Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

2019004062 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020)

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.
14/600,107 01/20/2015 Lee Tanenbaum FMC-004US 4584
54004 7590 05/29/2020
MUIRHEAD AND SATURNELLI, LLC
200 FRIBERG PARKWAY
SUITE 1001
WESTBOROUGH, MA 01581
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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 LEE TANENBAUM, FEI WANG, ALEO MOK, and
MATTHEW JOHN DOYLE
Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKIN, N. WHITNEY N. WILSON, and
MONTÉ T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below:
1. A method for remotely monitoring a medical treatment,
comprising:
executing a remote monitoring application on a remote
interface device;
receiving data, using the remote monitoring application,
concerning the medicaltreatment being performed with a medical
device;
setting a first limit using the remote monitoring
application, wherein the first limit is a limit for a treatment
parameter measuring during the medical treatment that is reached
before a second limit set at the medical device for the treatment
parameter is reached;
indicating with an indicator on the remote interface device
when the first limit is reached;
and
in response to the indicator on the remote interface device,
initiating a remedial action in connection with the treatment
parameter before the second limit is reached at the medical
device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Thompson US 2001/0027331 Al Oct. 4, 2001
Defaix et al. (“Defaix”) US 2004/0133444 A1 July 8, 2004
Doyle US 2009/0030729 Al Jan. 29, 2009
Kamen et al. (“Kamen”) US 2014/0180711 A1 June 26, 2014

Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–16, 18–20, and 22–25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Kamen, in further view of
Defaix.
2. Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Kamen and Defaix, in further view of Doyle.
3. Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being
unpatentable over Kamen and Defaix, in further view of Thompson.
OPINION
Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of
patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Accordingly, the
claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Thus, our determination made with regard to
Rejection 1 is dispositive for Rejections 2 and 3.
Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective
positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence
supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied art. Accordingly, we
sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and in the Answer. We add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant respectfully submits that the combination of Kamen and
Defaix does not show, teach, or suggest a feature of claim 1 of a first limit
that is only settable on a remote interface device. Appeal Br. 19. The
Examiner proposes to modify the teachings of Kamen (that drug limits may
be defined using a carefully controlled process) with the description in
Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107

4
Defaix (that modifications to versioned files may only be made by a central
server), to arrive at this claimed feature. Final Act. 4–8.
Appellant argue that modifying Kamen according to Defaix as
proposed by the Examiner renders Kamen unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose of providing patient medical care for the reasons set forth therein.
Appeal Br. 19. We are unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reasons
provided by the Examiner on pages 4–5 of the Answer. Therein, the
Examiner correctly states that modifying the system of Kamen to only allow
for DAL file changes to be made at the server would allow for both the
mitigation of problems caused by concurrent modifications at the client side
and have the additional advantage of preventing unqualified personnel and
unqualified patients from making harmful changes at the client side. This
would benefit how patient medical care is provided.
Beginning on page 20 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the
Kamen discloses that medical devices may be programmed remotely or
locally, including being overridden, by clinicians and other users of the
medical device. Appellant submits that even if it were proper to combine
Kamen and Defaix to produce a system in which one component serves as a
centralized server that makes all of the changes to DAI files for a medical
device, this would not result in the feature of claim 1 of a first setting for a
treatment parameter that is only settable on a remote interface device.
Appeal Br. 20. Appellant argues that, rather, it would only mean that one
centralized device would be making all of the changes to DAL flies or other
settings; but that the changes could still be set on the medical device 26 of
Kamen itself, as well as at another location in the same facility 82 of the
medical device of Kamen, or remotely via cloud services 83 of the system
Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107

5
81. Id. We are unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reasons
provided by the Examiner on pages 7–8 of the Answer. Therein, the
Examiner correctly finds that Kamen’s disclosure related to overrides and
teaches that its system will not allow overrides to be performed in certain
situations. Kamen, ¶¶ [0461–0466, 0789, 1254–1260] (related to “hard
limits”). The Examiner states that Kamen discloses that in some situations a
second user must approve an override request. Kamen, ¶¶ [1254–1260]. The
Examiner states that moreover, Kamen contemplates that a select group of
people (¶ [0441]) would be the ones defining the drug limits and that doing
so should be “carefully controlled” (¶ [0441]). The Examiner further finds,
therefore, that Kamen recognizes the need to restrict how changes and
overrides can be entered, although it does not explicitly disclose having a
first limit which is only settable on a remote interface device. Ans. 7.
The Examiner states that the secondary reference of Defaix addresses
the analogous problem of restricting appropriate changes in a similarly
networked computer system. Ans. 7. The Examiner states that Defaix
explicitly teaches that inappropriate client side updates are blocked by the
server (¶ [0035]: “If the client 300 is not allowed to check in the new
version, then the central server 100 informs the client 300 through the proxy
200 that its update is not allowed.’). Ans. 7–8.
As such, the Examiner states that the modifications are “only settable
on the remote interface device” (i.e., the server computer) as the client side
devices are prevented from having such functionality in order to avoid
conflicts. Ans. 8. The Examiner explains that the medical devices 101 of
Kamen are shown to reside at hospital network 82, and not at data center 83
in Figure 4. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107

6
The Examiner thus reiterates that as presented in the statement of the
rejection, it would have been obvious in view of the teachings of these
references to manage the DAL file in Kamen such that it can only be edited
at the cloud services databases 83, in order to prevent tampering with the
drug limits by people who are not authorized to do so (i.e. nurses or patients
at the medical device itself). Ans. 8. We agree.
Lastly, Appellant argues that one would not have been motivated to
make the central servers remote interface to a medical device. Appeal Br. 21.
Appellant argues that one would not have been motivated to make the
central server of Defaix a remote user interface of the medical device 26 of
Kamen. Appellant submits that in Defaix, the central server is not being
used as an interface to something else, let alone a medical device. Rather,
the central server arbitrates requests for file revisions from remote clients
300, using conventional access control for collaborative software
development. Defaix, ¶ [0035]. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant submits that thus,
one would not have been motivated to make the central server of Defaix a
remote interface to the medical device 26 of Kamen. Id.
We are unpersuaded by this line of argument for the reason stated by
the Examiner on page 9 of the Answer. Therein, the Examiner states that
Figure 4 of Kamen depicts communications between hospital network 82
and data center 83 by way of firewalls 100/103. The Examiner states that
data center 83 thus constitutes a “remote interface device” under
a reasonably-broad interpretation of that term (the Examiner notes that
Appellant’s Specification teaches a “remote interface device” in “network
120” that “may include one or more databases or other stores of information
Appeal 2019-004062
Application 14/600,107

7
that securely contain medical information” in Appellant’s Figure 2 and on
page 10 at lines 15–18 of the Specification. Ans. 9. We agree.
Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief are unpersuasive for the
same reasons that Appellant arguments are unpersuasive in the principal
brief.
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1–3.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–9,
11–16,
18–20,
22–25
103 Kamen, Defaix 1–5, 7–9,
11–16,
18–20,
22–25

6, 17 Kamen, Defaix,
Thompson,
Doyle
6, 17
10, 21 Kamen, Defaix,
Thompson
10, 21

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED