TRUMPF MEDIZIN SYSTEME GMBH + CO. KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2021

2020001545 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
15/322,322 12/27/2016 Rudolf MARKA 7175-261275 5651
69781 7590 05/13/2021
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2021 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):
indocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUDOLF MARKA, SERHAN ZHAN, and GEL HAN
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
Technology Center 2400

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–34, which are all of the pending
claims. See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 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 Trumpf Medizin
Systeme Gmbh + Co. KG. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes a “medical apparatus control
system and a method for operating the medical apparatus control system, in
particular to a system and a method enabling a simplified release of an
operating function.” Spec. 1:5–8. Appellant’s Specification notes that
medical apparatuses have typically been controlled by control panels
attached to the apparatus, or by a specifically assigned remote control. Id. at
1:10–14. Appellant’s Specification acknowledges that “mobile control units
for the operation of several medical apparatuses are increasingly used,” but
states that it may be important to allow only specific persons to be
authorized for operation of such apparatus. Id. at 1:15–19. Appellant’s
Specification purports to describe a medical apparatus control system
enabling a simplified login procedure to release control of the medical
apparatus to specifically authorized persons. Id. at 2:1–3.
Claims 16 and 22 are independent. Claim 16, reproduced below (with
formatting added), is representative of the claimed subject matter:
16. A medical apparatus control system, comprising
at least one mobile control unit, for at least one medical
apparatus, with at least one radio receiving module for detecting
and forwarding radio signals,
a control device connected to the mobile control unit, and
at least one separate identification tag having a mobile
radio transmitting module enabled to communicate with the
radio receiving module,
wherein the at least one radio transmitting module is
configured to send an identification feature to the radio
receiving module, and the control device is configured to
compare the identification feature with the stored identification
features, and to release an operating function of the mobile
control unit after a positive result of comparison.
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Miller2 US 2015/0223891 A1 Aug. 13, 2015
Lee US 2012/0204258 A1 Aug. 9, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 16–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 as obvious over
Miller in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 2–
10.
OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments and contentions (Appeal
Br. 3–11; Reply Br. 2–6) in light of the Examiner’s findings and
explanations (Final Act. 2–10; Ans. 3–13). For the reasons set forth below,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejections of the pending
claims, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
A. Claims 16–20
The Examiner finds Miller teaches or suggests the limitations of
independent claim 16. Final Act. 5; Ans. 8. In particular, the Examiner
finds Miller discloses a smart medical cart with a computing device that can
communicate wirelessly with peripherals such as medical equipment (Miller
¶¶ 133, 184), wherein the computing device can authenticate a user wearing,
e.g., a badge with a radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tag (id. ¶ 461)
by collecting ID from the user via the RFID tag and sending that information

2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor.
3 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States
Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act of 2011.
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
4
to a server (id. ¶¶ 446, 500, 509), whereby if the user’s ID information
matches to within a predefined threshold level, the computing device on the
cart provides access to the user to the computing device or the medical
devices (id. ¶¶ 446, 500). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner maps the claimed medical apparatus control system to
Miller’s smart medical cart 100 (Fig. 1, Miller ¶ 125); the claimed mobile
control unit to, e.g., Miller’s computing device that is part of the smart
medical cart (id. at Fig. 3b, ¶ 133), which includes a radio receiving module
for detecting and forwarding radio signals, including identification (id.
¶ 133: “the computing device can communicate with peripherals, such as
medical equipment, . . . wirelessly”; id. ¶ 509 (describing that the computing
device may collect authentication information from a user via a radio
frequency identification device (RFID)); id. ¶ 500 (the computing device
communicates with a server and sends ID collected from a user to be
compared with ID information located on the server)); and maps the claimed
control device to a server, wherein the control device is configured to
compare received user identification with stored identification and to release
an operating function of the mobile control unit after a positive result (id.
¶ 500 (describing the server matching user ID with stored information and, if
a match is with a predefined threshold level, the computing device can then
provide access to the medical cart user)). See Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings are in error because the
Examiner also invokes AAPA in addition to Miller for finding a teaching of
a mobile control unit for operation of medical apparatus. Appeal Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2–3; see Final Act. 2 (citing as AAPA the following statement in
the Specification at 1:16–19: “Recently, mobile control units for the
operation of several medical apparatuses are increasingly used.”). Appellant
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
5
argues this statement is not AAPA because it does not establish Appellant’s
admission of use by others. Appeal Br. 4; Reply Br. 3.
We need not address this argument because the Examiner’s rejection
is sufficiently supported by the Examiner’s findings that Miller itself
discloses a mobile control unit for operation of medical apparatus. See Final
Act. 2 (citing Miller ¶ 488, disclosing that the smart medical cart can control
other medical devices, and also that a user’s smartphone can control the
smart medical cart). For the same reason, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner improperly introduces
secondary references (Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 3–4), as the Examiner cites
such references only to bolster the statement that using a mobile control
device in the operation of a medical device is well-known in the art (see
Ans. 6–7). We conclude such bolstering is superfluous in light of the
Examiner’s findings regarding Miller’s teaching the same subject matter.
See Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 8–9.
Appellant also argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because
Miller lacks teaching of “at least one mobile control unit . . . with at least
one radio receiving module for detecting and forwarding radio signals.”
Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4–5. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Miller discloses a smart cart including a computing device that can
authenticate a user by receiving and forwarding user identification from an
RFID badge. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Miller ¶ 446: “Miller discloses
authentication may be performed based on information provided by the user
in different forms and verify at the remote server or the computing device
operating on the smart medical car[t]”; Miller ¶ 461: Miller discloses “the
authentication can be determined based on detecting using RFID badge”).
As Appellant’s Specification acknowledges, RFID modules communicate
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
6
information via radio signals. See Spec. 4:4–8 (describing RFID module as
a “radio transmitting module”). The Examiner’s findings are also supported
by related disclosures of Miller, including that the computing device on the
smart medical cart may be “a touch screen computing device, or a tablet.”
Miller ¶ 130. Appellant’s Specification similarly discloses the claimed
“mobile control unit” may be a “tablet PC.” Spec. 2:18–20.
Appellant’s criticism of the Examiner’s reliance on Miller’s teaching
a smartphone that may control the smart medical cart (Final Act. 2–3) is
unavailing of Examiner error. See Appeal Br. 7. As noted above, the
Examiner also cites to Miller’s teachings wherein the computing device on
the smart cart receives user ID information wirelessly via RFID signals and
transmits that information to a server for authentication. Final Act. 5 (citing
Miller ¶¶ 133, 184, 446, 461, 488, 500, 509). These findings support the
Examiner’s rejection.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
obviousness rejection of claim 16, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection,
along with the rejection of claims 17–20 rejected on the same basis and not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
B. Claim 21
Claim 21 depends from claim 16, and adds “wherein the radio
receiving module is adapted such that it detects a signal strength of the radio
signal, and that it comprises a threshold for the signal strength, wherein only
radio signals, the signal strength of which is above the threshold, are
forwarded.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Miller discloses the subject matter of this claim
by disclosing the smart medical cart includes a security access system in
which a user may be authenticated using, for example, an RFID card.
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
7
Final Act. 6 (citing Miller ¶ 451). In connection with claim 16, from which
claim 21 depends, the Examiner also cites to paragraph 461 of Miller, which
discloses “the security access system can determine when an individual
attempts to control or access the smart medical cart based on the proximity
of the individual to the smart medical cart.” Final Act. 5.
One mechanism disclosed by Miller for determining whether an
individual is proximate to the smart cart is an RFID badge. Miller ¶ 461.
Thus, by disclosing detecting an individual’s presence based on an RFID
badge, which transmits user ID information via radio signals, Miller teaches
or suggests a threshold for the signal strength of the radio signal. Miller
makes this teaching more explicit by disclosing that the presence detection
functionality may depend on whether an individual is “within a selected
proximity of the smart medical cart.” Id. ¶ 462. In the case of detection of
an RFID badge, such determination would be made on the basis of the
strength of the radio signal from the RFID badge. See id. ¶ 461. Miller
further discloses that if the proximity threshold (and hence the radio signal
threshold) is met, the ID of the individual would be determined to determine
the access level of the individual. Id. ¶ 462. As noted above, user ID
matching and access is performed in Miller at the server level, meaning the
radio signal from the RFID badge containing the user’s ID is detected and
forwarded to the server for authentication.
Thus, Appellant’s contention that “Miller wholly fails to disclose any
such radio strength detection” (Appeal Br. 8) is contradicted by Miller, as
discussed above. We, therefore, are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 21.
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
8
C. Claims 22–27
Although Appellant purports to argue claims 22–27 separately,
Appellant’s arguments for these claims consist of either referring to the
arguments presented for independent claim 16, or a terse recitation that
Miller does not teach the limitations of claim 22 (from which claims 23–27
depend). Appeal Br. 8–9. Such conclusory attorney assertions are not
persuasive of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Moreover, we determine the Examiner’s findings regarding claim 22
are supported by the cited teachings of Miller, for the same reasons we
express above regarding claim 16. See Final Act. 5 (citing Miller ¶¶ 133,
184, 446, 461, 488, 500, 509); Ans. 9 (citing Miller Figs. 68–70, ¶¶ 133,
326, 500, 509).
We, therefore, are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of
claims 22–27, and we sustain that rejection.
D. Claims 28–30
Claim 28 depends from claim 22, and additionally recites
wherein, if signals having the respective identification features
of several radio transmitting modules are received by the radio
receiving module, prompts corresponding to the identification
features of all of the signals are output on the mobile control
unit, and the operating function of the mobile control unit is
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
9
released if any[ ]one of the prompts is selected and the
respective passcode is input.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds Miller teaches or suggests the subject matter of
this limitation by relying on Miller’s disclosure that the medical cart can use
a double layer of authentication, in which the medical cart user may log in to
the computing device using at least one non-biometric ID measurement, and
then the user may be re-authenticated using a biometric ID measurement
(such as facial recognition). Ans. 10 (citing Miller ¶¶ 459, 503). As
discussed above, one non-biometric means of authentication is an RFID
badge. See Miller ¶ 461. Thus, Miller discloses sending user ID
information via RFID, and then re-authenticating the user in a second step
by requiring a biometric ID measurement, such as facial recognition, which
teaches a passcode. See id.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because the
particular paragraphs of Miller cited by the Examiner for claim 28
(paragraphs 459 and 503) “fail[] to discuss any radio signals.” Appeal
Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it fails to
address the rejection in its entirety. The Examiner also cites, in connection
with the rejection of the base claim 16, Miller’s disclosure of using an RFID
badge to send radio signals containing a user’s ID, which signals are
detected by the computing unit of Miller’s smart medical cart, and further
that such signals are forwarded to a server for authenticating the user.
See Final Act. 5 (citing Miller ¶¶ 133, 184, 446, 461, 488, 500, 509);
Ans. 11 (noting that “Miller mentions using radio communication for
authentication throughout the reference,” citing Miller ¶¶ 133, 326, 337,
473, 509).
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
10
In paragraph 509, in particular, Miller discloses a security access
module as part of the smart medical cart that collects authentication
measurement of a user “using a radio frequency identification (RFID)
device.” Again, as acknowledged in Appellant’s Specification, an RFID
module transmits radio signals. Spec. 4:4–8.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 28, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection.
E. Claims 31–34
Claims 31 and 33 depend, indirectly, from claim 22, and each recites
“the threshold is adjusted such that only the respective prompts of radio
transmitting modules located within a predefined distance from the mobile
control unit are shown.” Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
The Examiner relies on Miller’s disclosure of use of an RFID badge
as a means of identifying a user of Miller’s smart medical cart. Final Act.
12–13 (citing Miller ¶ 451). Relatedly, Miller discloses that use of an RFID
card will allow the smart medical cart to determine whether a user is
attempting to control the smart medical cart based on whether the user is
within a selected proximity of the cart. Miller ¶¶ 461–462.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because “¶ 0451
of Miller . . . fails to discuss any radio signals or any limiting of prompts
based on a distance from a control unit.” Appeal Br. 10. We disagree.
Miller’s disclosure of a user gaining access to the smart medical cart via an
RFID badge discloses radio signals, because, as Appellant’s Specification
acknowledges, an RFID device transmits information via radio signals.
See Spec. 4:4–8. In addition, paragraph 451 of Miller discloses that users
may initially identify themselves using the RFID badge, at which point they
may be prompted to further authenticate themselves biometrically. Miller
Appeal 2020-001545
Application 15/322,322
11
¶ 451. Because Miller describes that the biometric authentication follows an
initial RFID identification, which Miller discloses may require a certain
physical proximity of the user to the cart (see id. ¶ 461), Miller teaches that
only users within a predefined proximity to the cart (e.g., sufficient for their
RFID badge to be read) would be prompted by the cart to further
authenticate using biometrics (that is, prompts would be shown only for
those users, as recited). See id. ¶ 451.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claims 31 or 33, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection,
along with the rejection of claims 32 and 34 argued collectively. See Appeal
Br. 10–11.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16–34 is sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–34 103 Miller, AAPA 16–34
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