Terumo Kabushiki Kaisha

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020001307 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
15/073,242 03/17/2016 Tomoki Utsugida P2013-000274US01(18755) 7177
69389 7590 05/28/2021
MACMILLAN, SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC / TERUMO KK
ONE MARITIME PLAZA - FIFTH FLOOR
720 WATER STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43604
EXAMINER
LI, LIANG Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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):
MST@mstfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMOKI UTSUGIDA
Appeal 2020-001307
Application 15/073,242
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Terumo
Kabushiki Kaisha. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001307
Application 15/073,242

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a “display apparatus for a user interface
of a medical instrument [intended to] avoid[] erroneous input of numerical
values when a user inputs information.” Abstract. Claims 1, 3–5 and 7 are
pending; claims 1 and 7 are independent. Appeal Br. 10–12. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphases added):
1. A display apparatus for an extracorporeal circulator
monitoring various types of sensed parameters and configured to
accept user input for setting warning limits and alarm limits for
use during operation of the extracorporeal circulator, the display
apparatus comprising:
a numerical value information input section through which
numerical value information can be input;
a selectable parameter information display section that
displays a plurality of ranges of a selected parameter information
defined by respective upper and lower warning limits and upper
and lower alarm limits, wherein each range is displayed in the
form of a bar shape to show a degree of the corresponding limits,
and wherein the ranges of parameter information are displayed
in colors different from each other; and
limit selection icons that are used to select the respective
upper and lower limits of any one of the ranges of parameter
information, wherein the plurality of limit selection icons are
displayed in association with a corresponding range,
wherein the plurality of ranges are arranged so as to be
adjacent to each other,
wherein when any one of the plurality of limit selection
icons is selected, the numerical value information input section
corresponding to the selected limit selection icon simultaneously
displays a numerical value being entered by the user input on a
same screen together with the selected parameter information,
wherein the selected limit selection icon and at least a portion of
the corresponding numerical value information input section are
changed to display in a same color, and wherein the same color
Appeal 2020-001307
Application 15/073,242

3
is yellow when the selected limit selection icon is for a warning
limit and wherein the same color is red when the selected limit
selection icon is for an alarm limit, and
wherein the plurality of ranges of the selected parameter
which is displayed simultaneously on the same screen is changed
visually by modifying a corresponding bar shape to show a
modified degree of the corresponding limit in response to the
numerical value being entered by the user input to the numerical
value information input section before storing the numerical
value being entered as a final value for monitoring the selected
parameter information.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Peterson US 5,486,286 Jan. 23, 1996
Warnke US 9,109,945 B1 Aug. 18, 2015
Hickle WO 03/038566 A2 May 8, 2003

Claims 1, 3–5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Hickle, Peterson, and Warnke. Final Act. 2.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the display apparatus of claim 1 to be obvious in
view of the cited references, because Peterson teaches an extracorporeal
circulator and Hickle in view of Warnke teaches the display apparatus. See
Final Act. 5. Particularly, the Examiner finds “[t]he claims are directed to a
medical apparatus including a limit selection icons used to select alarm
thresholds and a numerical value information input section used to input
numerical value information,” and “these two elements are mapped to
various single textboxes of the display of Hickle.” Ans. 7; Hickle Fig. 35.
Appeal 2020-001307
Application 15/073,242

4
The Examiner cites Hickle’s “disclos[ure] that the user must first select the
text entry box (limit selection icon) and then input new values using a
keypad (numerical value input section),” as the text entry boxes “function
as limit selection icons until they are selected, at which point they are
transformed into numerical value input sections.” Ans. 8.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because the
recited “numerical value information input section” and “limit selection
icons” are “separate items on the display and there is no justification to
conclude that one skilled in the art would consider this equivalent to a single
item that somehow transforms itself between different functions.” Reply
Br. 1. Appellant contends the Examiner’s analysis—that “a single element
in Hickle shows both claimed elements then use of Warnke’s single color
would cause the ‘two’ elements of Hickle to display in the same color”—
“erroneously uses a circular logic.” Id. at 2–3.
We appreciate the Examiner’s thorough explanation and detailed
analysis; however, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection.
Where “a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim
language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented
invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d
1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and formatting omitted).
Here, claim 1 lists the “numerical value information input section” and
“limit selection icons” separately, and Appellant’s Specification similarly
depicts these elements as distinct components. See Fig. 10 (elements G13a,
G13b (icons), and G11 (input section)), Spec. ¶¶ 82, 88, 102. In contrast,
the Examiner has provided no reasoning or evidence to show the claim
should be construed such that the elements may comprise a single
Appeal 2020-001307
Application 15/073,242

5
component. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the cited art does not
teach or suggest both a “numerical value information input section” and
“limit selection icons” in the manner claimed. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br.
2. For at least this reason, we find the rejection of claim 1 is in error.
Further, we find the Examiner’s rejection errs in finding the
combination of Hickle and Warnke teaches or suggests the limitation
“wherein when any one of the plurality of limit selection icons is selected. . .
the selected limit selection icon and at least a portion of the corresponding
numerical value information input section are changed to display in a same
color.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). The Examiner maps the claimed
icon and the input section to a text box of Hickle at different times (before
and after selection), but does not explain how or why the color of this text
box would be changed at these times (before and after selection) when
selected. See Ans. 12 (“As they are the same display element in Hickle, the
correspondence between the limit selection icon and the numerical value
input section are taught by Hickle - they both correspond to the text color
that is chosen.”). That is, Hickle’s text box cannot be both selected and
unselected at the same time, so changing the color when selected does not
suggest changing the color before selection. Nor does the Examiner provide
a reason to show an artisan of ordinary skill would change the color of the
unselected text box. Accordingly, we find the rejection has not provided
sufficient rationale to support the finding of obviousness. See Reply Br. 3;
Appeal Br. 5.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 and the claims dependent thereon, and independent
claim 7 which recites similar limitations.
Appeal 2020-001307
Application 15/073,242

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7 103 Hickle, Peterson,
Warnke
1, 3–5, 7

REVERSED