Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201813804567 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/804,567 03/14/2013 54004 7590 05/23/2018 MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC 200 FRIBERG PARKWAY SUITE 1001 WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR FeiWANG 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. FMC-OOlUS 4964 EXAMINER HONG, RICHARD J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2626 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/23/2018 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 PEI WANG, MICHAELE. KOTSOS, MARTIN J CRNKOVICH, and AIYUAN WANG Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE 1 Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-21, 23, and 25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 3, 11, 22, 24, and 26 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 Invention The invention is a system that allows for non-contact communication between a controller and a medical device, i.e., a dialysis machine, so that a health care practitioner (HCP), in connection with navigating and activating screens of the dialysis machine during a dialysis treatment without requiring the HCP to physically contact the dialysis machine. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is exemplary, and reads as follows (with the disputed portion of the claim emphasized and bracket lettering added): 1. A method of non-contact interfacing with a medical device, comprising: providing a first device that enables non-contact interfacing with the medical device by a user, wherein the first device is remote from the medical device, wherein the first device includes a treatment screen showing a first set of treatment information, at least one interface component and at least one processor, wherein the at least one interface component is actuated by non-contact action of the user that enables hands- free, non-contact operation of the at least one interface component by the user, and wherein the at least one processor interprets the non-contact action by the user at the first device to recognize a command indicated by the non-contact action of the user that controls treatment functionality being displayed on the treatment screen of the first device and generates a command signal at the first device based on the command, the command being a non-contact command for the medical device initiated via the non-contact operation of the at least one interface component by the user; wirelessly transmitting the command signal from the first device; receiving the command signal at the medical device, wherein the command signal corresponds to a treatment performed using the medical device, wherein the command signal inputs the non-contact command to the medical 2 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 device without physical contact of the user with the medical device; and processing the command signal using at least one processing device at the medical device to generate information displayed on a treatment screen of the medical device that shows a second set of treatment information and corresponding to the treatment performed using the medical device, [A] wherein the first set of treatment information displayed on the treatment screen of the first device is a summarized version of and different from the second set of treatment information displayed on the treatment screen of the medical device and wherein the at least one processing device of the medical device that is processing the command signal received from the first device is given focus to enable the first device to control the medical device via the at least one processing device in a mode that excludes control of the medical device by other interface devices different from the first device while the command signal is being processed. Examiner's Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ganger et al. (US 2009/0306573 Al; December 10, 2009) ("Ganger"), Music et al. (US 2008/0114226 Al; May 15, 2008) ("Music"), Federico et al. (US 2012/0293404 Al; November 22, 2012) ("Federico") and Uchikubo (US 2003/0046109 Al; March 6, 2003). 2 Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 3-13. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-20, and Appellants rely upon the arguments presented as to independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 13-16). As to the patentability of (i) claims 2, 4--10, and 12-20 rejected as being obvious over Granger, Music, Federico, and Uchikubo (see App. Br. 13-16); and (ii) claims 21, 23, and 25 as being obvious over Granger, Music, Federico, Uchikubo, and Selim (see App. Br. 16). Independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7 each recite "a first device ... is [a] remote 3 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 (2) The Examiner rejected claims 21, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Granger, Music, Federico, Uchikubo, and Selim (US 2011/0225000 Al; September 15, 2011). Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 14--15. Appellants ' Contentions Appellants primarily contend (App. Br. 14--16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the base combination of Granger, Music, Federico, and Uchikubo, and specifically Uchikubo's Figure 3 and/or paragraphs 24 and 34, "does not show, teach, or suggest the recited feature of a first set of treatment information displayed on the treatment screen of the first device (remote device) being is a summarized version of and different from the second set of treatment information displayed on the treatment screen of the medical device." App. Br. 14--15 (emphasis added). from the medical device, ... includes a treatment screen showing a first set of treatment information, ... transmitting the command signal from the first device; receiving the command signal at the medical device, ... processing the command signal ... at the medical device to generate information displayed on a treatment screen of the medical device that shows a second set of treatment information ... the first set of treatment information displayed on the treatment screen of the first device is a summarized version of and different from the second set of treatment information displayed on the treatment screen of the medical device (claims 1, 9, 1 7 (emphasis added)). We select claim I as representative of claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12- 20. Because Appellants rely on the same arguments and same art as presented for independent claim 1 for the patentability of dependent claims 21, 23, and 25, we decide the appeal of claims 21, 23, and 25 on the same basis as we decide the appeal of claim 1. 4 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants' arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 3-7), the following principal issue is presented on appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 12-20 as being obvious because the combination of Granger, Music, Federico, and U chikubo, specifically U chikubo, fails to teach or suggest limitation [A] recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 3-13) in light of Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 3-7) that the Examiner has erred. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer. Ans. 3-9, 15-20. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. Appellants rely on the phrase "summarized version of and different from" in determining that the U chikubo reference does not meet the limitations as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants point (Reply Br. 4) to the Specification at page 20, line 21 through page 21, line 12, 3 paragraph 4 7 which recites "in other embodiments, different and/or 3 Although Appellants (Reply Br. 4) and the Examiner (Ans. 17) refer to paragraph 4 7 of the Specification discussing the information of the screen of the first device being a "summarized version of and different from" the treatment information displayed on the screen of the medical device, the parties are referring to the Pre-Grant Publication of the present application 5 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 summarized versions of the information displayed on the display 112 of the dialysis machine 102 may be displayed on the interface device 401" (emphasis added) and Figure 6 of the Specification for support as to why the Uchikubo reference does not meet the claimed limitation. Figure 6 is described in the Specification at page 20, lines 8-20, as a schematic of treatment information displayed on the screen 501 of the medical device along with a "monitoring and/or controlling functions" as is known in the art. 4 Specifically, Appellants recite that the thumbnails shown in Figure 3 ofUchikubo do not represent a summarized version of another screen. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5. Appellants' Specification does not provide a specific definition as to the term "summarized" (see Spec. 21: 5-7), therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is used to assess the Uchikubo reference. Appellants' Specification at page 21, lines 2-5, recites "a main treatment access screen 501 that may be displayed on the interference device 401 .... " The interference device 401 is shown in Appellant's Figure 5 comprised of a control portion 410 having one or more buttons or keys that may be pressed by a user to wirelessly select and/or otherwise cause activation of elements on a display screen of the medical device, and an indicator portion 415 having one or more indicator lights. Spec. 18:4--19:9. Therefore, in Figure 5 it is unclear as to what is being on appeal, and not the Specification actually of record in the appeal before us. We understand the parties to refer to the paragraph found at page 20, line 21 through page 21, line 12 of the Specification. 4 Appellants' incorporate by reference (see Spec. 20: 17-20) U.S, Patent No. 6,775,577 B2, to Crnokvkb et al., which describes (i) systems and inter:faces for contrornng a dialysis machine, and (ii) in Figure 2 demonstrates a treatrnent screen like the one shown in Appellants' Figure 6, 6 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 shown for the "treatment information" between the control portion 410 and indicator portion 415. A person of skill in the art would understand that a summary is: "[ c ]omprehensive; esp: covering the main points succinctly. " 5 Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8-9, 16-20) that Uchikubo's disclosure of a summarized information screen shown as 61 in Figure 3, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Appellants' claim 1 in light of the Specification, meets the "summarized limitation" (limitation [A] in claim 1, supra) recited in claim 1 on appeal. Specifically, Figure 3 of Uchikubo demonstrates a summarized information screen 61 . . . [with] an endoscope image area 62 for displaying endoscope images, a thumbnail image area 63 for displaying a plurality of thumbnail images reduced by thinning out the pixels of the endoscope image or the like, a patient information area 64 for displaying patient information, a surgery device information area 65 for displaying surgery device information .... Uchikubo, i-f 34. We understand that the Examiner, when pointing to Figure 3 of Uchikubo, is referencing the thumbnail image area 63 as referring to the first set of treatment information and the picture signals acquired by the endoscope device 11 as the second set of treatment information recited in claim 1. See id. Figs. 1 and 3; i-fi-124 and 34; see also Final Act. 9; Ans. 9 and 16-19. The thumbnails shown and described in U chikubo meet the limitation of "summarized version of and different from" since they are a compilation of the images produced by the endoscope that have been 5 "summary, adj.~' lvferricun-TYebster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., p. 11 79 ( 1996). 7 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 reduced by thinning out the pixels of the images from display 12. See Uchikubo i-f 34. The compilation of images can be said to comprise the sum or chief images of those produced by the endoscopic device. In addition, the process of thinning out the pixels of the images and displaying all the thumbnails would render the images shown on display 18 as different from the images on display 12, which are said to only be the picture signals acquired from the endoscope device without referencing any alteration or editing performed thereon. See id. at i-f 24. In view of all of the foregoing, Appellants have not sufficiently shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness, and Appellants' contentions that U chikubo fails to disclose, teach, or suggest limitation [A] of claim 1 are not persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2, 4--10, and 12- 20 grouped therewith. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 21, 23, and 25 which is based on the same base combination of Granger, Music, Federico, and Uchikubo as representative claim 1. CONCLUSION Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Granger, Music, Federico, and Uchikubo. 8 Appeal2018-000905 Application 13/804,567 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--10, 12-21, 23, and 25 are affirmed. 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation