Ex Parte Dixon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

13941179 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/941,179 07/12/2013
24256 7590 03/25/2019
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 1900
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven A. Dixon
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Nl-37107 / 32938-108 4591
EXAMINER
POLITO, NICHOLAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2019 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 STEVEN A. DIXON,
NELDA R. JOHNSON, BENJAMINE. HOWELL,
WILLIAM BRIAN BISHOP, CHRISTIAN SAUCIER,
DAVID M. GIRARDEAU, JOSHUA W. SHENK,
KELLI F. REMPEL, RICHARD J. SCHUMAN,
WHITNEY PESOT, ERIK ROEHL,
ELIN DOVERVIK, DAVID LUNDBERG,
HANNA YOUNGSTROM, CATHERINE RINGBJER,
RONNIE ARESPONG, and LARS EKLOF 1
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is the assignee of the present
application, Liko Research & Development AB." App. Br. 2. We, thus,
proceed on the basis that, for purposes of this appeal, Liko Research &
Development AB is the "Appellant."
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Non-Final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-16, 18, 19, and 21-23.
App. Br. 4. Claims 3-5, 8, 17, and 20 have been canceled. App. Br. 4. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). For the reasons explained below,
we do not find error in the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter "relates to monitoring systems, and more
particularly, but not exclusively, one contemplated embodiment relates [to]
systems, methods, and devices for monitoring, among other things,
operational characteristics of a patient lift, compliance with care facility
protocols, and patient information and progress." Spec. 1. 2 System claim 1,
method claim 18, and apparatus claim 23 are independent. Claim 1 is
representative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below.
1. An equipment associating system, comprising:
an electronic tag used in conjunction with an asset;
a person lift system including an electronic reader
configured to read the electronic tag when the electronic tag is a
predetermined distance from the electronic reader; and
an information management system configured to receive
information about the person lift system and information
corresponding to the electronic tag from the person lift system
and to generate association data between the corresponding asset
and the person lift system based on the information about the
person lift system and the information corresponding to the
electronic tag.
2 Appellant's Specification lacks both line and paragraph numbering.
Hence, we refer to Appellant's Specification via page number only.
2
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
Miodownik et al.
Sorensen et al.
Faucher et al.
REFERENCES
US 2010/0001838 Al
US 2010/0097181 Al
US 2013/0019401 Al
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Jan. 7,2010
April 22, 2010
Jan.24,2013
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-14, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( a )(1) as anticipated by Sorensen.
Claims 7, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sorensen and Faucher.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Sorensen and Miodownik.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 9-14, 18, 19, 21, and 23
as anticipated by Sorensen
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6, 9-14, 18, 19, and 21 together. 3 App.
Br. 15-21. We select claim 1 for review, with the remaining claims standing
or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant also
presents arguments regarding independent claim 23. App. Br. 21-23.
Claim 1
Claim 1 includes the limitation, "an information management system
configured to receive information about the person lift system and
information corresponding to the electronic tag from the person lift system."
3 Appellant's assertion regarding independent claim 18 and dependent
claims 19 and 21 is that "[t]hese claims are patentable over [Sorensen] for at
least the same reasons set forth with respect to independent claim 1." App.
Br. 21.
3
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
There is thus two different sets of information to be received, i.e., that which
is "information about the person lift system" and that which is "information
corresponding to the electronic tag from the person lift system." Appellant's
Specification supports this understanding which distinguishes between
person lift system 12 and sling 53 (having tag 74 affixed thereto) suspended
from person lift system 12. See Spec. 8-9; Figs. 3, 4, 7. We further
understand this limitation as (a) not requiring any specific source of
information received "about the person lift system," but, (b) requiring
receipt of information corresponding to the electronic tag to be "from the
person lift system." Thus, Appellant's contention that Sorensen fails to
disclose receipt of "information about the person lifting system from the
person lift system" (App. Br. 16; see also id. at 18; Reply Br. 3, 4) is not
based on a correct interpretation of this limitation because "information
about the person lift system" may be from the person lift system or it may be
from other sources. See Spec. 8 ("The communication device 33 is
configured to communicate information between the person support system
14, the lift system 12 and/or other equipment in the vicinity, the
communication system 16, and the hospital network 20."); see also Spec. 6-
7. In other words, there is no recitation in claim 1, or express discussion in
Appellant's Specification, that "information about the person lift system"
must be only from the person lift system itself.
Nevertheless, Sorensen teaches receipt of "information about the
person lift system" as originating from a tag (i.e., Sorensen's "RFID-chip ")
on a sling suspended from Sorensen's person lift system. Sorensen ,r 16.
Paragraph 38 of Sorensen states that "when a sling is about to be used," the
user can access the sling's chip via a chip reader so as to be "provided with
4
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
information and instructions about how to use the sling." Paragraph 45 of
Sorensen states, "the user can manually update the chip with information
about the use of the sling, such as for instance the date of use, by means of
the RFID-reader." In view of these teachings, the Examiner states,
"information regarding how to connect the sling to the lifting device and the
date of the use of the lifting device is considered to be 'information about
the person lifting device' because no special definition applies." Ans. 4.
Appellant disagrees stating, "instructions on how to connect the sling
to the lifting device described in [Sorensen] do not correspond to the
information about the person lift system recited in claim 1." App. Br. 17;
see also Reply Br. 4, 5. This is because, according to Appellant,
"instructions on how to connect the sling to the lifting device do not include
identification information about the person lift system itself." App. Br. 17
(emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 5, 6. According to Appellant, "[t]he
broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the phrase 'information about the
person lift system' recited in claim 1 includes at least the identification
information of the person lift system," and Sorensen "does not include
identification information about the person lift system itself." App. Br. 17
(partial emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4, 5.
The Examiner "notes that the [S]pecification does not discuss
'identification information' regarding the patient lift system." Ans. 3. The
Examiner acknowledges that portions of Appellant's Specification discusses
identification information, but this is in relation to the patient's identification
or the sling's identification. See Ans. 3. Additionally, the Examiner states,
alternatively, that "[i]f the identification information of the person lifting
system was considered to be the information related to the sling, then
5
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
Sorensen et al. teaches in paragraphs [0019] to [0024] basic product
information data about the sling such as product data, model number,
production date, serial number, and batch number." Ans. 3--4. On the other
hand, "[i]f the information related to the sling was not considered to be
information about the person lifting system, then the specification does not
provide support for the provided interpretation of 'identification
information.'" Ans. 4. Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's rationale.
Appellant also contends that Sorensen "fails to disclose that
[Sorensen's readers] receive information about the person lifting system."
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 6. However, Sorensen's paragraphs 38 and
45 discussed above contradict this assertion and as such, we are not
persuaded by Appellant's contention.
Appellant also asserts that Sorensen's RFID readers are "not
information management systems as recited in claim 1." App. Br. 16; see
also id at 18-19 (regarding Sorensen's database 9), Reply Br. 4, 5. On this
point, the Examiner referenced Sorensen's paragraphs 18 and 4 7 as teaching
an "information management system" that is "configured to receive
information about the person lift system." Non-Final Act. 2. Sorensen
paragraph 18 identifies various devices suitable for use as a chip reader, i.e.,
"a Personal Digitalized Assistant (PDA), a customized handset, or a Person
Computer (PC) etc." Sorensen paragraph 47 states that RFID chips "are
preferably adapted to continuously communicate with a database 9 via the
RFID-readers." This paragraph 47 continues stating that the database is
"provided with means adapted to store the usage history of each and every
one of the chip-provided slings" such that "[a]n authorized user of the
6
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
database is thus in an effective way provided with information about the
status and usage history of the slings."
The Examiner contends that either or both Sorensen's reader and the
database can be considered to be an "information management system."
Ans. 5. The Examiner's rationale regarding Sorensen's readers is because,
in accordance with Appellant's Specification, the readers "are configured to
display information related to the equipment in the care facility." Ans. 5
(referencing Spec. 21 stating, "[t]he information management system 18 is
configured to display information related to ... the equipment in the care
facility"). The Examiner's rationale regarding Sorensen's database is
because "it routes the information it receives to the appropriate destination."
Ans. 5 (referencing Spec. 21 stating, "[t]he information management system
18 is configured to route the information it receives from the lift system 12 .
. . to the appropriate destination"). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
Sorensen fails to disclose the recited "information management system."
Appellant also addresses the limitation in claim 1 reciting the
generation of "association data between the corresponding asset and the
person lift system." App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 5, 6. The Examiner
relied on Sorensen's paragraphs 38 and 47 as disclosing this limitation. See
Non-Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 6 (additionally referencing Sorensen ,r 45).
Appellant contends that Sorensen paragraph 38 "is silent" on this point and
that Sorensen paragraph 47 "merely discloses a database storing information
about the status and usage history of slings." App. Br. 20. However,
Sorensen paragraph 38, discussed above, teaches that a user is provided
"with information and instructions about how to use the sling." See also
Ans. 6. Further, Appellant is correct that Sorensen paragraph 47 discusses a
7
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
sling's usage history. 4 See also Ans. 7. In any event, Appellant does not
persuasively explain how instructions about use of a sling with a person lift
system, or a sling's usage history therewith, as expressed in Sorensen, fails
to associate data between an asset (i.e., sling) and a person lift system upon
which the sling was used.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 9-14, 18, 19, and 21 as being
anticipated by Sorensen.
Claim 23
Claim 23 differs from claim 1 in that claim 23 recites a reader
"configured to read the first electronic tag [ on a first asset] and second
electronic tag [on a second asset]." Claim 23 also recites the generation of
"association data between the first asset and the second asset." The
Examiner relies on Sorensen paragraphs 38 and 47 for disclosing these
limitations. See Non-Final Act. 5; Ans. 7. Appellant contends that Sorensen
"merely discloses that a database receives information for a plurality of chip-
provided slings independently, but fails to expressly or inherently disclose
that any one sling is associated with another sling." App. Br. 21-22; see
also Reply Br. 6, 7.
Appellant's contention is not a full understanding of Sorensen
paragraph 4 7. Indeed, this paragraph discusses storing "the usage history of
each and every one of the chip-provided slings," but this paragraph
4 The additional reference to Sorensen paragraph 45, according to the
Examiner, "associates a sling with a person lifting system by stating,
'information that the sling has been used in a lift, and preferably also the
date of the use."' Ans. 7.
8
Appeal2018-005098
Application 13/941, 179
continues, stating that, because of such storage, an authorized user is
"provided with information about the status and usage history of the slings."
See also Ans. 7. Paragraph 4 7 states that this compilation of the usage
history of the various chip-provided slings is important because it "will
greatly enhance for instance the investigation of occurred accidents or give
the organization a better over view of the age of a given population of
slings." See also Ans. 7. In view of such teachings, Appellant is not
persuasive that Sorensen fails to disclose the above recited limitations
directed to multiple tags on multiple slings/assets, or the association of such
data. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 as being anticipated
by Sorensen.
The rejection of (a) claims 7, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Sorensen and
Faucher; and, (b) claim 22 as unpatentable over Sorensen and Miodownik
Appellant does not separately argue these remaining rejections other
than to state that the additionally recited art "does not cure the deficiencies
of' Sorensen. App. Br. 23, 24. We are not persuaded there are deficiencies
in Sorensen that need curing. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 7, 15, 16, and 22 as being obvious over Sorensen when
combined with either Faucher or Miodownik.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-16, 18, 19, and 21-
23 are 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9