Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2017

12228915 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2017)

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.
12/228,915 08/18/2008 David C. Johnson 115.0174USI1 (08-621) 6939
62058 7590 04/10/2017
PAULY, DEVRIES SMITH & DEFFNER, L.L.C.
Suite 900
121 South 8th Street
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2481
EXAMINER
NAJARIAN, LENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@pdsdlaw.com
kds@pdsdlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte DAVID C. JOHNSON, JIM SIEVERT, KENNETH HOYME,
JOHN LALONDE, WILLIAM MASS, and DAVID V. DUCCINI
Appeal 2015-0052491
Application 12/228,9152
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3—14, and 16—27. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
December 1, 2014) and Reply Br. (“Reply Br.,” filed April 13, 2015), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 13, 2015) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 28, 2014).
2 Appellants identify Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-005249
Application 12/228,915
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to systems, devices,
and methods for transporting medical information over a wireless network”
(Spec. 1,11. 13-14).
Claims 1,14, and 27 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1
and 14, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of transporting medical information
across a network configured to service a plurality of geographical
locations, comprising:
querying the network by a processor of a portable source
medical device movable relative to the plurality of geographical
locations;
determining, by the processor, communication links of the
network presently available to effect communications between
the source medical device and a target component when the
source medical device is at each of the geographical locations;
generating, by the processor, each of a plurality of profiles,
wherein each profile comprises information about each of the
available communication links and attributes associated with
each of the available communication links for each of the
geographical locations;
prioritizing, by the processor, the communication links;
storing all of the plurality of profiles in the source medical
device;
accessing, by the processor, when the source medical
device is at a particular geographical location of the plurality of
geographical locations, a particular profile from the plurality of
profiles stored in the source medical device that is associated
with the particular geographical location;
selecting, by the processor, a communication link
associated with the particular profile based on the prioritization
of the communication links;
establishing a network connection between the source
medical device and the target component using the selected
communication link associated with the particular profile;
2
Appeal 2015-005249
Application 12/228,915
receiving medical information, by the processor, from one
or more medical devices; and
transferring medical information between the source
medical device and the target component via the selected
communication link associated with the particular profile.
14. A system for transporting medical information
across a network configured to service a plurality of geographical
locations, comprising:
a source medical device configured for portability relative
to the plurality of geographical locations, the source medical
device comprising or coupled to a mapping agent and a profile
library, the mapping agent comprising:
a processor configured to execute program
instructions for querying the network and determining
communication links of the network presently available to
effect communications between the source medical device
and a target component when the source medical device is
at each of the geographical locations;
the processor configured to execute program
instructions for designating one or more of the geographic
locations as a regular destination;
the processor configured to execute program
instructions for generating a profile comprising
information about each of the available communication
links and attributes associated with each of the available
communication links for each regular destination, to store
each of the profiles in the profile library, and to prioritize
the communication links;
the processor configured to execute program
instructions for accessing, when the source medical device
is at a particular regular destination of the plurality of
geographical locations, a particular profile stored in the
source medical device that is associated with the particular
regular destination, select a communication link
associated with the particular profile based on the
prioritization of the communication links, establish a
network connection between the source medical device
and the target component using the selected
3
Appeal 2015-005249
Application 12/228,915
communication link associated with the particular profile,
and transfer medical information between the source
medical device and the target component via the selected
communication link associated with the particular profile.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8—13, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kelly et al. (US 2005/0033124 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005)
(hereinafter “Kelly”) and Wasser (US 2004/0038706 Al, pub. Feb. 26,
2004).
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kelly, Wasser, and Nelson et al. (US 6,480,745 B2, iss.
Nov. 12, 2002) (hereinafter “Nelson”).
Claims 14, 18, 19, and 21—26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kelly, Wasser, and Lowell et al. (6,292,687 Bl, iss.
Sept. 18, 2001) (hereinafter “Lowell”).
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kelly, Wasser, Lowell, and Nelson.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 27 and Dependent Claims 5, 6, and 8—13
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Kelly, on which the Examiner relies, does not disclose or suggest a portable
source medical device that generates and stores multiple profiles associated
with geographical locations, i.e., “generating . . . each of a plurality of
profiles, wherein each profile comprises information about each of the
available communication links and attributes associated with each of the
4
Appeal 2015-005249
Application 12/228,915
available communication links for each of the geographical locations” and
“storing all of the plurality of profiles in the source medical device,” as
recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 27
(App. Br. 8—11; see also Reply Br. 2—3).
Kelly is directed to a portable patient monitoring system, and
discloses that the system includes a portable processing device and a
plurality of docking stations located at fixed locations within a medical
facility, e.g., a hospital, for establishing communication connections
between the portable device and the hospital’s central monitoring system via
a hospital LAN and docking station interface (Kelly H 10, 11, 19, 20).
Each docking station maintains a location identifier code, e.g., an Ethernet
MAC address, which identifies the station’s location within the hospital
(id. 111). When docked, the portable processing device processes the
location identifier to upload settings and configuration information relevant
to the particular location (see, e.g., id. Ull, 12, 16, 17). These settings and
configuration information are retained until the portable device detects a
new docking at a different docketing station location (see id. H 10, 19).
The Examiner cites paragraphs 10, 14, 18, and 19 of Kelly as
disclosing “storing all of the plurality of profiles in the source medical
device,” as called for in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 27 (Final
Act. 3, 6). However, we agree with Appellants that Kelly is clear that its
portable processing device only stores information associated with the last
docking location (App. Br. 8). Indeed, Kelly explicitly discloses, in cited
paragraphs 10 and 19, that only settings associated with the last fixed
location, i.e., the location where the device was last docketed, are retained
by the portable device, and those settings are only retained “until the
5
Appeal 2015-005249
Application 12/228,915
portable device detects a different docking station” (Kelly |10; see also id.
119).
Responding to Appellants’ argument in the Answer, the Examiner
asserts that “there is no explicit disclosure of deletion of data [in
paragraph 19 of Kelly], only that the certain data and settings ‘remain in
effect’ for a certain period of time” (Ans. 14). However, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand from paragraph 19 that,
as Appellants suggest, “docking the portable device to a new docking station
revises the existing settings of the portable device that were implemented by
the previous docked location” (Reply Br. 3). This interpretation also is
consistent with paragraph 10 of Kelly, which discloses that settings related
to the location where the device was last docked “are retained until the
portable device detects a different docking station location.”
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1 and 27. For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, and 8—13.
Cf. In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonob vious”).
Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claims 18, 19, and 21—26
Independent claim 14 includes language substantially similar to the
language of independent claims 1 and 27. The rejection of claim 14 based
on Lowell, in combination with Kelly and Wasser, does not cure the
deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 27. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claim 14, and claims 18, 19, and 21—26, which depend
6
Appeal 2015-005249
Application 12/228,915
therefrom, for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to
claims 1 and 27.
Dependent Claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20
Each of claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 ultimately depend from one of
independent claims 1 and 14. The rejections of these dependent claims do
not cure the deficiencies in the rejections of claims 1 and 14. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejections of claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent
claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—14, and 16—27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
7