Luke Gibson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 16, 2019

14631140 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 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.
14/631,140 02/25/2015 Luke Gibson N1-38527 1579
63565 7590 10/16/2019
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
EXAMINER
HARE, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2019 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 LUKE GIBSON, ANDREW R. KERR,
CHARLES A. LACHENBRUCH, ERIC R. MEYER,
JOSHUA A. WILLIAMS, and RACHEL L. WILLIAMSON

Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1‒12 and 17‒20.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Hill-Rom
Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 13‒16 are pending and withdrawn from consideration. Final
Act. 1.
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

2
The Examiner rejected the claims on appeal as either anticipated by,
or obvious over, Poulos et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
US 2011/0163885 A1, published July 7, 2011) (“Poulos”). Appellant argues
that Poulos does not disclose certain limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 20. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has failed to show where Poulos discloses limitations of
independent claims 1 and 20. The rejections of the dependent claims also
rely on these unsupported findings. Thus, we reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to occupant
supports such as mattresses that include longitudinally spaced-apart turn
assist members. Spec. ¶ 1. In one embodiment, the occupant support
includes a support layer and a turn assist layer below the support layer. Id.
¶ 6. The turn assist layer includes a reach-in space that extends
longitudinally from a footward location, corresponding substantially to the
gluteal sulcus of an occupant nominally positioned on the mattress, to a
headward location, corresponding approximately to the sacral base or sacral
promontory of a nominally positioned occupant. Id. ¶ 12. The occupant
support also includes a controller configured to inflate or deflate the turn
assist layer in conjunction with inflation or deflation of the support layer. Id.
¶¶ 22, 42.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and
is reproduced below.

Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

3
1. An occupant support comprising:
a turn assist layer which includes:
a left side array of two or more longitudinally
distributed turn assist members, each member of the
array comprising one or more longitudinally distributed
turn assist bladders, at least two of the array members
being longitudinally spaced from each other by a left
intermember reach-in space having a left intermember
dimension;
a right side array of two or more longitudinally
distributed turn assist members, each member of the
array comprising one or more longitudinally distributed
turn assist bladders, at least two of the array members
being longitudinally spaced from each other by a right
intermember reach-in space having a right intermember
dimension;
a support layer above the turn assist layer, the support
layer including a collapsible zone at least part of which overlies
the intermember spaces; and
a user interface for enabling a user to operate the turn
assist layer; and
a controller for inflating and deflating the collapsible
zone in coordination with inflation and deflation of at least one
of the turn assist members defining the intermember space
which the collapsible zone overlies.
Appeal Br. 18‒19.
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are on appeal:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6‒8, 10‒12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Poulos.
2. Claims 3‒5, 9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Poulos.
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected as anticipated by Poulos. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner found that Poulos discloses an occupant support (1010)
comprising a turn assist layer (1028), including left and right side arrays of
turn assist members (1110a, 1110b), a support layer (1016, 1060) above the
turn assist layer, a user interface (928), and a controller (920, 1104), as
recited in claim 1. Id. at 3‒4 (citing Poulos, Figs. 20, 23, 27, 28, 29A, 29B,
¶¶ 87, 100‒102, 122‒123). With regard to the controller, the Examiner
found that Poulos’s controller is configured for inflating and deflating the
collapsible zone of the support layer “in coordination with” inflation and
deflation of at least one of the turn assist members defining the intermember
space which the collapsible zone overlies. Id. at 4 (citing Poulos ¶¶ 113‒
115, 122‒123).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Poulos
discloses coordination of inflation and deflation of the support layer and
inflation and deflation of the turn bladders. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner responded that Poulos discloses an embodiment in
which a single controller can both sense and control the air pressure in both
turning bladders 1110a, 1110b and support layer members 1060, and thus,
“the pressure in each of these aforementioned bladders and layers can be
said to be controlled together via a singular controller or in other words ‘in-
coordination’ as claimed.” Ans. 9 (citing Poulos, Figs. 29A, 29B).
We agree with Appellant that “[t]he fact that bladders 1110 and layer
1060 share certain resources, such as controller 1104 and pump 1100, is not
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

5
a disclosure that the controller and pump coordinate the inflation/deflation of
bladders 1110 with inflation/deflation of layer 1060.” Reply Br. 2.
We note that the ordinary meaning of “coordination,” supplied by
Appellant, requires elements enabled to work together effectively in a
cooperative effort. Reply Br. 2 (quoting definition 1 from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/coordination). The description
of the invention provided in Appellant’s Specification comports with this
ordinary meaning of “coordination.” Specifically, with reference to Figure
30, the Specification describes that the controller may be configured to
inflate and deflate support bladders in certain zones “in coordination with”
inflating and deflating turn assist bladders. Spec. ¶ 42. This paragraph
further describes the specific timing of inflation and deflation of turn assist
bladders vis-à-vis the timing of inflation and deflation of bladders in zones
of the support layer. Thus, the language “in coordination with” recited in
claim 1, according to its ordinary meaning and when read in light of the
Specification, calls for a controller for inflating and deflating the collapsible
zone in a cooperative manner with inflation and deflation of at least one of
the turn assist members defining the intermember space which the
collapsible zone overlies.
The Examiner has failed to show where Poulos discloses the recited
coordination of claim 1. As noted by Appellant, paragraphs 113 through
115 of Poulos describe, in relevant part, using controller 1104 to control
operation of pump 1100 to control air pressure in air components 1060 of
support layer 1016. Poulos ¶ 113. For instance, Poulos describes that
controller 1104 can receive a signal from pressure sensor 1102, and may
operate pump 1100 based on this received signal to alter or vary the air
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

6
pressure in one or more of air components 1060. Id. Poulos describes using
single pump 1100 fluidly connected via valve 1106 and tubing 1108 to a
plurality of air components 1060 to individually direct air to each air
component 1060. Id. ¶ 114.
Paragraphs 122 and 123 of Poulos describe specifically the
embodiment of Figures 29A and 29B, in which an air mattress that includes
turning bladders 1110 is shown. Poulos ¶ 122. In this embodiment, at least
one turning bladder 1110a is provided adjacent first side 1022 of the
mattress, and at least another turning bladder 1110b is provided adjacent
second side 1024 of the mattress. Id. Poulos describes that “a left rotation
turn of the patient is accomplished by inflation of one or more of the first
side turning bladders 1110a . . . while simultaneously exhausting air in the
second side turning bladders 1110b.” Id. A right rotation turn of the patient
is accomplished by the converse. Id. Poulos describes that pressure sensor
1102 may be connected to each rotation bladder 1110a, 1110b and that
controller 1104 controls the flow of air to and from each turning bladder. Id.
Poulos describes that turning bladders 1110a, 1110b “are provided below the
air components 1060.” Id. ¶ 123.
Although Poulos appears to describe coordination of the inflation and
deflation of the turning bladders 1110a and 1110b with each other, the
paragraphs relied on by the Examiner do not appear to describe any
coordination in the inflation and deflation of turning bladders 1110a, 1110b
with inflation and deflation of air components 1060 of support layer 1016.
Despite the fact that Poulos describes using the same controller 1104 and
pump 1100 to provide air to the various bladders in both layers, the
provision of air to each bladder appears to be controlled by independently
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

7
controllable valves, and the Examiner has not identified any discussion in
Poulos that the opening and closing of these valves is cooperatively
controlled so as to coordinate inflation/deflation of bladders in one layer
with inflation/deflation of bladders in the other layer.
For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to provide adequate
evidence on which to base a finding of anticipation of independent claim 1
by Poulos. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2, 6‒8, 10‒12, and 19, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3‒5, 9, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is based on the same deficient finding as to
anticipation of claim 1 discussed above. Final Act. 9‒12. As to dependent
claim 17, which requires “the inflation and deflation of the collapsible zone
is carried out concurrently, partially concurrently, or serially with the
inflation and deflation of the turn assist member or members,” the Examiner
further found that Poulos describes specific control, either independently
and/or coordinated, of both the patient support/collapsible zone (1060) and
the turning bladders (1110a, 1110b). Final Act. 11 (citing Poulos ¶¶ 113‒
116, 119‒123). As discussed above, we do not find adequate disclosure in
Poulos to disclose that the control is coordinated.
The Examiner also found that “at least control of inflation/deflation of
each of these separately inflatable components in a serial manner would be
inherent based on the teachings of independent control via controller [1104]
and pump [1100].” Id. at 11. We have insufficient evidence on this record
to base a finding that Poulos must necessarily control inflation/deflation of
these layers in a serial manner. It appears possible that Poulos’s controller is
using two separate, independent algorithms to control opening and closing of
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

8
the respective valves to permit inflation or deflation of the bladders in one
layer independent of the other layer.
The Examiner alternatively finds that at the time of the invention it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
modified Poulos to carry out the inflation/deflation of the support layer
either concurrently, partially concurrently, or serially with inflation/deflation
of the turning bladders “for improved therapeutic effects and increased
patient care and safety.” Final Act. 11. Appellant argues that this reasoning
is inadequate in view of Poulos’s silence as to coordinated actions. Appeal
Br. 16. The Examiner responds that only concurrent actions require
coordination and partially concurrent or serial actions do not. Ans. 12.
We disagree with such a broad reading of claim 17 given that it
depends from claim 1, which requires the actions to be in coordination with
each other. As noted by Appellant, “[a]ctions can be coordinated, yet not
occur at the same time.” Reply Br. 7. Thus, we construe claim 17 to further
limit the type of coordination recited in claim 1. We agree with Appellant
that the Examiner’s conclusory explanation of the proposed modification
“for improved therapeutic effects and increased patient care and safety” is
inadequate to explain what would have led a person having ordinary skill in
the art to modify Poulos in the manner claimed. Thus, we likewise do not
sustain the second ground of rejection of these dependent claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to an occupant support and recites the same turn
assist layer, support layer, and user interface as claim 1. Claim 20 omits,
however, the controller limitation of claim 1, and recites instead that each
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

9
intermember reach-in space “extends longitudinally from a more footward
location corresponding substantially to the gluteal sulcus of a nominally
positioned occupant to a more headward location corresponding
approximately to the sacral base of the nominally positioned occupant.”
Appeal Br. 25‒26.
The Examiner, relying again on the embodiment shown in Figures
29A and 29B of Poulos, found that each turning bladder 1110a of the array
is spaced apart and that the space between bladders 1110a has a dimension
that extends longitudinally in the manner recited in claim 20. Final Act. 8‒
9. The Examiner further stated, “[r]egarding the intended placement of a
nominally positioned occupant, it has held that a recitation with respect to
the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does
not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying
the claimed structural limitations.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex parte Masham,
1987 WL 123826 (BPAI 1987)).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred in treating the claim
language as including a recitation of intended use. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant argues that this claim language “places two physical constraints
on the reach-in space.” Id. Appellant specifies:
First, its longitudinal dimension must be substantially the
distance between the gluteal sulcus and the sacral base of an
occupant. Second, it must be located on the occupant support
in the place that would be occupied by the portion of the
patient’s body extending between the gluteal sulcus and the
sacral base if the patient were nominally positioned on the
occupant support.
Appeal Br. 12‒13.
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

10
As noted by Appellant (Appeal Br. 13), the Specification provides a
definition of a “nominally positioned occupant”:
A nominally positioned occupant is one who is approximately
laterally centered on the bed, i.e. one whose saggital plane
approximately coincides with centerplane 46 when the occupant
is supine on the mattress, and who is positioned longitudinally
so that the positions of his or her anatomical features are
compatible with the physical and/or functional features of the
bed.
Spec. ¶ 12. The Specification further explains that many beds include a hip
indicator to indicate the desired position of the occupant’s hips, or include
hinged, segmented decks that correspond to the occupant’s anatomical
features. Id.
In light of this description provided in Appellant’s Specification, we
understand the claim language to impart size and location limitations on
each reach-in space by reference to anatomical features of an occupant
positioned on the mattress such that the positions of the occupant’s
anatomical features match the corresponding features of the bed. Claim 20
calls for each reach-in space to extend from the location on the mattress
where the gluteal sulcus of such an occupant would lie to the location where
the sacral base of such an occupant would lie. Thus, we agree with
Appellant’s reading of the claim language as placing structural limitations
on both the size and placement of the reach-in space on the mattress.
We disagree with the Examiner’s reliance on Ex parte Masham. The
claim at issue in Masham was directed to an apparatus for mixing flowing
developer material. 1987 WL 123826 at *1. The claim recited structural
limitations for receiving and mixing the flowing developer material. Id.
The claim further recited that the mixing means is stationary and completely
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

11
submerged in the developer material. Id. The Board affirmed an
anticipation rejection of the claim based on a prior art reference that satisfied
the structural limitations of the claim, i.e., a chamber and a stationary mixing
means. Id. The Board determined that the prior art mixing device is capable
of retaining a supply of developer material above the top surface of the
mixing device such that the mixing device can be completely submerged.
Id. Thus, the Board held that the recitation of intended use in the claim did
not impose any limitations which differentiate the claimed apparatus from
the prior art apparatus. Id. at *2.
By contrast, the recitations in claim 20 about the size and location of
each reach-in space structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the
mattress of Poulos. Poulos describes that its mattress includes zones
corresponding to anatomical features of an occupant. Poulos ¶ 122
(describing that different turning bladders are provided at the first and
second sides 1022, 1024 of each zone of mattress 1010, including head zone
1050, seat zone 1054, knee zone 1056, and foot zone 1052); Fig. 29A. It
appears from Figure 29A that the buttocks of an occupant nominally
positioned on mattress 1010 would be positioned atop seat zone 1054, and
one set of turning bladders 1110a, 1110b would lie directly below the
occupant’s buttocks. It does not appear from the description provided in
Poulos that the intermember reach-in space between adjacent turning
bladders extends between the gluteal sulcus and sacral base of a nominally
positioned occupant. For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 as anticipated by Poulos.
Appeal 2018-008139
Application 14/631,140

12
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1‒12 and 17‒20 is
reversed.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6‒8, 10‒12,
19, 20
§ 102(b)
Poulos
1, 2, 6‒8, 10‒
12, 19, 20
3‒5, 9, 17, 18 § 103(a)
Poulos
3‒5, 9, 17, 18
Overall Outcome 1‒12, 17‒20

REVERSED