KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

15039975 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
15/039,975 05/27/2016 RICHARD E GREGG 2013P02202WOUS 6087
24737 7590 10/01/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
PORTER, JR, GARY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD E. GREGG
Appeal 2020-000619
Application 15/039,975
Technology Center 3700
Before DANIEL S. SONG, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, 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 1–20, 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Koninklijke Philips
N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000619
Application 15/039,975

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to electrocardiograph (‘ECG’) equipment
and display/interpretation of ECG signals”. Spec. 1, ll. 5–6. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An automated age detection system, comprising:
a patient monitoring lead assembly and a patient
monitoring device;
wherein the patient monitoring lead assembly is operable
in communication with the patient monitoring device to conduct
electrical activity of a heart of a patient to the patient monitoring
device;
wherein, responsive to the electrical activity of the heart
of the patient, the patient monitoring device is configured to
calculate at least one electrocardiogram feature from at least one
electrocardiogram measurement of the electrical activity of the
heart of the patient; and
wherein the patient monitoring device is further
configured to classify the patient as an adult patient or a pediatric
patient exclusively from the electrical activity of the heart of the
patient as represented by the calculated at least one
electrocardiogram feature.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Forbes US 6,132,381 Oct. 17, 2000
Jayne US 2003/0195567 A1 Oct. 16, 2003
Freeman US 2005/0267536 A1 Dec. 1, 2005
Nishimoto JP 2010162069 A July 29, 2010

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nishimoto. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-000619
Application 15/039,975

3
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto. Ans. 5.
Claims 1–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Jayne and Nishimoto. Ans. 6.
Claims 12, 14, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nishimoto and Forbes. Ans. 8.
OPINION
Nishimoto
Although Appellant provides several groupings of claims with
separate arguments, the arguments for all groups center on Nishimoto and its
teachings. As such, all claims are argued together and we select claim 1 as
representative. Accordingly, all claims stand or fall with our disposition of
claim 1.
There does not appear to be any disagreement over what constitutes
Appellant’s invention or the content of the prior art. The disagreement here
lies in whether the claims encompass the teachings of Nishimoto. Put
another way, the disagreement lies over whether Appellant has properly
claimed what appears to be an invention not taught in the prior art of record.
Appellant’s invention is directed toward analyzing ECG features
related specifically to activity of the heart, as opposed to other ECG
artifacts, such as respiratory artifacts, often found in an ECG, in order to
determine a patient’s age. Nishimoto likewise analyzes an ECG in order to
determine a patient’s age, but does so by extracting the respiratory artifact
from the ECG, thereby not utilizing the electrical activity actually related to
the heart.
Appeal 2020-000619
Application 15/039,975

4
Appellant asserts that the Specification “defines the term ‘ECG
features’ to broadly encompass calculated ECG parameters quantitatively
decipherable for distinguishing a pediatric patient from an adult patient.”
Reply Br. 9 (citing Spec. p. 3, l. 31–p. 4, l. 3). According to Appellant, ECG
features “include[] both ECG features representative of electrical activity of
the heart and ECG features representative of other physiological activities,
such as, for example, respiratory activity of lung.” Reply Br. 9. Appellant
argues, however, that the claimed “electrical activity of the heart of the
patient” and similar terms limit the claims only to ECG features related to
heart activity and exclude features such as respiratory artifacts, i.e., what is
taught in Nishimoto.
Appellant’s argument appears on its face to properly differentiate
heart-made activity from other artifacts, such as the respiratory artifact
taught in Nishimoto. The problem, as the Examiner points out, however, is
that the Specification describes the specific claim terms in a way so as to
allow the Examiner’s interpretation to include the teachings of Nishimoto.
As the Examiner explains, the “[S]pecification states on page 4 that ‘the
term “ECG features” as used in the present application broadly encompasses
calculated ECG parameters quantitatively decipherable for distinguishing a
pediatric patient from an adult patient.’” Ans. 10. The Examiner also
explains that “Nishimoto discloses the variation in RR intervals2 is
indicative of age (par. [0052]) and the actual age of a patient can be
exclusively quantified via the extracted respiration variations (par. [0055]),
i.e. exclusively determined from electrical activity of the heart.” Ans. 11.

2 The RR interval is the time between QRS complexes.
Appeal 2020-000619
Application 15/039,975

5
The Examiner concludes that “[r]egardless of whether the RR interval
variation is caused by respiration or quantifies respiration in some way, the
RR interval meets the claim limitation of ‘at least one electrocardiogram
feature’ obtained ‘from the electrical activity of the heart.’” Ans. 12.
Lastly, the Examiner explains that in Nishimoto “[n]o signal other than an
ECG signal is used to obtain the respiration variation of the RR interval as
found within the ECG.” Id.
Although the RR interval is affected by respiration, it still is indicative
of a patient’s heart rate. See Ans. 11 (citing Nishimoto ¶¶ 42–44). As such,
this is electrical activity of the heart, it is merely affected by respiration.
Nishimoto does teach filtering out the signals indicative of respiratory
variations in the ECG signal, but the activity being measured is heart rate,
which is electrical activity of the heart.
The Examiner’s finding and reasoning is further bolstered by the
amendments made during prosecution. Although Appellant added specific
language regarding ECG features and then added that the data used is
“exclusively from the electrical activity of the heart” in an attempt to
differentiate from Nishimoto, given the disclosure in the Specification and
the Examiner’s explanation thereof, these changes are insufficient to exclude
what is taught in Nishimoto. The language used in the claims simply does
not adequately differentiate from Nishimoto’s teachings.
As to the nominal arguments made regarding Jayne, Freeman, and
Forbes, we find that the Examiner adequately addressed each of those in the
Answer. See Ans. 13–17. Because we find the Examiner’s argument more
persuasive than Appellant’s, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
Appeal 2020-000619
Application 15/039,975

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 10, 11,
13, 15, 16,
18
102 Nishimoto 1, 6, 10, 11,
13, 15, 16,
18

1–3, 6, 7,
10, 11, 13,
15, 16, 18,
20
103 Nishimoto 1–3, 6, 7,
10, 11, 13,
15, 16, 18,
20

1–11, 13,
15, 16, 18,
20
103 Jayne, Nishimoto 1–11, 13,
15, 16, 18,
20

12, 14, 17,
19
103 Nishimoto, Forbes 12, 14, 17,
19

Overall
Outcome
1–20

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