Hill-Rom Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2020

13772739 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2020)

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.
13/772,739 02/21/2013 Keith A. Huster 7175-234564 4208
69781 7590 04/06/2020
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
TUN, NAY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2020 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 KEITH A. HUSTER
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 We refer to the Specification, filed February 21, 2013 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed December 19, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief,
filed April 23, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
September 18, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed November 19, 2018
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 7–8, and 31–42. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a patient care system integrated into an
occupant support (e.g., a bed) and occupant wearable item (e.g., a gown).
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized
in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A patient care system comprising:
a first electromagnetic coupler associated with a specific
patient;
at least one patient-centric appliance in communication
with the first electromagnetic coupler;
a patient wearable garment which hosts the patient-centric
appliance and the first coupler; and
an occupant support for supporting the patient, the
occupant support having a second electromagnetic coupler
associated therewith, at least one of the electromagnetic couplers
being connectable to an electrical energy source for energizing
the respective electromagnetic coupler, the first and second
electromagnetic couplers forming a noncontact electromagnetic
coupling;
wherein only the second electromagnetic coupler is
connectable to the electrical energy source and the
electromagnetic coupling conveys noninformational electrical
energy from the occupant support to the first electromagnetic

2 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 Hill-Rom Services,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
3
coupler and the noninformational electrical energy operates the
at least one patient-centric appliance,
wherein the patient-centric appliance includes a
physiological sensor, and
wherein the patient-centric appliance is operable to
receive patient specific information from a patient record in a
patient nonspecific database that is remote from the patient-
centric appliance and to display the patient specific information
received from the patient nonspecific database, the displayed
information including a risk factor associated with the specific
patient.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Klefstad-Sillonville
Kurzweil
Warner
Durand
Carter
Derchak
Hausdorff
Siebers
US 2005/0034485 A1
US 2006/0025696 A1
US 2008/0147442 A1
US 2009/0048556 A1
US 2011/0025817 A1
US 2011/0105861 A1
US 2012/0101411 A1
US 2013/0127620 A1
Feb. 17, 2005
Feb. 2, 2006
June 19, 2008
Feb. 19, 2009
Feb. 3, 2011
May 5, 2011
Apr. 26, 2012
May 23, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 42 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, and Siebers.
Final Act. 2–6.
Claim 2 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, Siebers, and Durand.
Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
4
Claims 7, 8, 40, and 41 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, Siebers,
and Warner. Final Act. 8–10.
Claims 31, 32, 35, 36, and 38 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, Siebers,
and Carter. Final Act. 10–12.
Claims 33 and 37 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, Siebers, Carter, and
Derchak. Final Act. 13–14.
Claim 34 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, Siebers, and Derchak.
Final Act. 14.
Claim 39 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klefstad-Sillonville, Hausdorff, Siebers, and Kurzweil.
Final Act. 15–6.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

DETERMINATIONS AND ARGUMENTS
The Examiner finds that Klefstad-Sillonville discloses all except the
disputed limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 2–4. To address the noted
deficiency, the Examiner finds that Hausdorff’s automated near-fall detector,
including fall detector 20 worn by a monitored person 22 and in wireless
communication with remote processor 34, teaches or suggests the
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
5
requirement for a patient-centric appliance operable to receive patient
specific information from a nonspecific database that is remote from the
patient-centric appliance. Final Act. 4–5. According to the Examiner,
control data sent by remote processor 34 to fall detector 20 is patient specific
information. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds that Hausdorff’s provision of a
visually displayed message to a monitored person indicating detection of a
fall or near fall condition teaches or suggests the claimed display of patient
specific information received from the patient nonspecific database, i.e., the
displayed information. Id. Finding that the combination of Klefstad-
Sillonville and Hausdorff nonetheless fails to disclose that the patient
specific information is from a patient record, the Examiner applies Siebers’
system for management of a patient fall risk, wherein information flagging a
patient as a fall risk is stored in association with the patient’s electronic
medical record (EMR), for teaching or suggesting the corresponding
deficiency. Id. at 6.
Among other contentions of error, Appellant argues as follows:
Hausdorff’s teaching of emitting an audible beep or providing a
visual message asking if the patient is “ok” is not the equivalent
of receiving patient specific information from a patient
nonspecific database. Nothing in Hausdorff suggest[s] that any
patient specific stored data is received, e.g. data from a patient
record, as recited in claim 1. Rather, the system of Hausdorff
merely responds to a near fall situation and sends a generic alert
to the patient. The patient-centric device of Hausdorff does not
receive patient specific information from a patient record in a
patient nonspecific database. As such, the combination of
Klefstad and Hausdorff does not teach receiving patient specific
information from a patient record in a patient nonspecific
database.
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
6
Appeal Br. 7. In connection with information that is stored in a patent’s
EMR, Appellant argues as follows:
The only patient specific information that Siebers describes as
being stored in the EMR is that the patient is a fall risk. Notably,
this information is never displayed on a patient-centric appliance.
Rather, Siebers responds to inputs from sensors to notify the
patient that they are “currently at risk for falling.” Being
currently at risk for falling is a time sensitive alert that is not
stored in the patient’s EMR. The fact that the patient is a fall risk
may be stored in the patient EMR; however, this fact about the
patient is not displayed on any device. Rather, the patient is only
notified once it is determined that they are “currently” at risk for
falling based solely on the fall risk sensors.
Id. at 9.
The Examiner responds, explaining that the near fall alert originating
from Hausdorff’s processor 34 (i.e., a patient record) and displayed on
display 46 of fall detector 20 is specific to a patient thereby teaching or
suggesting the disputed patient specific information. Ans. 9. The Examiner
further explains, as follows:
It should be noted that . . . claim 1 recites “patient specific
information from a patient record.” The claim does not require
the information to be “stored” as part of the patient record. It
only requires the patient record is the starting point of patient
specific information i.e. “from the patient record.” Siebers
teaches in Fig. 24, step 2408 initiating alerts for patient at risk
for falling. Such alert information originates from step 2402
where patient’s record is accessed and an indication that the
patient has been classified as a fall risk is identified (Para
[0218]: to determine if the patient has previously been classified
as a fall risk, the patient’s EMR is accessed and an indication
that the patient has been classified as a fall risk is identified.
The classification of the patient as being a fall risk may
automatically initiate monitoring the patient using, for example,
fall risk sensors). Therefore, the fall risk alert is NOT wholly
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
7
dependent on sensors input as argued. It originates from the
patients record’s classification. Therefore, it is “from a patient
record” as recited by claim 1.
Ans. 9–10.
Appellant replies, emphasizing that Siebers’ alert message is
generated in response to the detection of a fall condition for those patients
classified as fall risks according to their EMRs (i.e., patient record) but that
only the resultant alert is displayed, not information contained in (i.e.,
“from”) the patient record. Reply Br. 2–3.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with Appellant in
interpreting the phrase specific information from a patient record to mean
information contained in a patient record. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3, 5–
6. It is not sufficient for the information stored or contained in the patient
record to be the starting point for displaying different patient specific
information if that different patient specific information is not from (i.e.,
contained in) a patient record in a patient nonspecific database. Because
Siebers discloses the display of information resulting from, but not contained
in (i.e., from), a patient record, it fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of a patient-centric appliance operable to receive patient specific
information from a patient record.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or the
rejections of claims 2, 3, 7–8, and 31–42 that depend from claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 7–8 and 31–42.
Appeal 2019-000968
Application 13/772,739
8
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 42 103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers
1, 3, 42
2 103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers, Durand
2
7, 8, 40, 41 103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers, Warner
7, 8, 40,
41
31, 32, 35,
36, 38
103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers, Carter
31, 32, 35,
36, 38
33, 37 103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers, Carter,
Derchak
33, 37
34 103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers,
Derchak
34
39 103 Klefstad-Sillonville,
Hausdorff, Siebers,
Kurzweil
39
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 7, 8,
31–42

REVERSED