CAREFUSION 303, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

13802446 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
13/802,446 03/13/2013 Timothy W. Vanderveen 122295-6151 6136
80236 7590 03/30/2020
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (OC)(BD)
600 Anton Boulevard
Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
EXAMINER
PAULSON, SHEETAL R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
ocipdocketing@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY W. VANDERVEEN and FEDERICO GARIBALDI
____________

Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 5, 6, 8–10, 14, 16–21, 24–27, and 30–
35, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 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 states the real party in interest is CareFusion
303, Inc. App. Br. 4.
2 Claims 1–4, 7, 11–13, 15, 22, 23, 28, and 29 have been canceled.
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification is directed to implementations of
asynchronous, event-driven systems that broker between multiple
components to provide real-time accounting of revenue that is earned from
travel provided on a travel conveyance. See Spec. ¶ 22.
Exemplary claim 14 under appeal reads as follows;
14. A user device for facilitating an administration of a
medication to a patient by an infusion pump, comprising:
a wireless interface configured to exchange wireless
electrical signals with a patient information device worn
externally by the patient;
a processor configured to determine that the user device
moved within a proximity of the patient based on the
exchanged wireless electrical signals;
a transmitter configured to provide an indication to
control system remote from the user device that the user device
is within the proximity of the patient;
a receiver configured to receive, based on determining
that the user device moved within the proximity of the patient
and providing the indication, alert information related to the
patient from the control system responsive to the provided
indication, the alert information informing that the user device
is located within the proximity of the patient to which a
medication is being administered by the infusion pump and that
the infusion pump is experiencing an error condition;
wherein the processor is configured to (i) determine
whether the alert information indicates that a corrective action
for the infusion pump external to and administering the
medication to the patient is required to prevent an occurrence of
an undesirable action with the infusion pump, and (ii)
reprogram, over the wireless interface, the infusion pump based
at least in part on the alert information, such that operation of
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
3
the infusion pump is changed in response to the
reprogramming; and
a display configured to display an alert notification
comprising at least a portion of the alert information when the
alert information indicates that the corrective action is required,
the alert notification indicating a course of action for
performing the corrective action by modifying operation of the
infusion pump.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 5, 6, 8–10, 14, 16–21, 24–27, and 30–35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See
Final Act. 6–10.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 10–11.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19–21, 24–27, and 30–35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Holland (US 7,398,183 B2;
iss. July 8, 2008). Final Act. 11–16.
Claims 9 and 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holland and Pang (US 2009/0306585 A1; pub. Dec. 10,
2009). Final Act. 17–18.
ANALYSIS
“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the Examiner’s
rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could
have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
4
SECTION 101 REJECTION
The Examiner determines “[t]he claimed invention is directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea) without significantly more.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner specifically
finds the inventions recited in claims 14, 21, 25, and 35 include steps
describing concepts related to “comparing new (user device information
within the proximity of the infusion device) and stored information
(medication administration of the infusion device associated with the user
device) and using rules (does the information correlate or not) to identify
options (displaying alerts regarding the comparison),” which the Examiner
finds to similar to “concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such
as in SmartGene.”3 Final Act. 7. The Examiner also finds the claims “do
not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when
considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount
to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Final Act. 8. According to the
Examiner the recited additional elements include generic components such
as memory and processor, which “are recited at a high level of generality” as
“performing generic computer functions that are well-understood.” Id. The
Examiner further finds “[t]here is no indication that the combination of
elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other
technology” and “[t]heir collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner determined claim
14 does not recite an inventive concept because “[t]he computer architecture

3 SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955
(Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
5
and network cited in specification para. 23–24 is routine and conventional
and merely performing as a conventional medication administration device”
and the “specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible
components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in
purely functional terms.” Final Act. 9–10
Appellant contends the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract
idea. Appeal Br. 9–15. Appellant specifically argues, considering all the
recited features, claim 14 is not directed to a judicial exception because the
Examiner’s characterization of the claim is incomplete considering the step
of “‘determin[ing] that the user device moved within a proximity of the
patient based on the exchanged wireless electrical signals’” and
“‘receiv[ing], based on determining that the user device moved within the
proximity of the patient and providing the indication [that the user device is
within the proximity of the patient]’” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also argues
that, like the claims in SIRF Tech. v. ITC, the recited features of claim 14
and other independent claims are not abstract because they “determine,
based on an exchange of wireless electrical signals between a wireless
interface and a patient information device worn externally by the patient,
when a user device moved within a proximity of the patient” that displays an
alert “on the user device to alert the user that he or she is within the
proximity of a patient to which a medication is being administered by the
infusion pump and that the infusion pump is experiencing an error
condition.” Appeal Br. 13–14.
Legal Principles
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides “[w]hoever invents or
discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
6
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
7
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing]
generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. USPTO, 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under
the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, 2018) (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. (Step 2B.)
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
8
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–56.
Discussion
Abstract Idea
Turning to claim 14, we first note that the claim recites functions that
fall within the process category of § 101. But despite falling within this
statutory category, we must still determine whether the claim is directed to a
judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. To
this end, we determine (1) whether claim 14 recites a judicial exception
(Guidance Step 2A — Prong 1) and, if so, (2) whether the identified judicial
exception is integrated into a practical application (Guidance Step 2A —
Prong 2). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 14 recites a judicial exception.
The recited judicial exception can be categorized as certain methods of
organizing human activity. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.). The recited
functions of exchanging wireless signals, determining that the user device
moved within a proximity, providing indication, and receiving alert
information steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to
controlling the infusion pump for a patient based on the location and data
related to the patient — i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity
directed to the fundamental economic practice of ordering a medical
product, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and, therefore, an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52. Independent claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim
recites a method of organizing human activities, one of the abstract idea
groupings listed in the Guidance.4 See, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing

4 The recited functions of exchanging signals, determining the patient
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
9
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human [activities] such as fundamental
economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk) and commercial
or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors;
business relations) as one of the ‘enumerated groupings of abstract ideas’”).
We also note the recited “exchange wireless electrical signals” and
“display an alert notification” functions of claim 14 merely receive and
present information. Courts have found such data gathering and presenting
steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545
F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski, 561 U.S. 593
(characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).
Integration of the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application
Although claim 14 recites an abstract idea based on these methods of
organizing human activity, we nevertheless must still determine whether the
abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the
claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55. We therefore (1) identify whether there are any
additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those

location, determining a corrective action constitute mental processes or
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion), which people can perform in their minds or
using pen and paper. People can determine the information by, for example,
reading the data and entries. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ((determining that a claim
limitation “is so broadly worded” that the limitation “encompasses literally
any method” for performing the limitation, including “even logical
reasoning that can be performed entirely in the human mind”).
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
10
elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate
the exception into a practical application. See id.
Here, the steps of exchanging wireless electrical signals, providing an
indication to control system, and displaying an alert notification are the only
recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional elements do
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading claim
14 as a whole. We determine that claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. As
discussed below, the additional elements do not improve computer
capabilities or a technical field. Nor do they implement the abstract ideas on
a particular machine that is integral to the claims or effect a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. They simply use computers as tools to apply
the abstract ideas. “[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335‒36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The above-mentioned elements employ generic components that
perform generic functions of analyzing and processing data (questions and
answers), which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application. See id. at 55 n.31. These recited functions are performed by
processing components that are disclosed as a user device that “may be
electronic devices such as laptop or desktop computers, mobile phones,
personal digital assistants (‘PDAs’), portable media players, tablet
computers, televisions or other displays, or other appropriate computing
devices that can be used to display user interface” (Spec. ¶ 30); wireless
signals that “may include, e.g., Infrared signals, Bluetooth signals, wireless
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
11
Ethernet signals, and/or generally any wireless signals” )Spec. ¶ 61); a
patient information device that “may be responsive to devices located
throughout the healthcare facility, such as readers or wireless
transmitter/receivers, to provide the identity of the patient associated with
the patient information device” (Spec. ¶ 51); and a display for displaying
various information (Figs. 7–10; Spec. ¶¶ 72–93).
It is well-settled that “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Stating an abstract idea while adding the words
‘apply it with a computer’ simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a
mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on ... a computer,’ . . .
that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”) (quoting Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82 (2012)); see Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55 & n.30. The lack of details about these elements also
indicates that the above-mentioned elements are generic computer
components. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d
1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in
implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component
(software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the
abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.”).
Additionally, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention is tied
to a machine, or improves the computer or its components’ functionality or
efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices function. In another
words, contrary to Appellant’s assertion (Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 2)
and unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved how the physical
display operated to produce better quality images, the claimed invention here
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
12
merely uses generic computing components to manage the information
provided to healthcare devices. See Ans. 5. This generic computer
implementation is not only directed to a mental process, but also does not
improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation”); see also SAP Am. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing McRO).
Furthermore, independent claim 21 recites method steps similar to the
functions discussed above with respect to claim 14, whereas claims 25 and
35 recite elements such as a processor, a memory, and a control system,
which do not integrate the above-discussed abstract ideas into a practical
application. The written description discloses that these recited additional
elements encompass generic components, such as a general-purpose
computer and a conventional memory. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 99–101, Fig. 11.
Simply adding generic hardware and computer components to perform
abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “merely includ[ing] instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer” as an example of when an
abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application).
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Further, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a
computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular
machine (except for a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation
of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in
any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
13
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 14 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 14 recites an “inventive concept.” We agree with
the Examiner that Appellant’s disclosure refers to the computer architecture
and network recited in the claims in general terms which amount to routine
and conventional elements that perform a conventional medication
administration. See Final Act. 9–10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 23–24). As discussed
above, the additional elements perform the recited functions and include a
user device connected to a display (Spec. ¶ 30), any wireless signals (Spec.
¶ 61), a patient information device that is responsive to devices located
throughout the healthcare facility (Spec. ¶ 51), and a display (Figs. 7–10;
Spec. ¶¶ 72–93). Using generic computer components to perform abstract
ideas does not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these
elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly
more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
Additionally, Appellant contends that “the specific implementation
and interoperability between the recited interconnected communication
devices creates a new presence technology service for health care practice is
much more than a nominal recitation of a computer and should he found to
be patent eligible.” Reply Br. 3. However, these elements form part of the
recited abstract ideas and thus are not “additional elements” that “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
14
n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to claim
features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the
identified judicial exception.” (Emphasis added)). As such, Appellant’s
claims can be distinguished from patent-eligible claims such as those in
McRO and Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (See Br. 13–14), that are directed to “a specific
means or method that improves the relevant technology” (McRO, 837 F.3d
at 1314) or “solving a technology-based problem” (Bascom, 827 F.3d at
1349–52).
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
14 is “directed to” an abstract idea and does not recite an “inventive
concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 and
the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
SECTION 112 REJECTION
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and
34 for lack of written description in the Appeal Brief. To the extent
Appellant does not advance separate, substantive arguments for particular
claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the
Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of
rejection as waived.”). Additionally, “[i]f a ground of rejection stated by the
examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any
challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it
unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
15
answer.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
SECTION 102 AND 103 REJECTIONS
With respect to the rejection of claim 35, Appellant argues that the
medical management unit (MMU) 12 send an alert “in response to a
violation of the disclosed adjusted hard and soft dosage limits,” but not
based on determining that “a user device is within a proximity of an infusion
device” or “the infusion device is experiencing an error condition.” Appeal
Br. 16. Additionally, Appellant asserts that Holland alerts the medical
device if a patient’s specific rule set is changed or the programming violates
any parameter. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains
Holland teaches the MMU replies to the ping sent by the
medical device by sending the unique ID number of the
particular machine readable indicator (i.e. send the alert) (col.
18, 58–67). Holland teaches that the ping send by the medical
device requests for patient that is in the area (i.e. proximity of
the device). Examiner states that the response to the ping and
the MMU sending the unique ID number indicates that the alert
informs the user device is within the proximity of the patient.
Once the MMU receives the information regarding the patient,
it verifies the information in order to administer the medication.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred.
Although Holland discloses that “the transmitter/receiver chip 280A of the
medical device 14A ‘pings’ by sending out a ‘request for patient’ command
to any transmitter/receiver chip 278 that is in the area” (Holland col. 18:53–
58), the sent signal is for connecting to the medical device. As stated by
Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
16
Appellant (Reply Br. 4), “[t]he cited disclosure, however, does not disclose
or suggest an error condition, much less an error condition while
administering the medication and while a user device is proximate to the
infusion device.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
claim 35, other independent claims 14, 21, and 25, or claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 16,
19, 20, 24, 26, 27, and 30–34 dependent therefrom. Similarly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 9 and 16–18 because the
Examiner relies on Holland in the same manner discussed above in the
context of claim 35, and has not identified any teachings in the other applied
prior art to overcome the above-noted deficiency of Holland.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
5, 6, 8–10,
14, 16–21,
24–27, 30–35
101 Eligibility 5, 6, 8–10,
14, 16–21,
24–27, 30–35

33, 34 112 Written
Description
33, 34
5, 6, 8, 10,
14, 16, 19–
21, 24–27,
30–35
102 Holland 5, 6, 8, 10,
14, 16,
19–21,
24–27,
30–35
9, 16–18 103 Holland, Pang 9, 16–18
Overall
Outcome
5, 6, 8–10,
14, 16–21,
24–27, 30–35

Appeal 2019-000971
Application 13/802,446
17
FINALITY AND 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