Ex Parte WangDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 20, 201914371461 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/371,461 07/10/2014 Jyh-Yun John Wang 24737 7590 03/22/2019 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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. 2012P00182WOUS 2711 EXAMINER EV ANISKO, GEORGE ROBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2019 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JYH-YUN JOHN WANG 1 Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/371,461 Technology Center 3700 Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DANIELS. SONG, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SONG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 10, 12, 14--20, and 22-25 in the present application. App. Br. 31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We REVERSE. 1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., which is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") 1. Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/3 71,461 Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, and reads as follows: 1. An electronic patient monitoring device comprising: an electrocardiograph system configured to acquire electrocardiographic data for a set of electrocardiograph leads; a display device; an electronic data processing device configured to: compute ST values from the electrocardiographic data; generate and display, on the display device, an ST Map plotting the ST values; superimpose, on the ST Map displayed on the display device, a rendering of an ischemia criteria area representing an ischemia criteria, wherein the ischemia criteria includes thresholds for leads of the set of electrocardiographic leads and the ischemia criteria area is bounded by the thresholds and extends radially outward from the thresholds; determine whether ST values of the ST Map satisfy the ischemia criteria; and conditional on the ST values of the ST Map satisfying the ischemia criteria, compute an overlap between (1) an ST area delineated by the ST values of the ST Map and (2) the ischemia criteria area and highlight the overlap on the ST Map displayed on the display device. App. Br. 32 (Claims App'x, emphasis added). Independent claims 12 and 20 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 emphasized above. App. Br. 34, 36 (Claims App'x). 2 Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/3 71,461 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Nelwan et al. (WO 2010/099386 Al, pub. Sept. 2, 2010 ("Nelwan")). Final Act. 2. 2 2. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nelwan. Final Act. 3. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nelwan. Final Act. 3. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17-20, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lindauer et al. (US 2012/0323133 Al, pub. Dec. 20, 2012 ("Lindauer")) in view ofNelwan. Final Act. 4. 3 5. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 14--16, 22, and 23, under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lindauer in view of Nelwan. Final Act. 5. ANALYSIS Rejection 1 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 24, and 25 as anticipated, finding that Nelwan discloses the recited ST maps "with a 2 The Examiner includes claim 2 in the listing of claims rejected, but its inclusion appears to be in error. See Final Act. (Office Action Summary (omitting claim 2)); App. Br. 8 (omitting claim 2); id. at 32 (Claims App'x (omitting claim 2)). 3 The Examiner includes claim 2 in the listing of claims rejected, but its inclusion appears to be in error. See Final Act. (Office Action Summary (omitting claim 2)); App. Br. 21 (omitting claim 2); id. at 32 (Claims App'x (omitting claim 2)). 3 Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/3 71,461 superimposed ischemia criteria ... where the ST map overlap that is above the 'O' ischemia criteria area is highlighted ... and therefore since the overlap has been highlighted, Nelwan has determined whether ST values have satisfied the ischemia criteria." Final Act. 2 ( citing Nelwan ,r,r 28, 29; Figs. 5-7); see also Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds "Nelwan discloses the processor performs these functions" of computing an overlap between the ST area and the ischemia criteria area, and highlighting the overlap on the ST map. Ans. 2 (citing Nelwan ,r,r 8, 37; Figs. 5, 7). The Appellant disagrees with respect to claim 1, and argues inter alia, that "identification of ST values that satisfy the ischemia criteria is not done in Nelwan by any electronic processing device; rather, the clinician is still the one required to recognize this - the circularization of the zero value in the modified ST map ofNelwan is taught to assist the clinician in making this recognition." App. Br. 9; id. at 11. The Appellant also argues that in contrast to the claimed invention, Nelwan "highlights changes in the patient's ST measurements on this modified ST map." App. Br. 9 (citing Nelwan ,r 35; Fig. 5). We agree with the Appellant. Nelwan does not disclose an electronic processing device identifying ST values that satisfy the ischemia criteria. Instead, as the Appellant points out, "Nelwan modifies the conventional ST map by placing the locus of the zero value of the ST segment deviation at a fixed non-zero circular radius that is twice as large as the expected maximum ST segment deviation," so that "[t]he clinician can then recognize positive ST segment deviation as lying outside of the symmetric 'O' circle, and negative ST segment deviation as lying inside the symmetric 'O' circle." App. Br. 8 ( citing Nelwan ,r,r 28, 29; Fig. 3). 4 Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/3 71,461 The Appellant is also correct that Nelwan does not disclose computing an overlap between the ST values of the ST Map and the ischemia criteria area, and does not disclose highlighting this overlap on the ST Map. App. Br. 10. While the Examiner relies on Figure 5 ofNelwan as disclosing such a feature (Ans. 2), Nelwan is clear that the highlighted portions on the modified ST map represent changes in the patient's ST measurements. Nelwan ,r 35; Fig. 5. Therefore, because the Examiner's anticipation rejection is premised on erroneous findings with respect to Nelwan, we reverse the rejection of claim 1. The remaining disagreements between the Examiner and the Appellant, including whether Nelwan discloses an ischemia criteria having a threshold, are moot. See App. Br. 1 O; Ans. 3. The Appellant relies on substantively the same arguments for patentability of independent claims 12 and 20 (App. Br. 12-15, 16-20), and on dependency for the patentability of the remaining dependent claims subject to Rejection 1 (App. Br. 12, 16, 20). Accordingly, the anticipation rejection of these claims are also reversed. Rejection 2 The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 22, determining that although Nelwan does not disclose "particular highlighting and colors" or "different color/shading/crosshatching" of ST area and ischemia criteria area, it nonetheless would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system ofNelwan to provide such differentiation. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner's obviousness rejection does not address the deficiencies ofNelwan discussed above relative to Rejection 1. Therefore, we also reverse this rejection. 5 Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/3 71,461 Rejection 3 The Examiner rejects claims 7, 8, and 17, determining that although Nelwan does not disclose use of STEMI criteria or gender appropriate ischemia, it nonetheless would have been obvious "to have modified the system and method as taught by Nelwan, with the ischemia criteria using STEMI criteria, or gender appropriate ischemia." Final Act. 3--4. However, this obviousness rejection also does not address the above-noted deficiencies ofNelwan. Therefore, we reverse this rejection as well. Rejection 4 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17-20, 24, and 25 as obvious, finding that Lindauer discloses the recited ST maps "with a superimposed ischemia criteria with area," wherein "highlighting by coloring can be done when the ST area goes over ischemic threshold areas." Final Act. 4 (citing Lindauer,r,r 4, 5, 50, 58; claim 1; Figs. 12-16). The Examiner concedes that "Lindauer does not disclose exactly that his system and method determines when the ST values satisfy the superimposed ischemia criteria area so as to highlight the overlap," and "does not state that the ischemic threshold area is superimposed on the map so that the overlap can be determined to be highlighted." Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Nelwan to remedy the deficiency of Lindauer, finding that Nelwan discloses highlighting the area of the overlap and/or superimposing the ischemic criteria/thresholds on the map so the overlap can be highlighted, and concluding that it would have been obvious to have modified the system and method as taught by Lindauer in the manner suggested by Nelwan. Final Act. 4--5. 6 Appeal2018-002802 Application 14/3 71,461 Similar to the arguments directed to Nelwan, the Appellant argues as to claim 1 that Lindauer, inter alia, does not disclose computing an overlap between the ST Map and an ischemia criteria, or highlighting the overlap. App. Br. 22-23. The Examiner responds that this argument "is not persuasive as the examiner recognized this and made a 103 rejection in view of Nelwan." Ans. 8. However, as discussed above relative to Rejection 1, Nelwan fails to disclose these limitations, and accordingly, as argued by the Appellant (App. Br. 22), Nelwan does not remedy these deficiencies of Lindauer. Therefore, because this rejection is premised on an erroneous fact finding with respect to Nelwan, we reverse Rejection 4. Rejection 5 The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 14--16, 22, and 23, determining that although the combination of Lindauer and Nelwan does not disclose computing and highlighting the overlap in a "different color/shading/crosshatching," it nonetheless would have been obvious to have modified the system and method of Lindauer to do so. Final Act. 5---6. However, the Examiner's obviousness rejection does not address the above deficiencies ofNelwan. Therefore, we also reverse this rejection. CONCLUSION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--8, 10, 12, 14--20, and 22-25 are REVERSED. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation