KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2021

2020001800 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2021)

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.
15/518,512 04/12/2017 Adrienne HEINRICH 2014P00927WOUS 6175
24737 7590 04/27/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
MAYNARD, JOHNATHAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2021 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 ADRIENNE HEINRICH, THOMAS FALCK,
ESTHER MARJAN VAN DER HEIDE,
YINGRONG XIE, and FRANK MUELLER
____________________

Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
CARL M. DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–11 and 14.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Koninklijke Philips N.V. is the real party in interest.
Statement Under 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(c) (June 8, 2017).
2 Claims 12 and 13 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A video analysis subsystem for use in a patient monitoring
system for monitoring a patient in a bed, the video analysis
subsystem comprising:
means for receiving video images of the patient captured
by a video camera;
means for receiving sensor signals obtained from a set of
sensors associated with pieces of equipment located in the
vicinity of the bed for detecting interaction by the patient;
means for determining and tracking the position of body
parts of the patient from the video images and the sensor signals;
and
means for classifying movement of the body parts of the
patient as abnormal based upon an automatic classification
algorithm that uses the video images and the sensor signals to
distinguish unusual movements from natural movements based
upon prior tracking of the position of the body parts of the
patient.

EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Gusakov US 5,140,309 Aug. 18, 1992
Rodgers US 2009/0119843 A1 May 14, 2009
Derenne US 2012/0075464 A1 Mar. 29, 2012

THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11,3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Derenne. Final Act. 4–9.

3 Even though the Examiner failed to include reference to claim 11 in the
heading for this rejection (see Final Act. 4), the Examiner makes reference
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

3
II. Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Derenne and Rodgers. Id. at 10–12.
III. Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Derenne and Gusakov. Id. at 12–14.
OPINION
Claim Construction
Independent claims 1, 7, and 14 recite means for, or a step of,
“classifying movement of the body parts of [a] patient as abnormal based
upon an automatic classification algorithm that uses . . . video images and
. . . sensor signals to distinguish unusual movements from natural
movements based upon prior tracking of the position of the body parts of the
patient.” Appeal Br. 12–15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner
takes the position that “the claims do not positively recite or require that
historical body-part position tracking data of an individual pat[i]ent
establishes ‘prior tracking’ that is subsequently used in concert with recently
or currently obtained body-part position tracking data of the individual
pat[i]ent for classification comparisons.” Ans. 4–5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner “unreasonably broadened the
scope of the claim language.” Appeal Br. 5. More specifically, Appellant
argues that “the Examiner unreasonably broadened ‘prior tracking’ to
‘(recorded) data.’” Reply Br. 3 (boldface omitted).
We give claim terms “their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” and “in light of the specification as it

to this claim within the body of the rejection (see id. at 8). We consider the
Examiner’s oversight in the heading to be a typographical error, and
therefore, we list claim 11 as being subject to this ground of rejection.
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

4
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
According to the Federal Circuit:
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification is not whether the
specification proscribes or precludes some broad reading of the
claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not simply an
interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is
an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the
inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an
interpretation that is “consistent with the specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re Suitco Surface,
603 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The claims recite that the video images and sensor signals are used in
an algorithm to distinguish unusual movements from natural movements
based upon prior tracking of body part positions of the patient. The claims,
thus, suggest that prior tracking is an additional input besides the video
images and sensor signals currently being input to the algorithm to
determine current tracking. The Specification describes that patient
interactions with objects having known locations can be used to aid in
tracking and analyzing body part movements “in real time or subsequently.”
Spec. 3:28 (emphasis added). The Specification further describes the video
analysis subsystem as having “[a] movement history unit 54 [that] stores the
localization information 53, the motion detection information 51 as well as
the sensor signals over time.” Id. at 9:27–28 (emphasis added). The
Specification additionally describes that:
[m]oving areas in the video image can be identified and
based on past movements, the area of the hand and the area of the
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

5
screen (if the screen is moved) can be identified with greater
accuracy and/or confidence as shown by the reduced area 70. In
Figure 6, subsequent tracking of the hand position is made more
accurate, making use of the previous knowledge of hand and arm
location.
Id. at 10:25–29 (emphasis added). Thus, in the context of the Specification,
“prior tracking” relates to previous determinations of body part positions
using previous video images and sensor signals that are then used in
subsequent determinations of body part positions using subsequent video
images and sensor signals.
We agree with Appellant that “the Examiner unreasonably broadened
‘prior tracking’ to ‘(recorded) data’” (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted)) and
that an interpretation of “prior tracking” that is so broad so as to encompass
video images and sensor signals that are currently being used to classify
movement of body parts of a patient as part of a current determination and/or
tracking of body part positions, even if it is recorded, is unreasonable.
Instead, given the language of the claims and the context provided by the
Specification, we determine that the broadest reasonable claim construction
for “prior tracking” is tracking of body part positions from video images and
sensor signals that occurred prior to a current classification of body part
positions using current video images and sensor signals as part of a current
determination and/or tracking of body part positions.
Rejection I
The Examiner finds that Derenne discloses all of the limitations of
independent claims 1, 7, and 14, including, among other things, means for,
and/or a step of, “classifying movement of the body parts of the patient as
abnormal based upon an automatic classification algorithm that uses . . .
video images and . . . sensor signals to distinguish unusual movements from
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

6
natural movements based upon prior tracking of the position of the body
parts of the patient.” Final Act. 4–9. The Examiner points to Derenne’s
disclosure that:
[s]ystem 20 may record a series of sequential movements
made by the patient. . . . When the recorded data closely
resembles one in the database, the movements are tagged as a
certain behavior. A time/date stamp may added to this data. The
recorded patient behaviors may include any one or more of the
following: eating (FIG. 4), exiting the bed, walking, walking to
the bathroom, having a seizure, falling, getting entrapped in side
rails (FIG. 5), sleeping (FIG. 6), experiencing pain (FIG. 7),
sitting in a recliner, etc. System 20 may then send this
information to a remote computer, to a display, or as an alert to
a caregiver.
Derenne ¶ 87.
The Examiner takes the position that “[t]agging movement as certain
behaviors by comparing recorded movements with recorded movements
stored in a database such as exiting the bed, walking, walking to the
bathroom, having a seizure, falling, and getting entrapped in side rails is a
classification of the recorded movements of the patient’s body.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner also takes the position that “[t]he recorded movements
disclosed by Derenne fully encompasses the claimed subject matter of ‘prior
tracking’ as evidenced by the citation from Derenne paragraph [0061]–
[0062] . . . regarding how movement data is collected.” Id. at 4. The
Examiner asserts that Derenne discloses “recording and the comparison of
the resulting ‘prior tracking’ (recorded) data to a classified database to
classify the movement” and “the claims do not positively recite or require
that historical body-part position tracking data of an individual pat[i]ent
establishes ‘prior tracking’ that is subsequently used in concert with recently
or currently obtained body-part position tracking data of the individual
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

7
pat[i]ent for classification comparisons.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner
continues that the recordation of movements in Derenne “result[s] in
recorded data in the past tense” and “[i]f one doesn’t have recorded data
from the past[,] then one cannot compare non-existent data with classified
data for movement classification.” Id.
The Examiner’s finding that Derenne discloses means for, and/or a
step of, “classifying movement of the body parts of the patient as abnormal
based upon an automatic classification algorithm that uses the video images
and the sensor signals to distinguish unusual movements from natural
movements based upon prior tracking of the position of the body parts of the
patient,” as claimed, is not adequately supported by the reference when the
term “prior tracking” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. As described above, “prior tracking” is
tracking of body part positions from video images and sensor signals that
occurred prior to a current classification of body part positions using current
video images and sensor signals as part of a current determination and/or
tracking of body part positions. Put another way, “prior tracking” relates to
previous determinations of body part positions that are then used in
subsequent determinations of body part positions.
The Examiner relies on the current video images that are being used to
make a current classification of body part positions as part of a current
determination and/or tracking of body part positions, noting that such current
video images are recorded for comparison of their content with database
content. Even if the current video images are recorded for comparison of
their content with database content, such current video images do not
constitute tracking of body part positions from video images that occurred
Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

8
prior to a current classification of body part positions. In other words, such
video images are not part of a previous determination of body part positions
that are then used in a subsequent determination of body part positions. In
accordance with the above claim construction, merely because such current
video images are recorded, they cannot be the claimed “prior tracking.”
For the foregoing reasons, we have been apprised that the Examiner
erred in finding that Derenne discloses all of the limitations of independent
claims 1, 7, and 14. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
7, and 14, and claims 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11 depending therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Derenne.
Rejections II and III
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 rely on
the Examiner’s erroneous finding that Derenne discloses means for and/or a
step of “classifying movement of the body parts of the patient . . . based
upon an automatic classification algorithm that uses the video images and
the sensor signals to distinguish unusual movements from natural
movements based upon prior tracking of the position of the body parts of the
patient” (emphasis added), as claimed. Final Act. 10–14. Accordingly, we
do not sustain, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the rejections of: claims 3 and 8 as
unpatentable over Derenne and Rodgers; and claims 4 and 9 as unpatentable
over Derenne and Gusakov.

Appeal 2020-001800
Application 15/518,512

9
DECISION
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11,
14
102(a)(1) Derenne 1, 2, 5–7,
10, 11, 14
3, 8 103 Derenne, Rodgers 3, 8
4, 9 103 Derenne, Gusakov 4, 9
Overall Outcome 1–11, 14

REVERSED