Ex Parte WANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

13804567 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

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