Ex Parte Heinonen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

10825575 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte TOMI HEINONEN and PASI KAUPPINEN
__________

Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, STEPHEN WALSH, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALSH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims directed to a method comprising determining to receive a first signal
and determining to transmit a second signal, a system for handling an event,
an apparatus, and a computer-readable storage medium. The Patent
Examiner rejected the claims for anticipation and obviousness. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-23, 33-45, 47, 48, 50, and 51 are on appeal. Claim 1
illustrates the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows (emphases
added):
1. A method, comprising:
determining to receive at a mobile wireless event handling device, a
first signal via a first network, from a monitoring device, the first signal
comprising at least a general broadcast emergency signal and including
information corresponding to physiological parameters and an identification
of the monitoring device; and
determining to transmit, at the mobile wireless event handling device,
to a target, a second signal via a second network, the second signal including
at least information corresponding to the identification of the monitoring
device.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 3-12, 14-23, 33-39, 41-45, 47, 48, 50, and 51 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Russek;
1

II. claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russek
and Haller;
2

III. claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russek.

DISCUSSION
The same issues are dispositive of all three rejections, and we
therefore consider the rejections together. Claims 3-12, 14-23, 33-39, 41-45,
47, 48, 50, and 51 have not been argued separately and will stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). As the arguments addressing the

1
Linda G. Russek, US 5,319,355, issued June 7, 1994.
2
Markus Haller et al., US 2002/0052539 A1, published May 2, 2002.
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

3
rejections of claims 2, 13, and 40 are the same as those presented for claim
1, these claims will also stand or fall with claim 1.
The Issues
First, Appellants contend that “„mobile device‟ is used to refer to
handheld devices, or handheld computers, such as cell phones, smart phones,
personal digital assistants, pagers, and personal navigation devices.” (App.
Br. 7.) Appellants argue: “In Russek, there is no indication that the master
alarm control unit is a handheld device. Accordingly, Russek’s master alarm
control unit is not a mobile device, as recited in the claims.” (Id.)
Second, Appellants contend: “There is no indication in Russek that the
signal is sent to multiple units. Even if the signal in Russek is sent
specifically to multiple master alarm control units. Therefore, the signal is a
targeted signal, not a general broadcast signal, as claimed.” (Id. at 8.)
The issues are:
a. whether Russek described using “a mobile wireless event
handling device” as claimed; and, if so,
b. whether Russek described a “general broadcast emergency
signal” as claimed.

Findings of Fact
1. Appellants‟ Wikipedia
3
exhibit states:
A mobile device (also known as a handheld device, handheld
computer or simply handheld) is a pocket-sized computing device,
typically having a display screen with touch input and/or a miniature
keyboard.

3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_device, Oct. 21, 2010. (See App. Br.
Evidence Appendix.)
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

4

(App. Br. Evidence Appendix.)
2. Appellants‟ Newton‟s Telecom Dictionary
4
exhibit states:
mobile In North America, the original term for a telephone that
worked with cellular service was cell phone. In the rest of the
world it was called a "mobile." Eventually America caught up
and the industry is now preferring the term mobile to describe a
cell phone. The technical term - i.e. what you find in the
industry literature - is Mobile Station.

(Newton 726.)
3. Ordinary meanings
5
for the adjective “mobile” include:
1. Capable of moving or of being moved readily from place to place: a
mobile organism; a mobile missile system.
2.
a. Capable of moving or changing quickly from one state or condition
to another: a mobile, expressive face.
b. Fluid; unstable: a mobile situation following the coup.
3.
a. Marked by the easy intermixing of different social groups: a mobile
community.
b. Moving relatively easily from one social class or level to another:
an upwardly mobile generation.
c. Tending to travel and relocate frequently: a restless, mobile society.
4. Flowing freely; fluid: a mobile liquid.

4. The Specification states: “mobile devices, such as mobile telephones,
may be configured to include at least event handling capabilities

4
Harry Newton, Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 25
th
Anniversary ed., p. 726
(2009). (See App. Br. Evidence Appendix.)
5
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Accessed at
www.thefreedictionary.com/mobile, March 15, 2013.
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

5
sufficient to recognize and act upon the emergency signal.” (Spec. 6,
[0022].)
5. The Specification states:
In another embodiment of the invention, the monitoring
device 100 can be configured, in certain situations, to broadcast
a general emergency signal. In addition, software enabling
minimal event handling capabilities can be included in various
mobile devices such that these mobile devices are capable of
receiving and processing the general emergency signal. . . .
For example, if the patient 102 were to experience a cardiac
arrest, the monitoring device 100 could detect this emergency
situation and broadcast an emergency signal and all mobile
devices equipped with the minimal event handling capabilities
could detect and process the message.

(Id., [0021].)
6. The Examiner found that Russek described transmitting the alarm
signal to plural wireless master units. (Ans, 4, citing Russek col. 3, ll.
58-68, etc.)
7. Russek taught:
The non-audible communications system in accordance
with the invention is comprised of an electronically actuated
signal generator attached to a device sensor(s) connected to any
appropriate medical equipment and/or patient monitoring or
operating room equipment, at least one master alarm control
and display unit adapted to communicate with the signal
generators and/or with other master alarm control units and a
central host controller. Each master alarm control device can be
removed from the patient area and located preferably at a
nurses‟ station.

(Russek, col. 3, ll. 58-68.)
8. Russek taught:
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

6
In addition to paging personnel and medical data, the
master alarm control device includes prioritizing algorithms
which act as messaging traffic controllers for the system. Thus,
in the event that a code blue condition is communicated, the
system interrupts other lower priority messages to immediately
communicate the “code blue” messages.

(Id. at col. 9, ll. 60-66.)
9. Russek taught:
The system can also accommodate a network of master
alarm control units connected to one another through a
conventional network, such as ETHERNET ®. Thus,
scheduling personnel and medical data information can be
shared between units 14 making the changing needs of the
patient and changing conditions of the hospital more closely
attuned to one another. Thus, if a patient is moved from the
operating room (OR) to the cardiac care unit (CCU) and then
from the CCU to the general medical recovery unit, all
information pertaining to that patient can be communicated
across the network 78 to the master alarm control unit 14
responsible for that respective area. Thus, for example, the
recovery room personnel can observe the condition of a patient
in OR prior to receiving that patient in recovery and prepare for
that patient's arrival.

(Id. at col. 10, l. 55 – col. 11, l. 2.)

Principles of Law
To anticipate, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.”
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Absent claim language carrying a narrow meaning, the PTO should
only limit the claim based on the specification or prosecution history when
those sources expressly disclaim the broader definition.” In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

7
Analysis
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record, and each of
Appellants‟ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants‟ claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner‟s
rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate
herein by reference, including the Examiner‟s responses to Appellants‟
arguments. We find Appellants‟ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons the
Examiner provided, and for the following additional reasons.
a. Russek described using “a mobile wireless event handling device” as
claimed.
The Examiner interpreted “a „mobile wireless event handling device‟”
as “a device that communicates wirelessly and is capable of being moved.”
(Ans. 10.) The Examiner found Russek described its master alarm controls
as mobile, and Appellants do not dispute that finding. (See FF 7.) The
Examiner‟s finding is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the adjective
“mobile.” (See FF 3.) Appellants provided evidence that Wikipedia
explains that a “mobile device . . . is a pocket-sized computing device” (FF
1), and that a Telecom dictionary defines “mobile” to mean a cell phone (FF
2). Appellants‟ authorities provide meanings for the noun “mobile” and the
term “mobile device.” Like the Examiner, we conclude that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the claim as using
“mobile” in its adjectival sense, and that the term “mobile wireless event
handling device” should not be limited to a handheld computing device or a
cell phone. The Specification listed “mobile telephones” as an example of,
not a limiting definition for, “mobile devices.” (FF 4.) Rather than defining
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

8
the invention by “mobile device,” claim 1 uses “mobile event handling
device” which does not have to be a telephone. The evidence supports the
Examiner‟s finding that Russek‟s master alarm controls are mobile, because
Russek taught they could be moved from place to place. (See FF 7 and 3.)
We therefore agree with the Examiner‟s response to Appellants‟ arguments.
(See Ans. 10-11.)
b. Russek described a first signal comprising at least a general
broadcast emergency signal.
The Specification does not define “general broadcast emergency
signal,” but it does indicate that “the monitoring device 100 can be
configured, in certain situations, to broadcast a general emergency signal.”
(FF 5.) Whatever the nature of the general broadcast emergency signal is,
the Specification explains that “[i]n addition, software enabling minimal
event handling capabilities can be included in various mobile devices such
that these mobile devices are capable of receiving and processing the general
emergency signal.” (Id.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would
interpret this disclosure to mean that the capability of a mobile device to
receive a general broadcast emergency signal is conferred by software
enabling it to do so.
Appellants have argued that Russek did not disclose a general
broadcast emergency signal because Russek did not disclose a signal that
could be received by plural mobile devices. We disagree. Russek explained
that multiple master control alarm units could receive the signal. (FF 9.) As
explained by Russek, proximity nearness of the master control alarm unit to
the patient monitor determines whether the master control alarm unit
receives the signal or not. That is, all of Russek‟s master control alarm units
Appeal 2011-007589
Application 10/825,575

9
are programmed to receive the signal, which is how Appellants‟
Specification explains general emergency signals. As an example of an
emergency, the Specification gives cardiac arrest. (FF 5.) Russek‟s system
handled this type of “code blue” signal. (FF 8.) We therefore agree with the
Examiner‟s response to Appellants‟ arguments. (See Ans. 11-12.)

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14-23, 33-39, 41-45, 47, 48,
50, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Russek.
We affirm the rejection of claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Russek and Haller.
We affirm the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Russek.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc