Ex Parte Eggers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

11317867 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PHILIP N. EGGERS,
DAVID L. SCHLOTTERBECK,
TIMOTHY W. VANDERVEEN,
and
DAMON J. COFFMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-010579
Application 11/317,867
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010579
Application 11/317,867

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 59 and 60. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 59 is illustrative:
59. A method of delivering a drug or fluid to a patient,
comprising:
obtaining patient-specific information from a database in
a hospital network, the patient-specific information including
patient location information;
transferring the patient-specific information to a patient
care device using an input device in communication with said
patient care device, said patient care device comprising a
microprocessor and a memory storing a plurality of
configuration databases for configuring the care device to
provide care to a patient;
activating, using the microprocessor, a configuration
database from the plurality of configuration databases in
response to said patient-specific information including the
patient location information, the activated configuration
database including a plurality of protocols;
selecting, using the microprocessor, a protocol from said
plurality of protocols, said protocol including at least one
parameter for programming the care device to deliver a drug or
fluid to the patient;
programming, using the microprocessor, said device to
deliver the drug or fluid to the patient in accordance with the
selected protocol; and
delivering the drug or fluid to the patient in accordance
with the selected protocol.

Appeal 2010-010579
Application 11/317,867

3
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
1. Claims 59 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Coutre (US 5,643,212; iss. Jul. 1, 1997).

ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that Coutre does not disclose a patient care
device comprising “a memory storing a plurality of configuration databases
for configuring the care device” as required by claim 59. We agree.
Appellants’ Specification teaches that the patient care device 12 can
alter its personality based upon information received in selection of a
specific configuration database defining a particular mode of operation
according to patient specific protocol, such as patient treatment location,
age, physical characteristics, or medical characteristics (Spec. 8, ll. 22 to 30).
The Examiner relies on Coutre at column 9, line 58 to column 10, line
3 for teaching the step of selecting a configuration database from a plurality
of configuration databases where the selected configuration database
includes the specific protocol.
We find that Coutre at column 9, line 58 to column 10, line 3
discloses that data related to the user’s personal identification number, the
data on the solution label, and the patient’s identification data is entered into
a database. The system uses the information entered to verify that the
patient identification from the chart or bracelet matches the patient
identification on the solution and gives an indication of a mismatch if one is
found. We find that this disclosure does not relate to a configuration
database for configuring the care device.
Appeal 2010-010579
Application 11/317,867

4
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of the
Examiner.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh