Ex Parte Hasan et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 17, 201914954154 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/954,154 11/30/2015 6147 7590 04/19/2019 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GLOBAL RESEARCH 1 RESEARCH CIRCLE Kl - 3A59 Niskayuna, NY 12309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR SM Shajedul Hasan 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 279906-1 1791 EXAMINER WENDELL, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2019 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): GRCLegal.mail@ge.com preisman@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SM SHAJEDUL HASAN, STEVEN WILLIAM WIK, DAVID MICHAEL DAVENPORT, AGHOGHO ATEMU OBI, and STANISLA VA SORO Appeal 2018-007349 1 Application 14/954, 154 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of all pending claims 1-7, 10-20, and 22-25, all pending claims of the application.2 Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. 1 Appellants assert the real party in interest is General Electric Company. Appeal Brief 3. 2 Hereinafter in this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed March 12, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 9, 2018), the Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates generally to network data transfer for monitored data for a mobile patient. Spec. ,i 1. According to Appellants, when monitoring patient data in a medical facility, transferring that data to monitoring systems via hard-wired connections limits mobility of the patient in the facility. Id. ,i 2. Appellants further contend that even wireless connections limit patient mobility because there are no systems to easily transfer user data within the network as a patient is moved within the facility. Id. According to Appellants, "lack of continuity when disconnecting and reconnecting the patient from stations/hubs presents additional problems" in which other devices may interfere with the accurate wireless transmission of data. Id. ,i 3. Appellants purport to resolve these issues by providing a system comprising a plurality of hubs, each hub comprising a Medical Body Area Network ("MBAN") interface and a "short range" interface. Id. ,i 7. The MBAN interface couples the hub with one or more sensors collecting patient medical data. Id. The short range interface couples the hub with another hub to transfer collected patient data to the other hub through its short range interface. Id. In an embodiment, the short range interface may be a Near- Field Communication ("NFC") interface. Id. ,i 9. Figure 1 of the application is reproduced below. Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 8, 2018), the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed January 5, 2018), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed October 16, 2017), and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed November 30, 2015). 2 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 (tl} Pa.tient prepped for ti:anspnrt {c} :ra:f.i1111t is mobik 116 104 MBAN 100 \..,_ Fig.1 \ViFi or W!).·ITS/Cdfol.ar ··.·.· .. -..... ·.·F** 113 Figure 1, reproduced above, depicts an embodiment of a system in accord with the invention. In Figure la, sensors 102 are connected to patient 100 in a room and send monitored patient data wirelessly through MBAN 104 to monitoring device 106. Id. ,-i 19. Monitoring device 106 is coupled with nursing station 108 via wireless ("Wi-Fi") or wired network 107. In Figure 1 b, the patient is being prepared to move to another location and ambulatory hub 110 is brought near device 106 to receive patient data via 3 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 MBAN 104 and NFC 112 while the patient is moving to a new location. Id. ,-J 22. In Figure le, the patient has been moved to a new location (e.g., into a wheelchair) and MBAN 104 is now connected to hub 110. Hub 110 may continue to transfer monitored patient data to the same or another nursing station 108 via network 120. Id. ,-i,-i 23, 24. Independent apparatus claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A system for managing transfer of data in a medical body area network (MBAN) to wirelessly mobilize a patient compnsmg: one or more sensors collecting data and configured to interconnect with a patient in a medical body area network (MBAN), each sensor comprising a sensor node having a unique identifier and a corresponding network address; a plurality of hubs, including at least a first hub and at least a second hub, each hub having a dual communication interface including an MBAN interface and a short range interface including a near field communication (NFC) interface; each hub comprising a wireless transceiver and a processor which manages a time divided protocol comprising: one or more data slots to monitor a plurality of medical devices, and one or more control slots designated to manage transfer of the MBAN within the time divided protocol from the first hub to the second hub, the control slots including a transmit node and a receive node; wherein the first hub transmits a packet of data and the second hub receives a packet of data within the control slots when the second hub detects a NFC tag unique identifier (UID) of the first hub. App. Br. 15. Independent claim 13 includes similar recitations in the style of a method claim. 4 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 10-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0215925 Al, published July 30, 2015) ("Wang"), Madrid et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2010/0211336 Al, published Aug. 19, 2010) ("Madrid"), and Baker (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0343967 Al, published Nov. 20, 2014). Final Act. 2-7. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang, Madrid, Baker, and Comdorf (US Patent Publication No. 2008/0044025 Al, published Feb. 21, 2008). Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 1-8. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Claims 1 and 13 Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the Examiner finds Wang teaches most elements but relies on Madrid in the proposed combination for disclosing managing "a time divided protocol" and relies on Baker for 5 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 disclosing "a short range interface including a near field communication (NFC) interface." Final Act. 2-4. The Examiner articulates reasons an ordinarily skilled artisan, at the time of the invention, would have combined the references. Id. at 3-4. Appellants argue Wang teaches away from the claimed invention requiring a hub including both an MBAN interface and a short range interface. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue Wang expressly teaches a hub includes an MBAN interface and a long range interface, thus, expressly teaching away from the requirement of a short range interface. Id. ( citing Wang ,-J 28). Therefore, Appellants contend the ordinarily skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Wang to use a short range interface as taught in Baker. Id. at 13. A prior art reference does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior art reference criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. The degree of teaching away will of course depend on the particular facts; in general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference's disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the applicant. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Wang discredits the use of a short range interface 6 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 in view of its reference to a long range network interface. First, Wang merely discloses that its network interface "is typically long-range compared to the MBAN 22." Wang ,-J 28. Second, Wang expressly identifies "Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or 3G/4G cellular network" as examples of the typical long range network interface. Each of those exemplary interfaces, though capable of interacting over long distances, are just as capable of operating over shorter distances. Nothing in these recitations precludes or discredits the use of a short range network interface including an NFC interface. Appellants further argue that modifying Wang to use NFC as taught in Baker would render Wang inoperable because "the other communication device of Wang does not transmit a[ n] NFC tag unique identifier for the other communication device to able to detect, and vice versa." App. Br. 13. We remain unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants' argument is circular, in essence asserting that changing Wang's second interface to an NFC interface would render it inoperable because it does not use an NFC interface. Wang discloses its second interface could be any of a variety of interfaces-e.g., Ethernet, Wi-Fi, cellular. Clearly, whatever interface is employed within Wang's hub would be compatible with another device or network with which it would communicate. If Wang were modified to use NFC as taught by Baker, an ordinarily skilled artisan would clearly have understood that it would be used with a compatible device or network. Furthermore, "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. . . . Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to 7 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 those having ordinary skill in the art." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332- 33 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference" ( citation omitted)), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 292 (2016). The proposed combination of references teaches or suggests that the second interface of Wang's hub could be an NFC interface as taught by Baker. We have reviewed Appellants' further arguments in the Reply Brief but, for essentially the same reasons, we remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For essentially the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 13. Claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24 each depend, directly or indirectly from one of claims 1 and 13. Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24. See App. Br. 11-13. Thus, for the same reasons as claims 1 and 13, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 10-12, 14-20, and 22-24. Claim 25 Claim 25 depends from claim 13, and Appellants do not argue the rejection of claim 25. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 13, we sustain the rejection of claim 25. 8 Appeal 2018-007349 Application 14/954, 154 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting all pending claims 1-7, 10-20, and 22-25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation