Juha Suorajaervi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 26, 2019

13651117 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2019)

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.
13/651,117 10/12/2012 Juha SUORAJAERVI 2624.26US01 2616
136012 7590 12/26/2019
Berggren LLP
One Gateway Center
Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2119
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2019 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):
email@berggren-usa.com
kendall.hughes@berggren-usa.com
susanne.somersalo@berggren-usa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JUHA SUORAJAERVI, ARTO KOSKI-LAULAJA, and
JYRKI NIEMINEN
____________________

Appeal 2018-0003131
Application 13/651,117
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7, and 20–22, which are all of the pending
claims. Claims 6 and 8–19 were previously canceled. 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. Appellant identifies Merivaara Oy as the exemplary real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “a method for
controlling an operating table with a portable device.” Spec. 1:9–10.

B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for controlling an operating table with a
portable device having a touch screen, a physical action button,
and a data transfer unit, the method comprising:

presenting on the touch screen graphically the effect of
an adjustment command on an operating table;

receiving an operating table activation command from
the touch screen at the portable data transfer unit;

receiving an adjustment command, which is consistent
with the activation command, from the physical action button,
at the data transfer unit; and

transmitting, by the data transfer unit, wirelessly to the
operating table the received adjustment command to control the
operating table in accordance with the adjustment command,
thereby moving at least a segment of the operating table in a
direction based on the adjustment command.

Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).

C. REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 7, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Borders et al. (US 2003/0195644 A1; published Oct. 16, 2003)
(“Borders”), Fruh et al. (US 2007/0101500 A1; published May 10, 2007)
(“Fruh”), and Rawls-Meehan (US 2010/0231421 A1; published Sept. 16,
2010) (“Rawls”).
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
3

II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Borders, Fruh, and Rawls teaches or suggests
“receiving an operating table activation command from the touch screen at
the portable data transfer unit” and “receiving an adjustment command,
which is consistent with the activation command, from the physical action
button, at the data transfer unit.” Claim 1.

III. ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made, but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016). On the record before us, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred.
Appellant contends that, in claim 1, “an adjustment command is
received at a physical action button, and activation command is received
from a touchscreen, and only if the two signals are consistent with one
another does an operating table move.” Appeal Br. 15. In particular, “the
claimed invention is not just any combination of touch-screens and buttons,”
but rather, “as explicitly recited in the claims, the physical action button
produce and adjustment command, which is consistent with the activation
command.” Id. at 18. According to Appellant, “[n]one of Borders, Fruh, or
Rawls, alone or in combination, describe two such consistent commands,” as
claimed. Id. at 16.
Appellant contends that “Borders does not teach any adjustment
command whatsoever (as there is no physical action button in Borders from
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
4
which the adjustment command could be received).” Id. at 20. Appellant
then contends that “Fruh does not disclose a touchscreen whatsoever.” Id.
Further, Appellant contends that “Borders teaches use of a single
medical device controller (40).” Id. at 16. According to Appellant, Borders
“teaches the benefits of a single, integrated interface,” wherein “to modify
Borders such that it would have two interfaces, the fundamental principle of
operation of Borders would therefore have to be modified.” Id.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no
error with the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious
over the combination of the teachings and suggestions of Borders, Fruh and
Rawls.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, although Appellant
contends that, in claim 1, “only if the two signals are consistent with one
another does an operating table move” (Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added)),
such contention is not commensurate with the recited language of claim 1.
In particular, the recited language of claim 1 does not require moving an
operating table “only if” the signals are consistent. See claim 1. As the
Examiner points out, such argument “is not a claim language of claim 1.”
Ans. 22 (emphasis omitted).
Further, although Appellant contends that “there is no physical action
button in Borders from which the adjustment command could be received”
(Appeal Br 20) and that “Fruh does not disclose a touchscreen whatsoever”
(id.), the Examiner rejects the claim as obvious over the combination of
Borders, Fruh and Rawls. The test for obviousness is what the combination
of Borders, Fruh and Rawls teaches or would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
5
Cir. 1986). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see also Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
Here, the Examiner relies on Borders for teaching and suggesting the
claimed limitation “receiving an operating table activation command from
the touch screen at the portable data transfer unit.” Final Act. 4–5. In
particular, the Examiner finds that Borders discloses “a touch-screen display
presenting an introductory menu with selection indicators for accessing
controller functions to adjust a surgical table,” wherein “touch-screen
buttons are provides in a portable, hand-held unit.” Id. (citing Borders
¶¶ 17, 21, 37, 58, 59, 64, 66, 68, 89, Figs. 1, 3–8, 13–15, 24).
Borders’ Figure 9 is reproduced below:

Figure 9 shows a medical device controller comprising a touch-screen
display presenting an introductory menu with selection indicators for
accessing controller functions to adjust a surgical table. Borders ¶ 21. As
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
6
shown in Figure 9 of Borders, controller 40 is a hand-held unit that includes
touch-screen selection indicators 118, 120, 122, 124 for an operator to
designate access to further display interfaces for surgical table adjustments.
Borders ¶ 69. That is, Borders discloses a user activating the selection
indicators in the handheld unit to access further display interfaces for
surgical (operating) table adjustments. See id. Thus, we find no error with
the Examiner’s reliance on Borders to teach and suggest “receiving an
operating table activation command from the touch screen [via selection
indicators 118, 120, 122, 124] at the portable data transfer unit,” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner then relies on Borders to teach and suggest “[receiving]
adjustment command . . . to control the operating table in accordance with
the adjustment command.” Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). In particular, the
Examiner finds that Borders discloses “controller 40 provides for
automatically placing table 42 in a desired, predefined configuration for
incrementally adjusting table frame 58.” Id. (citing Borders ¶¶ 17, 37, 59,
64, Figs. 3–6, 13–15, 24).
In Borders, selection of a selection indicator results in an adjust table
position screen with up and down adjustment input indicators for adjusting
the position of the surgical table. Borders ¶ 76. Borders’ Figure 13A is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
7

Figure 13A shows an adjust table position screen for adjusting a
surgical table, with input indicators for adjusting articulated table frame
sections. Borders ¶ 25. In Borders, selection of selection indicator 118 as
shown in Figure 9 results in the display in Figure 13A. Id. ¶ 76. As shown
in Figure 13A, up and down adjustment input indicators 162–176 provide
for “press and hold” adjustment of designated section of articulated frame
158 as indicated by the graphical display. Id. That is, in Borders, upon
receipt of a selection of “adjust table” selection indicator 118 (Fig. 9), a
screen 116 (Fig. 13A) showing up and down adjust input indicators
(consistent with the selection indicator) is produced for adjusting the
position of the surgical table. Id. In other words, Borders discloses adjust
input indicators for providing up and down adjustment commands that are
produced in response to (and are consistent with) the activated selection
indicator (“adjust table”).
Thus, although Appellant contends that “as explicitly recited in the
claims, the physical action button produce and adjustment command, which
is consistent with the activation command” (Appeal Br. 18), we agree with
the Examiner that Borders teaches and suggests receiving an “adjustment
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
8
command” which is produced by and is “consistent with the activation
command,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (emphasis added).
The Examiner then relies on Fruh for teaching an adjustment
command, which is consistent with the activation command, received from a
“physical action button.” Final Act. 6. In particular, according to the
Examiner, Fruh discloses “buttons or keys for the input of body-part-related
adjustment commands [that] are arranged in the vicinity of the
corresponding body part.” Id. (citing Fruh ¶¶ 14, 21, Figs. 1–2).
Fruh relates to an apparatus for adjusting the bed of an operating table
(Fruh ¶ 2), wherein Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 shows an operating instrument 18 comprising operating face
20. Fruh ¶ 22. As shown in Figure 2 of Fruh, buttons 42–56 are provided
for raising and lowering individual body parts of an operating table. Fruh
¶ 26.
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
9
We find no error with the Examiner’s reliance on Fruh to teach and
suggest receiving an adjustment command from a “physical action button” at
a “data transfer unit,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Borders and Fruh
teaches or suggests and “receiving an adjustment command, which is
consistent with the activation command, from the physical action button, at
the data transfer unit” as recited in claim 1. In particular, we agree with the
Examiner’s reliance on Borders to teach and suggest “activation command,”
the Examiner’s reliance on Borders and Fruh to teach and suggest
“adjustment command,” and thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s
finding that Borders, Fruh, and Rawls, in combination, describe “two such
consistent commands,” as claimed. Id. at 4–6.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention that Borders
“teaches the benefits of a single, integrated interface,” wherein “to modify
Borders such that it would have two interfaces, the fundamental principle of
operation of Borders would therefore have to be modified.” Appeal Br. 16.
Here, Appellant mischaracterizes Borders’ intended purpose and principle of
operation. Specifically, Borders’ intended purpose is not to provide a
“single” integrated surface. Id. Instead, as the Examiner points out, in
Borders, “controller 40 is a hand-held device and can be configured to
control medical devices through a variety of communication interfaces.”
Final Act. 5 (citing Borders ¶ 58) (emphasis added). For example, Borders
discloses that hand-held controller 40 “is either wired directly to the
controllable devices or, preferably, is configured to send signals to the
controllable devices using a wireless link.” Borders ¶ 59.
As shown in Figures 9 and 13A reproduced above, Borders discloses
that controller 40 could comprise a touch-screen interface. See id. at Figs. 9,
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
10
13A. Further, as the Examiner points out, although the controller could
comprise a touch-screen interface (Fig. 13B), the controller could also
comprise a physical button interface (Figs. 39–40). See Ans. 26 (comparing
Spec., Figs. 3a, 3b, 4, with Borders, Figs. 1, 2, 13B, 39, 40). Figures 39–40
of Borders are reproduced below:

Figures 39–40 show controller 640 comprising handheld housing 614,
display 616, buttons 650–680, and power button 682. Borders ¶ 96; see also
Ans. 26. Contrary to Appellant’s contention that “there is no physical action
button in Borders from which the adjustment command could be received”
(Appeal Br. 20), like Fruh, Borders clearly discloses that physical action
buttons 650–680 may be used to provide adjustment commands. Borders
¶ 96, Figs. 39–40.2
We are unpersuaded with Appellant’s contention that by providing
both a touch-screen interface and an interface comprising physical action

2 Appellant’s attention is also directed to Figures 28–29 of Borders, which
disclose controller 440 comprising up and down physical action buttons 402,
404, and image screen 416 comprising selection buttons 406, 408 thereon.
See Borders ¶ 92, Figs. 28–29.
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
11
buttons in Borders, “the fundamental principle of operation of Borders
would therefore have to be modified.” Appeal Br. 16. In particular, as the
Examiner finds, Borders teaches and suggests providing a touch-screen
interface (Borders, Figs. 9, 13A) as well as an interface comprising physical
buttons (Figs. 39, 40). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s
combination of 1) Border’s receipt of activation of a selection indicator
(“activation command”) from a touch screen (Borders, Fig. 9), 2) Border’s
receipt of input indicator to adjust the operating table (“adjustment
command”) resulting from (and consistent with) the activation of the
selection indicator (Borders, Fig. 13A), and 3) Fruh’s receipt of operating
table adjustment control from physical action buttons (Fruh, Fig. 2).
Based on the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that the combination of Borders, Fruh and Rawls teaches or at least suggests
“receiving an operating table activation command from the touch screen at
the portable data transfer unit” and “receiving an adjustment command,
which is consistent with the activation command, from the physical action
button, at the data transfer unit,” as claimed. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2–5,
and 7 depending therefrom, which are not separately argued (see Appeal Br.
22) and thus falling therewith, over Borders, Fruh, and Rawls.
As for independent claims 20 and 21, Appellant does not provide
arguments separate from those of claim 1, but merely contends that
“[i]ndependent claims 20 and 21 similarly recite a device and system for
receiving two separate signals that are consistent with another” (Appeal Br.
18), and that claim 1 recite “the similar elements of independent claims 20
and 21” (id. at 20). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no
error with the Examiner’s finding that Borders in view of Fruh and Rawls
Appeal 2018-000313
Application 13/651,117
12
teaches and suggests “receiving two signals that are consistent with one
another.” See Borders Figs. 9, 13A. Accordingly, in view of the above, we
are also unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21,
and claim 22 which is not separately argued, over Borders, Fruh, and Rawls.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 20–
22
103 Borders, Fruh,
Rawls
1–5, 7, 20–
22

V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7, and 20–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED