appeal Br. 40 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that claim 1 recites an "approach that is not taught or even suggested by Wang in view of Clarkson that relates to comparing two vectors, both being described in the coordinate system of the at least one sensor." Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). Although we agree with the Examiner that Wang ;056 discloses comparing a detected posture and a defined posture in order to classify a patient's posture (see Ans. 11-12 (discussing Wang i-f 9) ), we agree with Appellants that, in the prior art, any defined posture vector is not, as required by claim 1, "described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor." We now address the various findings by the Examiner regarding this limitation (which we refer to as the "coordinate system limitation"). As discussed below, any defined posture vector in the prior art is described in the coordinate system of the patient's body, rather than in the coordinate system of the sensor. First, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner appeared to rely on Clarkson to address the coordinate system limitation. See Final Act. 3 ("Clarkson discloses where the activity of the subject (which may include 4 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 posture) can be determined independent of the sensor unit's orientation [0036]."). We agree with Appellants, however, that the "general description of determining activity independent of the sensor unit's orientation [in Clarkson i-f 3 6] does not teach the requirements of [ c ]laim 1 of obtaining f! defined vector described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor." Appeal Br. 15; see also Ans. 13 (responding to Appellants with, "Examiner points to paragraph [0036] of Clarkson which states that activity of the subject can be determined independent of the sensor unit's orientation"); Reply Br. 15 (stating that "nothing in paragraph 36 of Clarkson relates the statement 'the activity of the subject can be determined independent of the sensor unit's orientation' to a defined vector"). Second, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner also appeared to rely on paragraphs 5 and 21 of Wang '056 to address the coordinate system limitation. See Final Act. 2 (stating that Wang '056 discloses "a defined vector as one or more sensors indicative of a posture state of a patient [e.g. 0021]"); id. at 3 (stating that Wang '056 discloses "obtaining a defined vector from at least one sensor where the vector is in a coordinate system in paragraph [0005] where [Wang] states the 'outputs of one or more sensors disposed in relation to a patient's body are measured while the patient assumes a plurality of body postures"'). As discussed by Appellants (Appeal Br. 8), the system described in Wang '056 performs posture detection by obtaining a vector (indicative of posture) in the coordinate system of a sensor, then translating (using a "transfer matrix" (Wang '056 i-f 5)) that vector into the coordinate system of a patient's body, before comparing the translated vector to a defined posture vector, also in the body coordinate system. See Wang '056 i-f 44 (discussing Figure 1 and stating that 5 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 "[t]he position of the patient's body may be expressed in body coordinates by translating the vector gravitational force G acting on the patient's body from device coordinates (U,V,W) to body coordinates (X,Y,Z)"). Paragraphs 5 and 21 support this understanding, and show that the defined posture vector in Wang '056 is described in the body coordinate system, not the sensor coordinate system. See Wang '056 i-f 5 ("The transfer matrix defines a relationship between a coordinate system of the one or more sensors and a coordinate system of the patient's body. The posture of the patient's body is determined using the body coordinate system as a reference coordinate system."); i-f 21 ("The posture processor of the posture detector may be configured to define a vector associated with the posture and to determine the posture, e.g., tilt or tilt angle, based on an orientation of the vector with respect to a body coordinate system."). Third, in the Answer, the Examiner appears to identify the "threshold values" described in paragraph 9 of Wang '056 as the recited "defined vector." See Ans. 11-12. As argued by Appellants, however, "the Examiner has not cited to anything in Wang that indicates that [the] threshold values are described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor." Reply Br. 8. Fourth, in the Answer, the Examiner also refers to paragraph 10 of Wang '056 regarding the recited "defined vector." See Ans. 12 (first full paragraph). Appellants contend that certain statements in the Answer show that the Examiner "recognize[ s] that any alleged comparison occurs in the body coordinate system." Reply Br. 12 (discussing Ans. 12). Regardless of whether statements in the Answer amount to an admission on this issue, paragraph 10 of Wang '056 supports the view that the defined posture vectors in Wang '056 are described in the body coordinate system, not the 6 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 sensor coordinate system. See, e.g., Wang '056 il IO ("The posture processor is configured to determine a posture of the patient's body using the body coordinate system as a reference coordinate system."). For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the rejection of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, and 24, which depend from claim 1. B. Claim 25 (and claims 27-33 and 35-37) Similar to claim 1, independent claim 25 recites, among other limitations, a storage device configured to store at least one posture state definition referencing at least one defined vector expressed in a coordinate system of the sensor; and a processor configured to obtain the detected vector in the coordinate system of the sensor, to compare the detected vector to the at least one defined vector and to classify a posture state of the patient based on the comparison. Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For claim 25 (and claims 27-33 and 35-37, which depend from claim 25), the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and Clarkson discussed above with regard to claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4, 7; Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 25, 27-33, and 35-37. C. Claim 3 8 (and claims 40--44) Similar to claim 1, independent claim 3 8 recites, among other limitations, "receiving a defined vector from at least one sensor carried in any orientation within a patient, the defined vector being expressed in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor" and "classifying the posture state of the patient based on a comparison between the detected vector and 7 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 the defined vector." Appeal Br. 47 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For claim 38 (and claims 40-44, which depend from claim 38), the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and Clarkson discussed above. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 38 and 40-44. 8 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 D. Claim 45 Similar to claim 1, independent claim 45 recites, among other limitations, "obtaining one or more posture state definitions that reference one or more defined vectors, each defined vector being indicated in the coordinate system of the sensor" and "comparing the detected vector directly to the one or more defined vectors." Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For claim 45, the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and Clarkson discussed above. See Final Act. 3--4, 7; Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 45. E. Claim 46 (and claims 47-52, 54, and 55) Similar to claim 1, independent claim 46 recites, among other limitations, "one or more processors configured to obtain a defined vector expressed in a coordinate system of a sensor wherein the defined vector is associated with a posture state definition" and also configured "to compare the detected vector to the defined vector." Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For claim 46 (and claims 47-52, 54, and 55, which depend from claim 46), the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and Clarkson discussed above. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 46-52, 54, and 55. Rejections 2 and 3 -The rejection of claims 8, 11, and 14 under 35 USC§ 103(a) Claims 8, 11, and 14 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 41, 42 (Claims App.). The Examiner's added reliance on Sanghera (regarding Rejection 2) and McNeil (regarding Rejection 3) does not remedy the deficiencies in the 9 Appeal2014-005817 Application 12/432,993 combined teachings of Wang '056 and Clarkson, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1 §A). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 14. Rejections 4 and 5 - The rejection of claims 20, 23, 26, 34, 39, and 53 under 35 US.C. § 103(a) Claims 20 and 23 depend from claim 1, claims 26 and 34 depend from claim 25, claim 39 depends from claim 38, and claim 53 depends from claim 46. Appeal Br. 44--47, 49 (Claims App.). The Examiner's reliance on Kim (regarding Rejection 4) and Wang '277 (regarding Rejection 5) does not remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Wang '056 and Clarkson, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1 §A). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 20, 23, 26, 34, 39, and 53. DECISION We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1-55. REVERSED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation