WELCH ALLYN, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 20, 2021

2021000853 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 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.
14/920,200 10/22/2015 David E. Quinn W053-0049US 3851
29149 7590 08/20/2021
LEE & HAYES, P.C.
601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
EXAMINER
SHAH, JAY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2021 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID E. QUINN, JOHN A. LANE,
KENZI L. MUDGE, ZHON YE CHU,
MATTHEW D. MULLIN, DAVID M. ANTOS,
HENRY JOE SMITH III, and
JEFFREY J. CHIODO
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s December 20, 2019 Non-Final Action rejecting claims 1–5,

1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Welch Allyn, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

2
9–13, 17–22, 24–26, and 28. Claims 6–8, 14–16, 23, and 27 are canceled.
Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “a method and apparatus for performing
biological measurements.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium
comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a
processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations
comprising:
receiving, from a first sensor coupled to a person,
positioning information indicating a position of a body part of
the person;
receiving, from a second sensor coupled to the person,
biological information based upon a first type of biological
measurement;
determining according to the positioning information
whether the position of the body part is suitable to perform a
second type of biological measurement, wherein the first type
of biological measurement is different from the second type of
biological measurement;
determining according to the biological information
whether the person is in a biological state suitable to perform
the second type of biological measurement;
directing performance of the second type of biological
measurement by a third sensor responsive to a first
determination that the position of the body part is suitable to
perform the second type of biological measurement and
responsive to a second determination that the person is in the
biological state suitable to perform the second type of
biological measurement;
postponing performance of the second type of biological
measurement responsive to a third determination that the
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

3
position of the body part is not suitable to perform the second
type of biological measurement or responsive to a fourth
determination that the person is not in the biological state
suitable to perform the second type of biological measurement;
obtaining historical sensor data associated with the person
over a time period; and
processing the historical sensor data to determine at least
one threshold associated with the person,
wherein the determining according to the biological
information whether the person is in a biological state suitable
to perform the second type of biological measurement is based
on the at least one threshold, and
wherein the time period is based on a protocol initiated by a
clinician as a result of a procedure performed on the person.

Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

4
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Nakata US 2004/0243006 A1 Dec. 2, 2004
Matsuzaki US 2011/0093210 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
Kateraas US 2011/0152637 A1 June 23, 2011
Kawano US 2011/0245695 A1 Oct. 6, 2011
Horseman US 2013/0011819 A1 Jan. 10, 2013
Esposito US 2013/0192071 A1 Aug. 1, 2013
REJECTIONS2
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
1–5, 9–13, 17, 18, 21,
22, 24–26 103
Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas
19 103 Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, Esposito
20 103 Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, Horseman, Esposito
28 103 Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, Nakata

OPINION
Claims 1–5, 9–13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24–26—
§ 103—Kawano, Matsuzaki, and Kateraas
Independent Claim 1
For independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kawano teaches,
among other things, the limitations relating to receiving, from a first sensor
coupled to a person, positioning information indicating a position of a body
part of the person, and determining according to the positioning information

2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 1–5, 9–13, 17–22, 24–
26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing the enablement requirement.
Ans. 3.
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

5
whether the position of the body part is suitable to perform a second type of
biological measurement; but does not teach receiving, from a second sensor
coupled to the person, biological information based upon a first type of
biological measurement; wherein the first type of biological measurement is
different from the second type of biological measurement; determining
according to the biological information whether the person is in a biological
state suitable to perform the second type of biological measurement; and
directing performance of the second type of biological measurement
responsive to a determination that the person is in the biological state
suitable to perform the second type of biological measurement. Non-Final
Act. 5–6 (citing Kawano ¶¶ 9, 11–13, 31, 34, Figs. 1, 2, 4). The Examiner
further finds that Matsuzaki teaches receiving biological information based
on a first type of biological measurement—e.g., pulse rate—and determining
that a person is in a biological state suitable for a second type of biological
measurement different from the first measurement—e.g., that a person’s
pulse rate indicates that the person is in a rest state before measuring blood
pressure. Id. at 6 (citing Matsuzaki ¶¶ 54–56). The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
included these teachings with Kawano’s system “in order to confirm that a
subject is at rest so that the blood pressure is accurately measured.” Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kawano and Matsuzaki do not teach
obtaining historical sensor data associated with the person over a time
period; processing the historical sensor data to determine a threshold
associated with the person; determining the suitable biological state using
the threshold; and “wherein the time period is based on a protocol initiated
by a clinician as a result of a procedure performed on the person.” Non-
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

6
Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds, however that Kateraas teaches “that it is
well known in the art to use a threshold based on historical data to determine
if a user is in a state of rest. Id. (citing Kateraas ¶ 38). The Examiner also
“interpret[s] the collection of historical data as a procedure,” “determining
the threshold as a protocol,” and “the collection of historical data spans a
time period – i.e. the ‘time period’ is inherent.” Id. Finally, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to have combined these teachings from Kateraas with the combination of
Kawano and Matsuzaki “in order to determine a personalized, accurate
biological state that is overseen and confirmed by a clinician (i.e. a rest rate
confirmed by a medical professional based on collection of historical data
and determining a threshold) of a user.” Id. at 7–8.
Appellant first argues that “Matsuzaki describes using the first
biological data to determine whether the second already measured data was
measured during the user’s rest state,” which “does not provide a basis for
determining whether or not to perform an action that includes taking a
subsequent measurement that is a different type than the first measurement.”
Appeal Br. 21 (citing Matsuzaki ¶¶ 1, 45, 56). Id. The Examiner replies,
among other things, that “Kawano is already cited to teach waiting for the
subject to be in a proper state before performing a measurement.” Ans. 4
(citing Kawano ¶ 61, Fig. 4). Appellant counters that “Kawano’s description
of deciding ‘whether a difference in height between the position of the wrist
and that of the heart is at least a predetermined value’ does not cure the
deficiencies of Matsuzaki to teach or suggest determining ‘whether the
person is in a biological state suitable to perform the second type of
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

7
biological measurement’ where the ‘biological information’ is received prior
to making this determination, as recited in claim 1.” Reply Br. 5–6.
This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. As the Examiner
notes, Kawano “is already cited to teach waiting for the subject to be in a
proper state before performing a measurement.” Ans. 4. Kawano’s system
ensures that the height distance between the patient’s wrist and the patient’s
heart is within a predetermined range before measuring the patient’s blood
pressure. Kawano ¶¶ 60–69, Fig. 4. This ensures that the blood-pressure
measurement is accurate. Id. ¶ 2. Matsuzaki teaches that accurate blood-
pressure measurement also requires the patient to be at rest during the
measurement, and that the patient’s pulse rate can determine whether the
patient is at rest. Matsuzaki ¶¶ 6, 55–56. In the proposed combination,
Kawano’s system would be modified in accordance with Matsuzaki’s
teachings to determine both that the patient’s wrist is in the proper position
and that the patient’s pulse rate shows that the patient is at rest before
measuring the patient’s blood pressure. Non-Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. This
comports with Kawano’s objective of accurately measuring blood pressure.
Thus, it is not particularly relevant whether Matsuzaki uses pulse rate to
determine whether the patient is at rest after blood pressure is already
measured.3

3 We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4), however, that Matsuzaki’s teaching
that “biological data should be measured when the subject is in rest state, so
that a physician in a hospital or the like can diagnose more correctly based
on the measurement result” (Matsuzaki ¶ 6), at least suggests that
determining whether the patient is in a rest state should be done before
measuring biological data.
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

8
Appellant next argues that “[b]ecause the asserted combination fails to
teach or suggest determining whether the person is in a biological state
suitable to perform the second type of biological measurement in the first
place, the combination of Kawano, Matsuzaki and Kateraas cannot then
teach or suggest ‘directing performance of the second type of biological
measurement by a third sensor responsive to . . . a []determination that the
person is in the biological state suitable to perform the second type of
biological measurement’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 22–23.
However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that the premise of this
argument is correct; therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Appellant also argues that combining Kateraas with Kawano would
render Kawano unfit for its intended purpose. Appellant notes that
“Kateraas describes a sensor-based device to monitor the physical activity
level of an individual, collect data during periods of physical exertion, and
transmit the collected data to a data collection portal associated with a
physical activity rewards allocation system and/or a physical activity
tracking system.” Appeal Br. 26 (citing Kateraas ¶ 2). Appellant submits
that “[i]f Kawano was modified based on the teachings of Kateraas in order
to teach the subject matter of claim 1, Kawano would stop or prevent blood
pressure measurements any time the position of the user’s wrist was outside
of the predetermined distance while the user was performing physical
activities or engaged in sport.” Id. The Examiner responds that “Kateraas is
only being referenced to teach the use of historical data to determine a
threshold for a subject to be in a suitable biological state.” Ans. 6.
Appellant counters that “[t]he ‘threshold’ that the Examiner’s Answer
references is described by Kateraas as ‘calculate[ing] and periodically
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

9
update[ing] a unique threshold determined for a specific user,’ where the
threshold is ‘associated with periods during which the user is at rest and
exercising,’” Reply Br. 14 (citing Kateraas ¶ 38). Thus, according to
Appellant, “the ‘historical data’ relied upon by the Examiner is defined by
Kateraas to include both rest data and exercise data.” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner’s reliance on
Kateraas to teach “the use of historical data to determine a threshold for a
subject to be in a suitable biological state” (Ans. 6) does not require the
incorporation of Kateraas’ specific threshold or data; nor does it require that
Kateraas’ sensor-based device be worn while exercising. Appellant’s
argument essentially amounts to the bodily incorporation of Kateraas into
Kawano rather than the combination of teachings as proposed by the
Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . [r]ather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (citations omitted).
As we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
as unpatentable over Kawano, Matsuzaki, and Kateraas, we sustain the
rejection.
Dependent claims 2–5, 21, 22, and 24
Claims 2–5, 21, 22, and 24 ultimately depend from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 40, 45–46 (Claims App.). Appellant does not separately argue the
patentability of these claims, but relies on argument made in support of the
patentability of claim 1. Id. at 27. Because we found those arguments
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

10
unpersuasive, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 21, 22, and
24 as unpatentable over Kawano, Matsuzaki, and Kateraas.
Claims 9–13, 17, and 25
Appellant relies on the same arguments made in response to the
rejection of claim 1 to support the patentability of claim 9. Appeal Br. 27–
29. Claims 10–13, 17, and 25, which ultimately depend from claim 9, are
not separately argued. Id. at 29. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–13, 17, and 25 as
unpatentable over Kawano, Matsuzaki, and Kateraas.
Claims 18 and 26
Appellant relies on the same arguments made in response to the
rejection of claim 1 to support the patentability of claim 18. Appeal
Br. 29–31. Claim 26, which depends from claim 18, is not separately
argued. Id. at 31. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 26 as unpatentable over Kawano,
Matsuzaki, and Kateraas.
Claim 19—§ 103—Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, and Esposito
Claim 19 depends from claim 18 and additionally recites, among other
things, “wherein the second type of biological measurement is selected
according to an identification of the person.” Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.).
Claim 20 depends from claim 18 and contains a similar limitation. Id. The
Examiner relies on Esposito to teach this limitation. Non-Final Act. 11.
According to the Examiner, Esposito teaches “that it is well known to
incorporate user-specific monitoring routines based on user authentication.”
Id. (citing Esposito ¶ 72, Figs. 22C–22F). The Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

11
combination of Kawano, Matsuzaki, and Kateraas with Esposito “to include
wherein the second type of biological measurement is selected according to
an identification of the person in order to tailor monitoring according to each
patient.” Id.
Appellant disputes that Esposito teaches “wherein the second type of
biological measurement is selected according to an identification of the
person.” Appellant asserts that Esposito teaches pressure sensors
incorporated into garments, and an authentication protocol to match the
garment/sensing system to the user. Appeal Br. 32 (citing Esposito,
Abstract, ¶ 72). Appellant submits that “the authentication protocol that
matches the garment/sensing system to the user as described by Esposito
does not affect what types of measurements are collected with respect to the
authenticated user.” Id. at 33 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds
that paragraph 74 of Esposito “clearly states that an authentication protocol
is initiated and the authentication protocol affects monitoring protocols and
user-specific monitoring routines.” Ans. 7. The Examiner also asserts
that “figures 22C–22F of Esposito . . . also show different sensors being
chosen for different users,” so that “once a user is identified, the type of
measurements collected is affected.” Id. Appellant counters that “the
routines available during the setup and calibration protocol as described by
Esposito do not affect what types of measurements are collected after the
user is identified.” Reply Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As the Examiner notes,
Esposito teaches a system in which a “variety of different routines are
available for patients having different conditions, for different device
configurations, sensor types and locations, monitoring protocols, and the
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

12
like.” Esposito ¶ 74. Thus, different patients may be monitored using
different routines, which may use different sensor “types.” Esposito further
teaches that different sensor “types” include “temperature, accelerometers,
heart rate monitors and/or moisture sensors, and the like.” Id. ¶ 48.
Therefore, we find sufficient evidentiary support for the Examiner’s finding
that Esposito’s authentication protocols do affect what types of
measurements are collected from the patient, and thus Esposito teaches
“wherein the second type of biological measurement is selected according to
an identification of the person.”
Claim 20—§ 103—Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, Horseman, and Esposito
Claim 20 depends from claim 18 and additionally recites “wherein the
operations further comprise directing one or more other sensors coupled to
the person to provide other sensor data associated with one or more other
types of biological measurements selected according to an identification of
the person.” Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that
“Horseman teaches monitoring health conditions . . . wherein in response to
detecting a biological condition (i.e., elevated heart rate or abnormal blood
pressure) data from other sensors are assessed in order to confirm other
conditions and a true emergency and avoid false alerts.” Non-Final Act. 11
(citing Horseman, title, abstract, ¶ 341, Fig. 13A). The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with the
Kawano/Matsuzaki/Kateraas combination “in order to confirm a health
condition and avoid false alerts.” Id. at 12. The Examiner further relies on
Esposito’s “user-specific monitoring routines” discussed above with respect
to claim 19. Id. (citing Esposito ¶ 72, Figs. 22C–22F).
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

13
Appellant responds that “Horseman does not teach or suggest
directing other sensor data to be captured based on any condition
whatsoever, but rather relies upon multiple sensor modalities to continuously
capture data so that the continuously-captured data can be used to compare
with one another to determine if the employee is experiencing a serious
medical condition.” Appeal Br. 35–36 (citing Horseman ¶ 341) (emphasis
omitted). Appellant also asserts that “Esposito fails to remedy the
deficiencies of Horseman” because “Esposito does not affect what types of
measurements are collected with respect to the authenticated user.” Id. at 36
(citing Esposito ¶ 72) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that claim 20 does not require the system to
direct one or more sensors to “capture” new data, but only that the sensors
“provide” other sensor data. Ans. 7. The Examiner submits that “Horseman
clearly mentions obtaining ‘other’ sensor data to confirm an abnormal
characteristic is truly abnormal, as opposed to a faulty sensor.” Id. at 7–8.
We agree with the Examiner’s reading of Horseman. Horseman
teaches that when an abnormal characteristic is detected, Horseman’s system
then considers additional sensor data to confirm that an emergency is
actually occurring, as opposed to a faulty sensor. In this way the additional
sensors “provide other” sensor data to the system. We also disagree with
Appellant’s interpretation of Esposito, for the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 19.
Claim 28—§ 103—Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, and Nakata
Claim 28 depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 46 (Claims App.).
Appellant relies on the same arguments made in response to the rejection of
claim 1 to support the patentability of claim 28. Appeal Br. 37. Therefore,
Appeal 2021-000853
Application 14/920,200

14
for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 28 as unpatentable over Kawano, Matsuzaki, Kateraas, and Nakata.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9–13,
17, 18, 21,
22, 24–26
103 Kawano, Matsuzaki,
Kateraas
1–5, 9–13,
17, 18, 21,
22, 24–26

19 103 Kawano, Matsuzaki,
Kateraas, Esposito
19
20 103 Kawano, Matsuzaki,
Kateraas, Horseman,
Esposito
20
28 103 Kawano, Matsuzaki,
Kateraas, Nakata
28
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 9–13,
17–22, 24–
26, 28

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