Ex Parte Leibner-Druska

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2012

10935369 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte THOMAS LEIBNER-DRUSKA
__________

Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to
medical infusion monitoring systems. The Examiner has rejected the claims
as anticipated, obvious and indefinite. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification discloses a system and method that “detects the
connection of an infusion pump to a patient, obtains patient prescriptions
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

2
from another data source, displays those prescriptions for selection by a care
giver, and associates the selected prescription with the pump” (Spec. 5,
¶ 00014).
Claims 1-6, 9-21, and 24-30 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 16 are the
only independent claims and read as follows:
1. A method of associating a name for a medical fluid with an
identification of an infusion pump used to infuse the medical fluid into a
patient, comprising:
identifying an infusion pump as being connected to the patient;
monitoring the infusion pump for an indication by the infusion pump
of the name of the medical fluid for infusion into the patient;
determining if the infusion pump can be updated by uploading the
name for the medical fluid;
uploading, via a computer network, if the infusion pump can be
updated, the name of the medical fluid to the infusion pump;
displaying at least one selectable medical fluid name on a monitor that
is separately located from the infusion pump;
selecting, if the infusion pump cannot be updated, a medical fluid
name displayed on the separate monitor;
associating, if the infusion pump cannot be updated, the selected
medical fluid name with the identification of the infusion pump; and
providing, if the infusion pump cannot be updated, the selected
medical fluid name and the identification of the infusion pump to a patient
data management system (“PDMS”) for display of the selected medical fluid
name and associated identification of the infusion pump on a monitor that is
separately located from the infusion pump.

16. A fluid infusion monitoring system in which a name for a medical
fluid is associated with an identification of an infusion pump used to infuse
the medical fluid into a patient, comprising:
a monitor separately located from the infusion pump; and
a computer in communication with the infusion pump and in
communication with a patient data management system, wherein the
computer is programmed to:
identify an infusion pump as being connected to the patient;
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

3
monitor the infusion pump for an indication by the infusion pump of
the name of the medical fluid for infusion into the patient;
determine if the infusion pump can be updated by uploading the name
for the medical fluid;
display at least one selectable medical fluid name on the separately-
located monitor;
upload, via a computer network, if the infusion pump can be updated,
the name of the medical fluid to the infusion pump
select, if the infusion pump cannot be updated, a medical fluid name
displayed on the separately-located monitor;
associate, if the infusion pump cannot be updated, the selected
medical fluid name with the identification of the infusion pump; and
provide, if the infusion pump cannot be updated, the selected medical
fluid name and the identification of the infusion pump to a patient data
management system (“PDMS”) for display of the selected medical fluid
name and associated identification of the infusion pump on a monitor that is
separately located from the infusion pump.

The claims stand rejected as follows:
• Claims 1-6, 9-21, and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph;
• Claims 1-6, 11-21, 24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view
of Coutré;1 and
• Claims 9, 10, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Coutré and
Karpf.2
I.
The Examiner has rejected claim 1-6, 9-21 and 24-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. The Examiner concludes that it is unclear whether
the phrase “medical fluid name” in claims 1 and 16 refers to the name

1 Coutré et al., US 5,643,212, July 1, 1997.
2 Karpf, US 5,915,240, June 22, 1999.
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

4
corresponding to the updated or non-updated infusion pump (Answer 3).
The Examiner also states that it is unclear, in claims 1 and 16, whether the
phrases “a medical fluid name,” “at least one selectable medical fluid name,”
and “the name for the medical fluid” refer to the same medical fluid name or
different medical fluid names (id.). The Examiner states that “it is not
known if the medical fluid name in each claim limitations refers to the
medical fluid name originally referenced in the preamble, or to different
medical fluid names” (id. at 8).
We will reverse this rejection. Claim 1 recites “displaying at least one
selectable medical fluid name on a monitor that is separately located from
the infusion pump” and claim 16 recites a computer “programmed to …
display at least one selectable medical fluid name on the separately-located
monitor.” Both of these recitations are unconditional and thus refer to both
the situation where the infusion pump can be updated and the situation
where it cannot be updated. Further, the Specification describes displaying a
selectable medical fluid name on a separate monitor both when the infusion
pump can be updated and when it cannot (Spec. 18-20, ¶ 52-54). Thus,
when read in light of the Specification, one of skill in the art would
understand the above-noted recitations of “medical fluid name” in claims 1
and 16 to refer to both situations.
With regard to the second basis of the rejection, the Specification and
claims make clear that the claimed inventions are directed to ensuring the
association of a particular infusion pump with a name of a fluid to be
infused, and thus one of skill in the art would understand that all of the cited
terms refer to the same medical fluid name.
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

5
II.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-6, 11-21, 24 and 26-30 as
anticipated by Coutré. The Examiner has also rejected claims 9, 10 and 25
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of Coutré and Karpf. The same issue is
dispositive for both of these rejections.
The Examiner finds that Coutré discloses an apparatus and method for
monitoring an “infusion pump connected to a patient” (Answer 3). The
Examiner finds that, in the Coutré system, “the name of the medical fluid …
is uploaded by a computer network to the pumping system by way of data
transfer between the bar code scanner and the pump system” (id. at 3-4).
The Examiner finds that Coutré discloses that “if the pump can be updated
by scanning the barcode, the data is transferred to the pump system
normally; if the pump cannot be updated with the scanner (e.g., the data is
unreadable), the user has the option of manual entry through a keypad” (id.
at 4, emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Coutré discloses that the
“manual entry may include the steps of displaying at least one selectable
medical fluid name on a monitor … [and] selecting a medical fluid name
displayed on the monitor” (id.).
Appellant argues, among other things, that Coutré does not disclose
“displaying at least one selectable medical fluid name on a monitor that is
separately located from the infusion pump” (Appeal Br. 11, emphasis
omitted). Appellant argues that the “present application provides for a
solution to overcome display limitations of an infusion pump by using a
separately located display to accomplish the association of a name of a
medical fluid with the infusion pump” (id. at 11-12). Appellant argues that
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

6
Epstein,3 which is cited by Coutré as an exemplary infusion system,
“comprises a front panel display … that is integrated with the housing of the
infusion pump” (Reply Br. 3, emphasis omitted, citing Fig. 3B of Epstein).
The Examiner responds that “[i]n order for the monitor not to be
separately located from the pump, the monitor and the pump would be the
same entity. There is no indication in Coutré that the monitor and the pump
are the same entity, even if the monitor and the pump are both part of the
general pumping system” (Answer 6). The Examiner concludes that “it can
be reasonably inferred that the monitor and the pump are separately located
from one another” (id. at 6-7).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately
explained how Coutré discloses “displaying at least one selectable medical
fluid name on a monitor that is separately located from the infusion pump,”
as recited in claim 1. Coutré discloses “a system for managing the infusion
of one or more drug formulations to a patient” (Coutré, col. 1, ll. 62-65).
Coutré discloses that a pharmacy management system “makes a bar code
readable label which is applied to the outside of the container in which the
infusion solution is placed” (id. at col. 1, l. 66 to col. 2, l. 14). Coutré
discloses that the “infusion pumping system generally is a system similar to
that described in … Epstein, et al.” (id. at col. 9, ll. 3-5). Coutré discloses
that the “user selects the method of inputting the data to the system, either
through the bar codes or manually through a keypad” (id. at col. 9, ll. 18-21).
Coutré discloses that the infusion pumping system includes “a small screen,

3 Epstein et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,696,671 (see Coutré, col. 1, l. 19; col. 9, ll.
3-5).
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

7
generally a liquid crystal display, which prompts the user for the data to be
wanded or entered through the keypad” (id. at col. 9, ll. 58-61). Coutré
discloses that “the system checks all the medications … by displaying the
medications to the user who confirms by depression of an appropriate key on
the keypad.… The user can make any changes to the medications or the
regimen … by manual entry through the keypad” (id. at col. 10, ll. 27-29).
Although Coutré discloses that the medications to be infused are
displayed on a small screen such as a liquid crystal display, Coutré does not
describe this small screen as a monitor that is separately located from the
infusion pump. Rather, Coutré discloses that the pumping system used is
one similar to that described in Epstein, and as noted by Appellant (Reply
Br. 2-3), the infusion pumping system of Epstein contains a display that is
integral with the pumping system. See Epstein, Figs. 3A, 3B. We do not
agree with the Examiner that the claims read on a display and infusion pump
that are part of the same system. The plain meaning of a “monitor that is
separately located from the infusion pump” requires the monitor and
infusion pump to be separate instruments, which can be located in different
(separate) locations.
Thus, the Examiner has not adequately shown that Epstein discloses
“displaying at least one selectable medical fluid name on a monitor that is
separately located from the infusion pump,” as required by claim 1, or
“a monitor separately located from the infusion pump; and a computer …
programmed to … display at least one selectable medical fluid name on the
separately-located monitor,” as required by claim 16. We therefore reverse
Appeal 2011-001516
Application 10/935,369

8
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 16 and dependent claims 2-6, 11-
15, 17-21, 24, and 26-30.
With respect to the rejection of claims 9, 10 and 25, the Examiner
relies on Coutré as discussed above, and relies on Karpf to supply dependent
claim limitations. Thus, we also reverse this rejection.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-6, 9-21 and 24-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We also reverse the rejection of claims 1-6,
11-21, 24 and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the rejection of claims 9,
10 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

REVERSED

lp