TRUMPF MEDIZIN SYSTEME GMBH + CO. KGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 20212020001545 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/322,322 12/27/2016 Rudolf MARKA 7175-261275 5651 69781 7590 05/13/2021 Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom) 11 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER TRAN, TONGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2021 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): indocket@btlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RUDOLF MARKA, SERHAN ZHAN, and GEL HAN Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, 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 16–34, which are all of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 3. 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 Trumpf Medizin Systeme Gmbh + Co. KG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s Specification describes a “medical apparatus control system and a method for operating the medical apparatus control system, in particular to a system and a method enabling a simplified release of an operating function.” Spec. 1:5–8. Appellant’s Specification notes that medical apparatuses have typically been controlled by control panels attached to the apparatus, or by a specifically assigned remote control. Id. at 1:10–14. Appellant’s Specification acknowledges that “mobile control units for the operation of several medical apparatuses are increasingly used,” but states that it may be important to allow only specific persons to be authorized for operation of such apparatus. Id. at 1:15–19. Appellant’s Specification purports to describe a medical apparatus control system enabling a simplified login procedure to release control of the medical apparatus to specifically authorized persons. Id. at 2:1–3. Claims 16 and 22 are independent. Claim 16, reproduced below (with formatting added), is representative of the claimed subject matter: 16. A medical apparatus control system, comprising at least one mobile control unit, for at least one medical apparatus, with at least one radio receiving module for detecting and forwarding radio signals, a control device connected to the mobile control unit, and at least one separate identification tag having a mobile radio transmitting module enabled to communicate with the radio receiving module, wherein the at least one radio transmitting module is configured to send an identification feature to the radio receiving module, and the control device is configured to compare the identification feature with the stored identification features, and to release an operating function of the mobile control unit after a positive result of comparison. Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Miller2 US 2015/0223891 A1 Aug. 13, 2015 Lee US 2012/0204258 A1 Aug. 9, 2012 REJECTION Claims 16–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 as obvious over Miller in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 2– 10. OPINION We have considered Appellant’s arguments and contentions (Appeal Br. 3–11; Reply Br. 2–6) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 2–10; Ans. 3–13). For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejections of the pending claims, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections. A. Claims 16–20 The Examiner finds Miller teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 16. Final Act. 5; Ans. 8. In particular, the Examiner finds Miller discloses a smart medical cart with a computing device that can communicate wirelessly with peripherals such as medical equipment (Miller ¶¶ 133, 184), wherein the computing device can authenticate a user wearing, e.g., a badge with a radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tag (id. ¶ 461) by collecting ID from the user via the RFID tag and sending that information 2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor. 3 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 4 to a server (id. ¶¶ 446, 500, 509), whereby if the user’s ID information matches to within a predefined threshold level, the computing device on the cart provides access to the user to the computing device or the medical devices (id. ¶¶ 446, 500). Final Act. 5. The Examiner maps the claimed medical apparatus control system to Miller’s smart medical cart 100 (Fig. 1, Miller ¶ 125); the claimed mobile control unit to, e.g., Miller’s computing device that is part of the smart medical cart (id. at Fig. 3b, ¶ 133), which includes a radio receiving module for detecting and forwarding radio signals, including identification (id. ¶ 133: “the computing device can communicate with peripherals, such as medical equipment, . . . wirelessly”; id. ¶ 509 (describing that the computing device may collect authentication information from a user via a radio frequency identification device (RFID)); id. ¶ 500 (the computing device communicates with a server and sends ID collected from a user to be compared with ID information located on the server)); and maps the claimed control device to a server, wherein the control device is configured to compare received user identification with stored identification and to release an operating function of the mobile control unit after a positive result (id. ¶ 500 (describing the server matching user ID with stored information and, if a match is with a predefined threshold level, the computing device can then provide access to the medical cart user)). See Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings are in error because the Examiner also invokes AAPA in addition to Miller for finding a teaching of a mobile control unit for operation of medical apparatus. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 2–3; see Final Act. 2 (citing as AAPA the following statement in the Specification at 1:16–19: “Recently, mobile control units for the operation of several medical apparatuses are increasingly used.”). Appellant Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 5 argues this statement is not AAPA because it does not establish Appellant’s admission of use by others. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 3. We need not address this argument because the Examiner’s rejection is sufficiently supported by the Examiner’s findings that Miller itself discloses a mobile control unit for operation of medical apparatus. See Final Act. 2 (citing Miller ¶ 488, disclosing that the smart medical cart can control other medical devices, and also that a user’s smartphone can control the smart medical cart). For the same reason, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner improperly introduces secondary references (Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 3–4), as the Examiner cites such references only to bolster the statement that using a mobile control device in the operation of a medical device is well-known in the art (see Ans. 6–7). We conclude such bolstering is superfluous in light of the Examiner’s findings regarding Miller’s teaching the same subject matter. See Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 8–9. Appellant also argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Miller lacks teaching of “at least one mobile control unit . . . with at least one radio receiving module for detecting and forwarding radio signals.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4–5. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Miller discloses a smart cart including a computing device that can authenticate a user by receiving and forwarding user identification from an RFID badge. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Miller ¶ 446: “Miller discloses authentication may be performed based on information provided by the user in different forms and verify at the remote server or the computing device operating on the smart medical car[t]”; Miller ¶ 461: Miller discloses “the authentication can be determined based on detecting using RFID badge”). As Appellant’s Specification acknowledges, RFID modules communicate Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 6 information via radio signals. See Spec. 4:4–8 (describing RFID module as a “radio transmitting module”). The Examiner’s findings are also supported by related disclosures of Miller, including that the computing device on the smart medical cart may be “a touch screen computing device, or a tablet.” Miller ¶ 130. Appellant’s Specification similarly discloses the claimed “mobile control unit” may be a “tablet PC.” Spec. 2:18–20. Appellant’s criticism of the Examiner’s reliance on Miller’s teaching a smartphone that may control the smart medical cart (Final Act. 2–3) is unavailing of Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 7. As noted above, the Examiner also cites to Miller’s teachings wherein the computing device on the smart cart receives user ID information wirelessly via RFID signals and transmits that information to a server for authentication. Final Act. 5 (citing Miller ¶¶ 133, 184, 446, 461, 488, 500, 509). These findings support the Examiner’s rejection. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the obviousness rejection of claim 16, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection, along with the rejection of claims 17–20 rejected on the same basis and not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). B. Claim 21 Claim 21 depends from claim 16, and adds “wherein the radio receiving module is adapted such that it detects a signal strength of the radio signal, and that it comprises a threshold for the signal strength, wherein only radio signals, the signal strength of which is above the threshold, are forwarded.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Miller discloses the subject matter of this claim by disclosing the smart medical cart includes a security access system in which a user may be authenticated using, for example, an RFID card. Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 7 Final Act. 6 (citing Miller ¶ 451). In connection with claim 16, from which claim 21 depends, the Examiner also cites to paragraph 461 of Miller, which discloses “the security access system can determine when an individual attempts to control or access the smart medical cart based on the proximity of the individual to the smart medical cart.” Final Act. 5. One mechanism disclosed by Miller for determining whether an individual is proximate to the smart cart is an RFID badge. Miller ¶ 461. Thus, by disclosing detecting an individual’s presence based on an RFID badge, which transmits user ID information via radio signals, Miller teaches or suggests a threshold for the signal strength of the radio signal. Miller makes this teaching more explicit by disclosing that the presence detection functionality may depend on whether an individual is “within a selected proximity of the smart medical cart.” Id. ¶ 462. In the case of detection of an RFID badge, such determination would be made on the basis of the strength of the radio signal from the RFID badge. See id. ¶ 461. Miller further discloses that if the proximity threshold (and hence the radio signal threshold) is met, the ID of the individual would be determined to determine the access level of the individual. Id. ¶ 462. As noted above, user ID matching and access is performed in Miller at the server level, meaning the radio signal from the RFID badge containing the user’s ID is detected and forwarded to the server for authentication. Thus, Appellant’s contention that “Miller wholly fails to disclose any such radio strength detection” (Appeal Br. 8) is contradicted by Miller, as discussed above. We, therefore, are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 21. Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 8 C. Claims 22–27 Although Appellant purports to argue claims 22–27 separately, Appellant’s arguments for these claims consist of either referring to the arguments presented for independent claim 16, or a terse recitation that Miller does not teach the limitations of claim 22 (from which claims 23–27 depend). Appeal Br. 8–9. Such conclusory attorney assertions are not persuasive of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Moreover, we determine the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 22 are supported by the cited teachings of Miller, for the same reasons we express above regarding claim 16. See Final Act. 5 (citing Miller ¶¶ 133, 184, 446, 461, 488, 500, 509); Ans. 9 (citing Miller Figs. 68–70, ¶¶ 133, 326, 500, 509). We, therefore, are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 22–27, and we sustain that rejection. D. Claims 28–30 Claim 28 depends from claim 22, and additionally recites wherein, if signals having the respective identification features of several radio transmitting modules are received by the radio receiving module, prompts corresponding to the identification features of all of the signals are output on the mobile control unit, and the operating function of the mobile control unit is Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 9 released if any[ ]one of the prompts is selected and the respective passcode is input. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Miller teaches or suggests the subject matter of this limitation by relying on Miller’s disclosure that the medical cart can use a double layer of authentication, in which the medical cart user may log in to the computing device using at least one non-biometric ID measurement, and then the user may be re-authenticated using a biometric ID measurement (such as facial recognition). Ans. 10 (citing Miller ¶¶ 459, 503). As discussed above, one non-biometric means of authentication is an RFID badge. See Miller ¶ 461. Thus, Miller discloses sending user ID information via RFID, and then re-authenticating the user in a second step by requiring a biometric ID measurement, such as facial recognition, which teaches a passcode. See id. Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because the particular paragraphs of Miller cited by the Examiner for claim 28 (paragraphs 459 and 503) “fail[] to discuss any radio signals.” Appeal Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it fails to address the rejection in its entirety. The Examiner also cites, in connection with the rejection of the base claim 16, Miller’s disclosure of using an RFID badge to send radio signals containing a user’s ID, which signals are detected by the computing unit of Miller’s smart medical cart, and further that such signals are forwarded to a server for authenticating the user. See Final Act. 5 (citing Miller ¶¶ 133, 184, 446, 461, 488, 500, 509); Ans. 11 (noting that “Miller mentions using radio communication for authentication throughout the reference,” citing Miller ¶¶ 133, 326, 337, 473, 509). Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 10 In paragraph 509, in particular, Miller discloses a security access module as part of the smart medical cart that collects authentication measurement of a user “using a radio frequency identification (RFID) device.” Again, as acknowledged in Appellant’s Specification, an RFID module transmits radio signals. Spec. 4:4–8. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 28, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection. E. Claims 31–34 Claims 31 and 33 depend, indirectly, from claim 22, and each recites “the threshold is adjusted such that only the respective prompts of radio transmitting modules located within a predefined distance from the mobile control unit are shown.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Miller’s disclosure of use of an RFID badge as a means of identifying a user of Miller’s smart medical cart. Final Act. 12–13 (citing Miller ¶ 451). Relatedly, Miller discloses that use of an RFID card will allow the smart medical cart to determine whether a user is attempting to control the smart medical cart based on whether the user is within a selected proximity of the cart. Miller ¶¶ 461–462. Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because “¶ 0451 of Miller . . . fails to discuss any radio signals or any limiting of prompts based on a distance from a control unit.” Appeal Br. 10. We disagree. Miller’s disclosure of a user gaining access to the smart medical cart via an RFID badge discloses radio signals, because, as Appellant’s Specification acknowledges, an RFID device transmits information via radio signals. See Spec. 4:4–8. In addition, paragraph 451 of Miller discloses that users may initially identify themselves using the RFID badge, at which point they may be prompted to further authenticate themselves biometrically. Miller Appeal 2020-001545 Application 15/322,322 11 ¶ 451. Because Miller describes that the biometric authentication follows an initial RFID identification, which Miller discloses may require a certain physical proximity of the user to the cart (see id. ¶ 461), Miller teaches that only users within a predefined proximity to the cart (e.g., sufficient for their RFID badge to be read) would be prompted by the cart to further authenticate using biometrics (that is, prompts would be shown only for those users, as recited). See id. ¶ 451. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 31 or 33, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection, along with the rejection of claims 32 and 34 argued collectively. See Appeal Br. 10–11. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16–34 is sustained. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16–34 103 Miller, AAPA 16–34 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation