Ex Parte Bhai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2013

11996696 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AZIZ A. BHAI
____________

Appeal 2012-000977
Application 11/996,696
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 23-31. Claims 12-22 and 32-59 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-000977
Application 11/996,696

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 22, and 37 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A patient support comprising:
a source of pressurized air;
a first bladder;
a valve in fluid communication with the source of
pressurized air and with the first bladder and configured to
control the flow of air between the source of pressurized air and
the first bladder;
a first pressure sensor in direct contact with the air in the
first bladder and producing a first pressure signal corresponding
to the air pressure within the first bladder; and
a controller in electrical communication with the source
of pressurized air, the valve, and the first pressure sensor, the
controller comprising (i) a processor, and (ii) a memory device
electrically coupled to the processor, the memory device having
stored therein a plurality of instructions which, when executed
by the processor, cause the processor to:
operate the source of pressurized air and the valve to
inflate the first bladder,
monitor the first pressure signal during the inflation to
determine a time rate of change of pressure in the first bladder,
and
determine whether the patient is supported on the first
bladder based on the time rate of change of pressure in the first
bladder.

Rejections
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Yavets-Chen (US 5,873,137, iss. Feb. 23, 1999).
Claims 4-6, 9-11, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yavets-Chen and Bartlett (US 6,353,950 B1, iss. Mar. 12,
2002).
Appeal 2012-000977
Application 11/996,696

3
OPINION
Anticipation by Yavets-Chen
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 27-29
The Examiner finds Yavets-Chen’s control unit 86 includes a memory
and a processor that, among other things, “determine[s] whether the patient
is supported on the first bladder based on the time rate of change of pressure
in the first bladder,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5 (citing col. 12, ll. 55-
60, and col. 17, ll. 33-42). Notably, Yavets-Chen discloses, at column 17,
lines 33 to 42, storing time referenced pressure measurement data to
generate a display of measured cushion (i.e., “bladder”) pressures. The
Appellant contends, and we agree, the cited disclosure of Yavets-Chen does
not disclose a time rate of change of the measured cushion pressures. See
App. Br. 9-10.
The Examiner further finds Yavets-Chen’s storage of time referenced
pressure measurement data inherently teaches a time rate of change of
pressure. Ans. 12. The Appellant contends, and we agree, it is not inherent
from column 17, lines 33 to 42 that Yavets-Chen’s processor discloses an
instruction for determining time rate of change of pressure measurements in
a single cushion. See Reply Br. 3. As the Appellant indicates, any two
measurements taken at two points in time provide a basis for a time rate of
change calculation. Id. However, merely because a time rate of change
calculation can be determined from Yavets-Chen’s measured cushion
parameters does not make it inherent that Yavets-Chen’s processor includes
instructions to determine a time rate of change from measured cushion
pressures stored in memory.
Appeal 2012-000977
Application 11/996,696

4
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims as anticipated
by Yavets-Chen is not sustained.
Additionally, independent claim 27 includes similar limitations to
claim 1, i.e., a processor having executable instructions to “determine
whether the patient has changed positions on the first bladder based on a
change in the time rate of change of the pressure in the first bladder.” App.
Br., Clms. App’x.; see App. Br. 19. For similar reasons discussed above, the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 and its dependent claims as anticipated by
Yavets-Chen is not sustained.
Claims 23-26
The Examiner finds the Yavets-Chen’s control unit 86 includes
memory and a processor and includes the executable processor instructions
recited in independent claim 23. Ans. 6-7 (citing col. 12, ll. 55-60, and col.
17, l. 33 - col. 18, l.40); see also Ans. 12-13. The Appellant contends that
Yavets-Chen does not disclose a processor having executable instructions to
accumulate the magnitude of pressure deviation in a first bladder over time
and output a signal if the accumulated magnitude exceeds a maximum value
as called for in claim 23. See App. Br. 15-16.
Yavets-Chen discloses a pneumatic bed overlay 10 having a plurality
of cushions 14a, 14b. Col. 7, ll. 28-38, 50-52, figs. 1-4. Yavets-Chen
discloses an assessment mode 132 that, among other things, performs a first
full pressure measurement 138, then stores the measured data as a time-
referenced digital pressure map 140. Col. 17, ll. 33-36. After a pause 142,
“a selective or full pressure measurement 144 is performed, and the results
are compared with the previous measured pressures to test for any
Appeal 2012-000977
Application 11/996,696

5
significant position shift (step 146).”1 Col. 17, ll. 44-47. Whether a
selective or full pressure measurement is performed at step 144, thereafter
the assessments of the measured data appear to be directed to comparing
pressure maps2, which requires pressure measurements of multiple cushions,
rather than comparing pressure measurements from a single cushion. As
such, the Appellant’s contention that Yavets-Chen evaluates multiple
bladders, i.e., monitors changes in pressures of a group of cells, rather than a
single bladder, is persuasive. Id.; see App. Br. 17. Put simply, the Examiner
does not adequately support the finding that Yavets-Chen discloses a
processor having executable instructions to accumulate the magnitude of
pressure deviation in a first bladder over time and output a signal if the
accumulated magnitude exceeds a maximum value as called for in claim 23.
Thus, the rejection of claim 23 and its dependent claims as anticipated
by Yavets-Chen is not sustained.

Obviousness based on Yavets-Chen and Bartlett
The remaining rejection based on Yavets-Chen and Bartlett relies on
the same erroneous finding regarding the disclosure in Yavets-Chen
discussed above. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 4-6, 9-
11, and 30-31 as unpatentable over Yavets-Chen and Bartlett.

1 A “full” pressure measurement is a measurement of all of the pressure
cushions 14 and a “selective” pressure measurement is a measurement of
less than all of the pressure cushions 14 of the pneumatic bed overlay 10.
See col. 15, ll. 19-21, 36-40.
2 See e.g., Figure 15 of Yavets-Chen “illustrates a ‘map’ 176 of the posterior
body surfaces of a patient as is displayed for data input.” Col. 18, ll. 33-35.
Appeal 2012-000977
Application 11/996,696

6
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-11 and 23-31.

REVERSED

Klh