Ex Parte Vissapragada Venkata Satya et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14351203 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT 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.
14/351,203 04/11/2014 Surya Subrahmanya Sreeram Vissapragada Venkata 2011P01821 WOUS 7442
Satya
24737 7590 06/28/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
HEFFNER, NED T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3782
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURYA SUBRAHMANYA SREERAM VISSAPRAGADA
VENKATA SATYA, LEONARDO ALBERTO BALOA WELZIEN, and
MANUEL LAURA LAPOINT
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
Technology Center 3700
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, STEFAN STAICOVICI, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5,
11, and 13-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant is the applicant, as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46, and is identified
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification
The "disclosure relates to detecting mouth-breathing in early phase
expiration during respiratory treatments involving a pressure support
device." Spec. ,II. "One example of such a pressure support device is a
continuous positive airway pressure (CP AP) device[, which] delivers a flow
of fluid to the airway of the subject throughout the subject's breathing cycle
in order to 'splint' the airway, thereby preventing its collapse during sleep."
Id. ,I2. In using such devices, "it is often desirable to monitor various
parameters" in order to estimate the flow of air delivered to the subject. Id.
,rs.
The Specification discloses the use of a filter module "configured to
provide a filtered signal by suppressing high-frequency components of a
flow signal" obtained from a sensor. Id. ,I36. Figure 2A is reproduced
below.
FIG. 2A
2
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
Figure 2A, reproduced above, shows "a plot of a flow signal 40 as a
function of time from normal breaths." Id. ,I34. Flow signal 40 represents
the flow of breathable gas passing through a gas mask on a patient. Id.; see
also id. at Fig. 1 (ref. 30). A filter module provides filtered flow signal 44
by suppressing high-frequency components of flow signal. Id. ,I3 6.
Id.
By way of non-limiting example, the filter module 32 may
process a flow signal ( or other output signal) by smoothing,
filtering ( e.g., high-pass, low-pass, bandpass, etc.), and/or other
processing techniques. According to some embodiments, a flow
signal (e.g., flow signal 40 and/or flow signal 42) is filtered to
suppress high-frequency components and only pass low-
frequency components. High-frequency components may
include components of a signal higher than approximately 0.2
Hz. Low-frequency components may include components of a
signal lower than approximately 0.1 Hz.
The Rejected Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 are rejected. Final Act. 1. Claims 6-10
were withdrawn from consideration. Id. Claims 2 and 12 are cancelled. Id.
at 2. No other claims are pending. Id. at 1-2.
Appellant argues the patentability of all claims together. Appeal Br.
5-10. We select claim 1 as representative (see 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv))
and reproduce it below.
1. A system configured for detecting mouth-
breathing in early phase expiration during respiratory
treatments involving a pressure support device, the system
compnsmg:
a pressure generator configured to generate a pressurized
flow of breathable gas for delivery to the airway of a subject;
3
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
a sensor configured to provide an output signal
conveying information relating to one or more parameters of
the pressurized flow of breathable gas as it is delivered to the
airway of the subject; and
one or more processors configured to execute computer
program modules, the computer program modules comprising:
a parameter module configured to determine one
or more parameters of the pressurized flow of breathable
gas as it is delivered to the airway of the subject based on
the output signal, the one or more parameters comprising
a first parameter;
a filter module configured to provide a filtered
signal by suppressing high-frequency components of the
first parameter as a function of time;
a breath delineation module configured to estimate
transitions between inspiratory phases and expiratory
phases of respiration by the subject based on the one or
more parameters determined by the parameter module;
a parameter extrema module configured to identify
a local extreme in a level of the first parameter during a
given expiratory phase of respiration by the subject; and
a mouth-breathing detection module configured to
determine whether the subject is breathing by mouth
during the given expiratory phase by analyzing the shape
of the level of the first parameter as a function of time
within a sampling window, the sampling window
beginning at or proximate to the identified local extreme
in the level of the first parameter.
Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App., emphasis added).
The Appealed Rejection
The sole rejection before us for review is: claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-
15 as anticipated by US 5,551,419, issued Sept. 3, 1996 to Froehlich et al.
("Froehlich").
4
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
DISCUSSION
Froehlich "relates to respiratory therapy for treatment of sleep apnea,
hypopnea, snoring and similar respiratory conditions and more particularly
to an improved control for continuous positive airway pressure (CP AP)
respiratory therapy apparatus." Froehlich 1: 5-9.
The Examiner found that Froehlich teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 4---6. Appellant only disputes that Froehlich teaches one
limitation of claim 1, namely "a filter module configured to provide a
filtered signal by suppressing high-frequency components of the first
parameter as a function of time." Appeal Br. 7-10.
The Examiner found this limitation taught in Figure 4 of Froehlich,
which is reproduced below.
TIME(s
FIG. 4
Figure 4, reproduced above, shows "an exemplary patient flow signal A
idealized as a simple sine wave whose frequency is 0.25 Hz or 15 breaths
per minute." Froehlich 9:28-30. The Examiner found the filter module
limitation taught by Froehlich's suppression (in Figure 4) of the amplitude of
5
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
line A to provide filtered signals, reference level F and threshold level G, as
a function of time. Final Act. 6 (citing Froehlich 9:39--48 and Figs. 3--4).
Appellant argues that the suppression identified by the Examiner
"affects an amplitude (not frequency)." Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner
concedes as much but finds suppression of amplitude to be within the scope
of the claim. See, e.g., Ans. 3 ("[T]he high frequency component is
interpreted to be a component having both frequency and amplitude wherein
amplitude is effectively a subcomponent or dimension of the high frequency
component which is suppressed thus resulting in suppression of the high
frequency component."), 4 ("[B]y suppressing the amplitude of the high
frequency components with respect to time, ... Froehlich generate[ s] an
output by suppressing high frequency components as a function of time as
claimed."). In other words, "a filter module configured to provide a filtered
signal by suppressing high-frequency components of the first parameter as a
function of time" encompasses a filter module configured to provide a
filtered signal by suppressing the amplitude ofhigh-frequency components
of the first parameter as a function of time. We find no error in the
Examiner's construction or the application of it to Froehlich.
Appellant argues that "[t]here are no bumps, deviations, or any other
anomalies (e.g., additional signals) in [Froehlich's] signal 'A' over time that
would even need to be filtered." Appeal Br. 8. Appellant's argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The
Specification does disclose embodiments in which a filter module filters a
flow signal to effectively smooth out bumps, deviations, or other anomalies.
See Spec. Fig. 2a (refs. 40 and 44). However, claim 1 is not limited to such
an embodiment, and we will not read such a limitation into the claim. See,
6
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
e.g., Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[T]he
claims define the invention. . . . [L ]imitations from the specification are not
to be read into the claims."). Doing so would be especially ill-advised here,
as the Specification states: "By way of non-limiting example, the filter
module 32 may process a flow signal ( or other output signal) by smoothing,
filtering (e.g., high-pass, low-pass, bandpass, etc.), and/or other processing
techniques." Spec. i-f36 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Froehlich "does not teach any patient flow
signal frequencies other than 0.25 Hz having their corresponding amplitudes
suppressed (e.g., reduced)." Appeal Br. 10. That is correct but not
persuasive of Examiner error. Froehlich's 0.25 Hz signal includes high
frequency components, pursuant to the Specification. Spec. i-f36 ("High-
frequency components may include components of a signal higher than
approximately 0.2 Hz.").
Finally, Appellant argues ( or at least implies) that the output signal,
which is filtered to provide the filtered signal, must include both high
frequency components and non-high frequency components. See Appeal Br.
10 ("There would be no need to suppress high frequency components of
[Froehlich's] sine wave, because the sine wave has a constant frequency
( e.g., the sine wave does not have any frequencies above or below 0.25 Hz
to be suppressed)."). The Specification does disclose embodiments in which
high frequency components are suppressed and low frequency components
are not. Spec. i-f36 ("According to some embodiments, a flow signal (e.g.,
flow signal 40 and/or flow signal 42) is filtered to suppress high-frequency
components and only pass low-frequency components."). However, claim 1
7
Appeal2018-008379
Application 14/3 51,203
is not limited to such an embodiment, and we will not read such a limitation
into the claim. See, e.g., Sjolund, 847 F.2d at 1582.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Froehlich, and thus also the rejection of claims 3-5, 11, and
13-15, which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 13-15 is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8