Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2013

12165025 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte HUI WANG and SCOTT AMUNDSON
__________

Appeal 2011-011249
Application 12/165,025
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an alarm
system. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 16-20 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 2).
Claims 1, 6, and 16 are illustrative and read as follows:
1. An alarm system comprising:
a physiological monitor capable of triggering an inaudible first alarm
in response to an alarm condition; and
Appeal 2011-011249
Application 12/165,025

2
a station located remotely from the physiological monitor, wherein the
station is capable of receiving an input from the physiological
monitor and triggering a second alarm in response to the alarm
condition, and wherein when the second alarm is not
acknowledged, the station sends an output to the physiological
monitor to initiate an escalated audible alarm at the
physiological monitor.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the first alarm and the second
alarm are triggered simultaneously.
16. A system comprising:
a processor programmed to
trigger an inaudible first alarm in response to an alarm
condition;
send an output to a remotely located station, wherein the output
triggers a second alarm in response to the alarm condition; and
receive an input from the remotely located station, wherein the
input causes the physiological monitor to initiate an audible
escalated alarm,
a memory capable of storing alarm data associated with the alarms,
wherein the alarm data comprises an alarm type and a time that
the alarm was triggered; and
a display capable of displaying the alarm data.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Mannheimer et al. (US 2007/0106126 A1, May 10, 2007)
(Ans. 4).
ANALYSIS
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
the alarm systems of claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over
Mannheimer (Ans. 4-10).
Appellants argue, however, that “Mannheimer does not disclose an
inaudible first alarm” (App. Br. 6). We are not persuaded. On the contrary,
Mannheimer discloses “that, in some embodiments, alarms are visually
Appeal 2011-011249
Application 12/165,025

3
and/or haptically indicated in addition to being audibly indicated”
(Mannheimer ¶ [0020]). We recognize that Mannheimer teaches these
inaudible alarms together with an audible alarm. However, we agree with
the Examiner that claims 1 and 16 do not exclude the presence of an audible
alarm together with the inaudible alarm (Ans. 8). In fact, claim 6, which
depends from claim 1, specifically indicates that the second alarm, which is
not required to be inaudible, is triggered simultaneously with the first
inaudible alarm.
Appellants also argue that “Mannheimer does not disclose remote
acknowledgment or sending an escalated signal to a bedside monitor” (App.
Br. 9). We are not persuaded. As noted by the Examiner, Mannheimer
discloses “a central management station 94” (Mannheimer ¶ [0027]).
Appellants have not adequately explained why this central management
station does not meet the requirements of the remotely located station of
claims 1 and 16. In this regard, we do not interpret claims 1 or 16 to require
that the alarm be acknowledged at a site that is remote from the patient. In
addition, we agree with the Examiner that Mannheimer discloses sending an
escalated signal to a bedside monitor (id. at ¶¶ [0027]-[0029] (“in some
embodiments, the audible alarm system 96 and the alarm paging system 98
are included in the monitors 92” and, “if the alarm is not acknowledged, the
monitoring system 90 increases the alarm annoyance level”)).
With regard to claim 16, Appellants additionally argue that
“Mannheimer does not appear to disclose or suggest storing historical alarm
data” (App. Br. 11). We are not persuaded. Mannheimer discloses a central
management station that is a personal computer (Mannheimer ¶ [0027]). In
Appeal 2011-011249
Application 12/165,025

4
addition, the block diagram of Mannheimer Figure 2 asks questions such as
“Alarm Acknowledge?”; “Alarm Condition Still Present?”; “Alarm Timer
Expired?”; and “Alarm Silence Timer Expired?.” We agree with the
Examiner that the presence of memory capable of storing alarm data is at
least suggested (Ans. 9-10).
CONCLUSION
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the systems of
claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious. We therefore affirm the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 16. Claim 2, 6, 7, and 17-20 are not
separately argued and therefore fall with claims 1 and 16. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc