Ex Parte Eklof et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2018

13594445 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2018)

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.
13/594,445 08/24/2012 Lars Eklof N1-36455 3328
63565 7590 02/16/2018
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code KCW
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
EXAMINER
KURILLA, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2018 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 LARS EKLOF, GUN BLOM, RONNIE ARESPONG,
ELIN DOVERVIK, ROGER KARLSSON,
ANDERS ERIKSSON, and JACK BARNEY SING
Appeal 2017-002445
Application 13/594,445
Technology Center 3600
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Lars Eklof et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 136—156.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Hill-Rom Services, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002445
Application 13/594,445
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to Patient Stand Assist and Therapy
Devices. Spec. 1. Claim 136, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
136. A person lifting system, comprising:
a lift assembly configured to assist a person in
moving between a first position and a second position; and
a control system configured to control the operation
of the lift system as a function of a change in a characteristic of
the person in order to vary the amount of assistance provided by
the lift assembly while the lift assembly assists the person in
moving between the first position and the second position.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 136—140, 142, 143, and 149-156 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bouhuijs (US 5,878,450,
issued Mar. 9, 1999).
2) Claims 141 and 144—148 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bouhuijs.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Bouhuijs discloses the subject matter of
claim 136 including, inter alia, “a control system configured to control the
operation of the lift system as a function of a change in a characteristic of the
person in order to vary the amount of assistance provided by the lift
assembly . . . while the lift assembly assists the person in moving between
the first position and the second position.” Final Act. 5 (citing Bouhuijs,
2
Appeal 2017-002445
Application 13/594,445
2:13—24, Figs. 1, 2, 3).2 Appellants contend that Bouhuijs does not disclose
the recited controller and argue that “[t]he ‘while’ clause in applicants’ claim
describes an intra-event variation in the amount of assistance. The
description in the reference is too sparse and ambiguous to be an anticipating
disclosure. It could just as easily be referring to an inter-event variation in
the motor speed.” Appeal Br. 6; see also id. at 7 (“Applicants’ foregoing
argument advances the notion that the reference could just as easily be
referring to an inter-event variation in motor speed rather than an intra-event
variation.”). In the Answer, the Examiner submits that “[t]he ‘configured to’
recitation only requires that the reference is capable of performing the
function described in claims 136 and 149. Examiner determined that the
programmable logic controller (hereinafter “PLC”) of Bouhuijs is capable of
performing the function” recited in the claims. Ans. 4. For the following
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 136 and 149.
Appellants’ Specification provides that “the system is [be] configured
to reduce and/or increase the amount of assistance provided to the patient.”
Spec. 16:11—12. “[T]he electronics system 151 includes a processor 155 and
memory 153 electrically coupled to the processor 155 and storing
procedures ... to control the actuator controller 150 to control the operation
of the lift.” Id. 16:13—16. In Appellants’Figure 20, variation in assistance
to the person occurs during the event of assisting the person in moving
between the first position and the second position. See Spec, at 17:12—14,
Fig. 20 (step 230). Therefore, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the
2 Independent claim 149 contains a substantially similar limitation
concerning the configuration of the control system. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims
App.). The Examiner rejects claim 149 based on the same finding from
Bouhuijs as for claim 136. Final Act. 6.
3
Appeal 2017-002445
Application 13/594,445
art would reasonably interpret the phrase “vary the amount of assistance
provided by the lift assembly while the lift assembly assists the person” to
mean that the variation in the assistance occurs during the period of time that
the person is assisted in moving between the first position and the second
position by the lift assembly (emphasis added).3
Appellants’ argument for the patentability of claim 136 is that
Bouhuijs does not unambiguously disclose an “intra-event variation in the
amount of assistance” but “could just as easily be referring to an inter-event
variation in motor speed.” Appeal Br. 6. We understand Appellants’
argument to be that an “intra-event” variation occurs during the period of
time that the person is assisted in moving between the first position and the
second position by the lift assembly. The Examiner does not direct us to any
disclosure in Bouhuijs where the PLC specifically varies the amount of
assistance provided to the person during a lifting event. The Examiner’s
finding that Bouhuijs discloses “a control system configured to . . . vary the
amount of assistance provided by the lift assembly while the lift assembly
assists the person” (Final Act. 5) is, thus, not supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 136 or
claim 149 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 137—140, 142, and 143 which depend from claim 136 and claims
150—156 which depend from claim 149.
3 Such an interpretation of the term “while” is consistent with its ordinary
and customary meaning of “similarly and at the same time.” Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 2005).
4
Appeal 2017-002445
Application 13/594,445
Rejection 2
Claims 141 and 144—148 depend from claim 136. Appeal Br. 17—20
(Claims App.). The Examiner does not provide any additional findings or
reasoning to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 136 stated above.
Final Action 5—10. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claims 141 and
144—148.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 136—156 is reversed.
REVERSED
5