Ex Parte Beerling et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2017

13879960 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2017)

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.
13/879,960 04/17/2013 Bernardus Jozef Maria Beerling 2010P00710WOUS 1015
24737 7590 09/26/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue TAYLOR, APRIL ALICIA
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2887
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2017 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 BERNARDUS JOZEF MARIA BEERLING,
PETRUS JOHANNES WILHELMU VAN LANKVELT,
WENDELA MEERTENS, and JEROEN HANS NIEUWENHUIS
Appeal 2017-002794
Application 13/879,960
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—7 and 19—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roesicke et al.1 in view of Utsunomiya.2 Claims 11, 13, 14, and
16—18 are also pending but have been allowed by the Examiner. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 US 2007/0237678 Al, published October 11, 2007 (“Roesicke”).
2 US 2006/0011552 Al, published January 19, 2006 (“Utsunomiya”).
Appeal 2017-002794
Application 13/879,960
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated June 6, 2016 (“App. Br.”). The limitation at issue is
italicized.
1. A device, comprising:
a fluidic element;
an RFID tag, the RFID tag comprising an antenna, the antenna
having a shape configured to enclose at least a portion of a space,
wherein at least a part of the fluidic element is located in the space;
an aperture configured to receive a sample in the form of a drop
of blood, and to mix preloaded magnetic particles to bind to proteins in
the drop of blood; and
a memory configured to store calibration information identifying
when the device was assembled.
App. Br. 11.
Claim 19, the other independent claim on appeal, is also directed to a device
comprising, inter alia, “a memory configured to store calibration information
identifying when the device was assembled.” App. Br. 12.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Roesicke discloses a device comprising a fluidic
element, an RFID tag, an aperture configured to receive a blood sample, and a
memory configured to store calibration information such as “lot-specific
calibration data, expiry date, updated notes for customers, and logistic data.” Final
2—3;3 see also Ans. 2—3 (citing Roesicke 143).4 The Examiner finds Roesicke
“fails to specifically teach storing information identifying when the device was
assembled.” Final 3; see also Ans. 3. The Examiner, however, concludes that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to include information
3 Final Office Action dated January 6, 2016.
4 Examiner’s Answer dated October 7, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002794
Application 13/879,960
identifying when the device was assembled in order to provide additional
information to ensure that the correct calibration data are used for the system"
Final 3 (emphasis added).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner does not explain how information
identifying when the device was assembled would ensure that the correct
calibration data are used for the system. App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner makes the additional finding that “lot numbers
and/or serial numbers [as disclosed in Roesicke5] ... are notoriously known in
industrial practices to contain information of when and where a particular product
is manufactured.” Ans. 5. Significantly, the Appellants do not direct us to any
error in the Examiner’s finding.
Similarly, the Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. . .
to include the device’s assembled date in order to provide additional information
that further identifies the device for inventory and/or tracking purposes.” Ans. 5.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim l.6 The
Appellants do not present arguments in support of the separate patentability of any
5 Roesicke expressly discloses that stored identification data may include a lot
number and a serial number. Roesicke 143.
6 Claim 1 also recites that the aperture is “configured ... to mix preloaded
magnetic particles to bind to proteins in the drop of blood.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis
added). We note that claim 1 does not require magnetic particles to be loaded in
the aperture. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Utsunomiya discloses using
magnetic particles to separate substances in a fluid sample. Final 3 (citing
Utsunomiya 2). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Utsunomiya’s magnetic particles into
Roesicke’s device. Final 3^4; see also Ans. 6. The Appellants do not direct us to
any error in the Examiner’s findings as to Utsunomiya or the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness. See App. Br. 7—8 (arguing that the Examiner’s reason
for combining Roesicke and Utsunomiya was incomplete in the Advisory Action).
3
Appeal 2017-002794
Application 13/879,960
of claims 2—7 and 19—25. Therefore, we also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of
claims 2—7 and 19—25.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
4