Ex Parte Laermer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2012

11639052 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012)

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.
11/639,052 12/13/2006 Franz Laermer 10191/4887 4053
26646 7590 03/23/2012
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
TOTH, KAREN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte FRANZ LAERMER, GERD LORENZ, MICHAEL STUMBER,
DICK SCHOLTEN, CHRISTIAN MAEURER, and JULIA PATZELT
__________

Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to an
apparatus and method for noninvasive blood pressure measurement. The
Patent Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-15 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 11 are representative and
read as follows:
1. An apparatus for noninvasive blood pressure measurement,
comprising:
a device for measuring blood pressure values; and
an acceleration sensor corresponding to a two- or three-axis
acceleration sensor for measuring movements in each axis of the two- or
three-axis acceleration sensor and generating motion signals correlating to
the movements, wherein an electronic signal processing system is provided,
which is designed in such a way that corrected blood pressure values may be
ascertained from the measured blood pressure values and the measured
motion signals of the acceleration sensor by using the electrical signal
processing system.

11. A method for noninvasive blood pressure measurement, comprising:
measuring a blood pressure value by a device for measuring blood
pressure values;
measuring movements using a two- or three-axis acceleration sensor;
generating movement signals from the acceleration sensor; and
processing the movement signals and the measured blood pressure
values in a signal processing system in such a way that corrected blood
pressure values are ascertained.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
• claims 1-4, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Amano1 and Martin;2
• claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amano,
Martin and Terada;3

1 US Patent No. 6,126,595 issued to Kazuhiko Amano et al., Oct. 3, 2000.
2 Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0195020A1 by James S.
Martin et al., published Aug. 31, 2006.

Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

3
• claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Amano, Martin and Baruch;4
• claims 8, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Amano, Martin, Baruch, and Cobb;5
• claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amano,
Martin, Baruch, Cobb, and Thornton; 6 and
• claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amano,
Martin, Baruch, Cobb, and Miesel. 7

OBVIOUSNESS
The Issue
The Examiner’s position is that Amano disclosed a device and method
for diagnosing a physiological state of a patient based on noninvasive blood
pressure pulse waveforms measured from a patient. (Ans. 4.) The Examiner
found that Amano disclosed that its device is used for measuring blood
pressure values. (Id.) The Examiner also found that Amano disclosed an
acceleration sensor that measures the movement of the blood pressure
measurement device’s user. (Id.) According to the Examiner, Amano also
disclosed an electrical signal processing system (a microcomputer) that
processed and corrected the data collected, such as pulse waveform values.

3Patent No. JP 405200004A issued to Haruhiro Terada, Aug. 10, 1993.
4 Patent No. US 6,723,054 B1 issued to Martin C. Baruch et al., Apr. 20,
2004.
5 Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0249299 A1 by Jeffrey Lane
Cobb, published Dec. 9, 2004.
6 US Patent No. 5,125,412 issued to William E. Thornton, Jun. 30, 1992.
7 Patent No. US 6, 198,952 B1 issued to Keith A. Miesel, Mar. 6, 2001.

Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

4
(Id.) Additionally, the Examiner found that “[t]he pulse waveform values
may be ascertained from the measured pulse values and the measured
motion signals of the acceleration sensor.” However, the Examiner found
that Amano did not clearly teach that its acceleration sensor corresponded to
a two or three- axis acceleration sensor for measuring movements in each
axis. (Id.)
The Examiner found that Martin taught a blood pressure measurement
device comprising a three-axis acceleration sensor, where the movement in
each axis is used to correct blood pressure measurements to obtain a detailed
measurement of the user’s motion. (Id.) According to the Examiner, it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to have modified Amano’s system with a triaxial
sensor for producing signals for pressure correction, as taught by Martin, to
obtain detailed measurements of user motion. (Id. at 6.)
Appellants contend that Amano does not “disclose, or even suggest,
that a corrected blood pressure value may be ascertained from the measured
blood pressure values and the measured motion signals of the acceleration
sensor by using the electrical signal processing system, as stated in claim 1.”
(App. Br. 5.) In particular, Appellants assert that Amano “merely describes
the feature of a correction of a blood pulse wave” and not the correction of a
“blood pressure value,” as required by the claimed invention. (Id.)
According to Appellants, Amano described the “blood pulse wave” as “the
blood flow wave which is pumped out from the heart and propagates
through a blood vessel,” and Appellants assert that the blood pulse wave “is
not the blood pressure of claim 1.” (Id.) Further, Appellants assert that none
of the secondary references cure this deficiency of Amano, with respect to
Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

5
corrected blood pressure values recited in independent claims 1 and 11. (See
id. at 6-8.)
The issue is whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s finding that Amano taught or suggested that a corrected blood
pressure value may be ascertained from measured blood pressure values and
measured motion signals of an acceleration sensor.
Findings of Fact
1. Amano disclosed “a device and method for diagnosing physiological
state based on blood pulse waves detected in the body.” (Amano Abstract.)
2. Amano disclosed that its device comprised as its main components: a
blood pulse wave detector which detects blood pulse wave; a stroke-volume-
per-beat measurer which detects stroke volume in the body; a blood pulse
wave extraction memory; memory; output portion which outputs an alarm;
and a microcomputer which controls each part inside the device. (Id.)
3. Amano defined a “blood pulse wave” as “the blood flow wave which
is pumped out from the heart and propagates through a blood vessel.” (Id. at
col. 1, ll. 50-52.)
4. Amano disclosed a variety of arrangements for detecting blood pulse
wave and measuring stroke volume per beat, including an arrangement
wherein
blood pulse wave detector 160 detects the radius artery
waveform via a sensor attached to the wrist of the subject, while
detecting the subject’s blood pressure via a cuff attached to his
upper arm. The radius artery waveform is corrected using
blood pressure, and the thus corrected radius artery waveform is
output as an electric signal (analog signal).

(Id. at col. 37, l. 65 – col 38, l. 12.)
Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

6
5. Amano disclosed a method wherein the blood pulse wave is measured
along with the value of the acceleration sensor and when the results of the
acceleration sensor confirm that the subject is moving, the measured values
for physiological state are suitable corrected based on the measured value of
the acceleration sensor. (Id. at col. 61, ll. 9-16.)
Principles of Law
A conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious
must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the
prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the
art that would have led that individual to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Analysis
For each of the obviousness rejections, the Examiner relied on Amano
as teaching “a device and a method for diagnosing a physiological state of a
patient based on noninvasive blood pressure pulse waveforms measured
from a patient.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner found that “Amano uses a pressure
pulse wave sensor (element 47) to obtain the pulse waveform.” (Id. at 11.)
According to the Examiner, the blood pulse waveform “is the curve formed
by a plurality of blood pressure measurements taken over time” and “is at its
simplest a collection of blood pressure measurements.” (Id.) Therefore, the
Examiner reasoned that “[s]ince the pulse waveform is a collection of blood
pressure measurements, a correction of the pulse waveform is also a
correction of the individual pressure measurements making up that wave
form.” (Id.) However, the Examiner has not supported this reasoning with
evidence. In particular, Amano defined a “blood pulse wave” as “the blood
flow wave which is pumped out from the heart and propagates through a
Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

7
blood vessel.” (FF-3.) Further, Amano disclosed using a blood pulse wave
detector to detect the radius artery waveform via a sensor attached to the
wrist of a subject, while also detecting blood pressure via a cuff attached to
the subject’s upper arm. (FF-4.) According to Amano, the blood pressure is
used to correct the radius artery waveform. (Id.) However, Amano does not
teach or suggest that the detected pulse wave form is “a collection of blood
pressure measurements,” or that correcting this waveform provides a
correction of the measured blood pressure values, as required by the
apparatus of independent claim 1 and the method of independent claim 11.
Indeed, while Amano uses blood pressure to correct radius artery waveform,
the reference does not even disclose that its device or method provides an
individual report of the measured blood pressure values such that these
values may be corrected. Consequently, we find that the Examiner’s
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious is based
upon reasoning unsupported by evidence. See Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The record does not support the Examiner’s finding that Amano
taught or suggested that a corrected blood pressure value may be ascertained
from measured blood pressure values and measured motion signals of an
acceleration sensor.

Appeal 2010-011682
Application 11/639,052

8

SUMMARY
We reverse each of the obviousness rejections.

REVERSED

lp