Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

11119335 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

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.
11/119,335 04/28/2005 Stephen J. Brown 05-0400 / 7553.00101 7065
60683 7590 12/23/2015
Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.
2400 GENG ROAD, SUITE 200
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN J. BROWN
____________

Appeal 2013-001547
Application 11/119,3351
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 57–60, 64, 66, 67, 69–78, 80, 81, 83, and 85–93.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellant identifies Robert Bosch Healthcare, Inc. and Abbott Diabetes
Care as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 3.

Appeal 2013-001547
Application 11/119,335

2
Claim 57, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
57. A health monitoring system comprising:
a plurality of remote user sites, each of the remote user
sites comprising at least one health monitoring device each
comprising (i) an input for collection of user health data while
the health monitoring device is in a collection mode of a
plurality of user modes, (ii) a modem configured to operate in a
cellular telephone system while the health monitoring device is
in a communications mode of the plurality of user modes, (iii) a
first display configured to show information while the health
monitoring device is in a display mode of the plurality of user
modes and (iv) a microprocessor configured to execute program
instructions received via the cellular telephone system, wherein
(a) the program instructions when executed generate selections
of the user modes on the first display and (b) each of the health
monitoring devices operates in a corresponding one of the user
modes at a time as selected by a user;
at least one remote computing facility comprising at least
one central server configured for two-way communication with
the health monitoring devices via the cellular telephone system
to both (i) send the program instructions to the plurality of
remote user sites and (ii) receive the user health data from the
plurality of remote user sites; and
at least one computer for use by a health care
professional, remotely located from the central server and
configured (i) for two-way signal communication with the
central server via a communications network, and (ii) to receive
at least one report via the communications network from the
central server based on the user health data collected by the
health monitoring device.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Fu US 4,803,625 Feb. 7, 1989
Appeal 2013-001547
Application 11/119,335

3
Lee US 4,838,275 June 13, 1989
Sutphin US 5,109,403 Apr. 28, 1992
Kirk US 5,390,238 Feb. 14, 1995
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 57–60, 64, 66, 67, 69–78, 80, 81, 83, and 85–93 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fu, Lee, Sutphin, and Kirk.

ANALYSIS
We reverse the rejection of claims 57–60, 64, 66, 67, 69–78, 80, 81,
83, and 85–93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
First, each of independent claims 57 and 78 require “wherein (a) the
program instructions when executed generate selections of the user modes
on the first display and (b) each of the health monitoring devices operates in
a corresponding one of the user modes at a time as selected by a user.” The
Examiner finds that this limitation is disclosed in Fu stating:
Per Fu column 1 lines 43-64, states that first means stores the
determined health parameters in a composite log. Second
means automatically control the prompting means to request the
patient to take medication in accordance with the prescribed
medication schedule, and automatically record information in
the composite log indicative of patient compliance with the
prescribed medication schedule. The composite log is then
automatically transmitted to a central location for analysis by
trained medical personnel. The prompting of the request, the
recording of the information and the transmitting of the log are
different modes.
Answer 7.

We disagree with the Examiner because the modes as labeled by the
Examiner in Fu here are “questions” asked by the program according to the
Appeal 2013-001547
Application 11/119,335

4
MD and are recorded in a composite log. Fu, col.10, ll. 54–61. Nothing
here describes the questions as operating the remote site based on a
corresponding one of the user modes at a time as selected by a user, as
required by the claims.
Second, each of claims 57 and 78 require:
at least one remote computing facility comprising at least
one central server configured for two-way communication with
the health monitoring devices via the cellular telephone system
to both (i) send the program instructions to the plurality of
remote user sites and (ii) receive the user health data from the
plurality of remote user sites;
at least one computer for use by a health care
professional, remotely located from the central server and
configured (i) for two-way signal communication with the
central server via a communications network.
In Fu the central unit 20 communicates directly with the home units
60, thus the central unit in Fu becomes mapped to the claimed central server.
In Fu the central unit only communicates with the plurality of modems and
not with another computer. This is because the central unit is at the health
care provider and there is no need to relay the data through an intermediate
server. Fu, col. 5, ll. 44–52. Thus, the Examiner relies on Kirk, column 3,
lines 3–11 and 20–42, for the at least one computer for use by a health care
professional. Final Act. 5. But Kirk here discloses an intermediary
monitoring service that obtains data directly from the patient, i.e.,
monitoring voice degradation, so it fails to meet the claim requirement of
obtaining data from a central server.
Since claims 58–60, 64, 66, 67, 69–77, 80, 81, 83, and 85–93 depend
from claims 57 and 78, and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claims
Appeal 2013-001547
Application 11/119,335

5
57 and 78, the rejection of claims 58–60, 64, 66, 67, 69–77, 80, 81, 83, and
85–93 likewise cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 57–60, 64,
66, 67, 69–78, 80, 81, 83, and 85–93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 57–60, 64, 66, 67, 69–
78, 80, 81, 83, and 85–93 is reversed.

REVERSED

mls