Ex Parte Schmoll et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 5, 2018

13574206 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/574,206 10/10/2012 Horst Schmoll BBMG-159US 3560
23122 7590 01/09/2018
RATNFRPRFSTTA EXAMINER
2200 Renaissance Blvd KANAAN, MAROUN P
Suite 350
King of Prussia, PA 19406 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/09/2018 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):
PCorrespondence @ ratnerprestia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HORST SCHMOLL and MATTHIAS PAETZOLD
Appeal 2016-0028711
Application 13/574,2062
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—19. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Aug. 26, 2015), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 19, 2016), Substitute
Specification (“Spec.” filed July 19, 2012), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Nov. 20, 2015), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Apr.
22,2015).
2 Appellants identify “B. Braun Melsungen AG” as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a system and a method of
controlling a transmission of data to and/or from a plurality of medical
appliances.” Spec. 12.
Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for controlling the transmission of data to
and/or from a plurality of medical appliances, comprising:
a plurality of appliance groups within a first data
transmission stage, each of the plurality of appliance groups
including at least one of the plurality of medical appliances;
a plurality of communication devices within a second data
transmission stage, each of the plurality of communication
devices being connected to one of the plurality of groups by a
first network, the second data transmission stage configured for
the transmission, storage and control of data between the
plurality of communication devices and the plurality of appliance
groups; and
a common central server device within a third data
transmission stage, the central server device being connected to
the plurality of communication devices by a second network, the
third transmission stage being configured for the storage, control
and transmission of data between the central server device and
the plurality of communication devices;
wherein each communication device is configured to:
determine, with a processor, an operating state of each
medical appliance in the one of the plurality of appliance groups
connected to the communication device; and
update a data bank associated with each medical appliance
when the determined operating state indicates the medical
appliance allows updating.
2
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to ineligible subject matter in the form of an abstract idea. Final Act. 2—3.
Claims 1,2, and 4—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Roberts (US 2009/0157695 Al, pub. June 18, 2009). Final
Act. 3—5.
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibile Subject Matter
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that hierarchical data
transmission to and/or from a plurality of medical devices, as recited in
independent claims 1 and 9, is not an abstract idea. App. Br. 5—12; see also
Reply Br. 2-A.
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated a two-step framework, set forth
previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of [these] concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLSBanklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first step is to “determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1296—97). If they are, the second
step is to analyze whether the claim elements, either individually or as an
ordered combination, contain an “inventive concept” that “‘transform[s] the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132
S. Ct. at 1294, 1297).
3
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that “all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. We, therefore, look to
“whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” See
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335—36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Appellants’ Specification describes a technical problem
related to controlling data transmissions to and/or from a plurality of medical
appliances at hospitals and clinics. Specifically, the Specification describes
that hospitals and clinics need to receive data transmitted to and from a
variety of medical appliances in real-time and in a trouble-free manner. See
Spec. 13. However, this need often is not realized because network
overload results from the many medical appliances accessing a common
network, which, in turn, causes trouble, such as data loss and interruption,
and inadequate transmission speeds. See id. ]Hf 3^4. Moreover, even though
medical appliances often are provided with large intermediate memories to
store data temporarily in the event of overload, restoration efforts are
thwarted by the inability to read out this memory without a fixed data
transmission connection to the server device. Id. 4—5. For example, the
network overload may need to be corrected before back-up data can be read
from the medical appliance. Id. 1 5.
The focus of Appellants’ claimed invention is providing trouble-free,
continuous data transmission between a plurality of medical appliances,
without loss of data during real-time transmission and without network
overloading. Id. 1 6; see also id. 137. According to Appellants,
4
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
[a]n essential aspect of the invention lies in the fact that
... the plurality of medical appliances [are] subdivided into
individual groups with at least one medical appliance in each
[group], each group of medical appliances on a first data
transmission stage is directly connected by way of a first network
in each case to a communication device arranged on a second
data transmission stage for the transmission, storage, and control
data, . . . and these communication devices on a [second] data
transmission [stage] may exchange data with a common central
server device arranged on a third data transmission stage for the
storage, control and transmission of data.
Id. 1 8. Stated another way, the claimed solution uses three data
transmission stages, each layer having a specific type of hardware
component, for layered transmission of information to prevent backlogs and
facilitate trouble-free, real-time data transmission.
Figure 1 of Appellants’ Specification, reproduced below, further
describes the hierarchical system recited in Appellants’ claims:
10a 10b 10c
i Application A ' : Application S Application C
11 L4
11
9
S Server [" ’
A Server , 8
■11
9
L39 7.......... y ■ -
c x j Comm
° ] Device !
7
i 6a r.; • g. Comm :
’; Device
>6b s
7
6a _0 Comm :
■ Device r
6b
7, ;
6c) „ Comm 1 -
6‘v-i Device
6b i.....
7 i
6a
-6b L2
r- ;il Medcol
5ay Device
h... 7 Medico!
: i 5a Device
.7 Medted
;; : Device
"0 . i: Medicai
: y.; Device
-
LI
5 5 5 555 5 § 5 5 § 5
Figure 1
5
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
Figure 1 shows a diagrammatic illustration for controlling data
transmission according to the claimed invention. Claim 1, for example,
recites a system that includes: (1) a plurality of appliance groups 5a within
first data transmission stage 1; (2) a plurality of communication devices 6a
within second data transmission stage 2; and (3) common central server
device 8 within third data transmission stage 3. Each communication device
6 is connected to: (1) one of the plurality of appliance groups 5a by first
network 7, and (2) central server device 8 by a second network 9. See Spec.
39-40, Fig. 1. Second data transmission stage 2 is configured for the
transmission, storage, and control of data between the plurality of
communication devices 6 and the plurality of appliance groups 5a. Third
transmission stage 3 is configured for the storage, control, and transmission
of data between central server device 8 and the plurality of communication
devices 6. Each communication device 6 is configured to determine an
operating state of each medical appliance 5 in appliance group 5a, and
update a data bank associated with each medical appliance when the
determined operating state indicates the medical appliance allows updating.
Claim 9 recites similar features. The Specification describes that this
“multiple-stage design of the system” “permits a trouble-free transmission of
data [that] is not susceptible to overloading.” Id. 142; see also id. 119-
15 (describing various technical advantages of the multiple-stage design,
such as ability to read stored data from a communication device via a
network that is independent of a server device).
The Examiner determines that the claims “are directed to the abstract
idea of using categories to organize^] store, and transmit information.”
Final Act. 2. The Examiner acknowledges that “the claims do not explicitly
6
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
recite ‘categories to organize, store, and transmit information,’” but the
Examiner determines that the concept is nonetheless present due to the
recited steps of transmitting, storing, determining, and receiving. Id. The
Examiner also determines that the claims do not teach a hierarchical system.
See Ans. 2. We disagree.
Our review of Appellants’ claims demonstrates that they are directed
to an improved data transmission through a multiple-stage design, not to the
abstract idea of categorical data storage. Like Enfish ’s self-referential table
for a computer database,3 Thales ’ motion tracking system,4 and Visual
Memory’s computer memory system,5 the claims here focus on a specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities, instead of “on a process that
qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335—36. This is not a case where the claims
merely recite the use of an abstract mathematical formula on a general
purpose computer, a conventional computer implementation of a
mathematical formula, or generalized steps to be performed on a computer
using conventional computer activity.
3 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but rather are
directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operated, embodied
in the self-referential table).
4 Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and instead
specify a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method
of using the raw data from the sensors).
5 Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and
instead are directed to a technological improvement: an enhanced computer
memory system).
7
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
Because we conclude that Appellants’ claims are not directed to an
abstract idea, we need not proceed to step two of the Alice framework. For
this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,2, and 4—
19 as reciting only abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Roberts does not
disclose multiple-stage data transmission, as required by these claims. See
App. Br. 13—18; see also Reply Br. 5—6. In particular, we agree with
Appellants that Roberts does not disclose “a plurality of communication
devices within a second data transmission stage, each of the plurality of
communication devices being connected to one of the plurality of [medical
appliance] groups by a first network,” and “a common central server device
within a third data transmission stage, the central server device being
connected to the plurality of communication devices by a second network,”
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 9.
Roberts is directed to software for treatment of patients using medical
devices including medical device network 100. Roberts 12, Fig. 1. Medical
device network 100 includes medical device server 102 connected with a
variety of different types of medical devices, such as active medical device
104, passive medical device 106, and medical infusion pumps 108. Id.
67—69, Fig. 1. Medical device server 102 “is configured to store and
retrieve data received from the various medical devices 104,106,108.” Id.
170. Workstations 110 and portable computing systems may also be
allowed to connect to medical device server 102 to allow a user, such as a
caregiver or patient, access to the medical device server. Id. 171.
8
Appeal 2016-002871
Application 13/574,206
The Examiner cites Roberts at Figure 1 and paragraphs 67 and 71 as
disclosing the claimed plurality of appliance groups and the claimed
plurality of communications devices. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4. Yet, the
cited portions of Roberts describe that server 102 is connected with various
medical devices 104, 106, 108, and additional computing devices over a
single network. There is no hierarchical structure as required by the claims.
Instead, Roberts shows only one network 100, will all medical appliances
and computing devices connected to server 102 using the common network.
See Roberts, Fig. 1. As such, Roberts fails to disclose that “each of the
plurality of communication devices [is] connected to one of the plurality of
[medical appliance] groups by a first network,” and “a central server device
[is] connected to the plurality of communication devices by a second
network,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 9.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1 and 9, and their dependents under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
9