Ex Parte Mukkamala et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

12993544 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/993,544 02/22/2011
151199 7590 09/27/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. (MSU)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ramakrishna Mukkamala
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6550-000168-US-NPB 6913
EXAMINER
MALLARI, PATRICIA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3735
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMAKRISHNA MUKKAMALA,
GOKUL SW AMY, and NICHOLAS BARI OLIVIER
Appeal2017-000995
Application 12/993,544 1
Technology Center 3700
Before: STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
4, 8-23, 26-33, 35, 36, 40, and 44--54. No other claims are pending. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-000995
Application 12/993,544
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
"[Appellants'] invention pertains generally to a technique for
determining central aortic pressure from a single peripheral artery pressure
waveform." Appeal Br. 7; accord Spec. ,r 3. Central aortic pressure ("AP")
is a measure of blood pressure within the aortic artery, which conducts blood
from the heart to other portions of the body. Peripheral artery pressure
("PAP") is a measure of blood pressure in a peripheral artery, away from the
heart. According to the Specification:
As the arterial pressure wave traverses from the central aorta to the
peripheral arteries, its contour becomes significantly distorted due to
wave reflections in the arterial tree. Most notably, both systolic
(maximum) pressure and pulse pressure (systolic minus diastolic
(minimum) pressure) become amplified, with the extent of the
amplification dependent on the circulatory state. Thus, it is the
systolic and diastolic pressures measured specifically in the central
aorta that truly reflect cardiac afterload and perfusion.
Spec. ,r 4.
Although the AP waveform provides superior information regarding
cardiac performance, it cannot be measured directly, such as by
catheterization of the aortic artery, without subjecting the patient to undue
risk of clot formation and embolism. Therefore, it was known to be
desirable to measure the AP waveform indirectly, using a single PAP
waveform. See Spec. ,r 5. Nevertheless, known techniques for estimating
the AP waveform from a single PAP waveform failed to account for
differences in the behavior of the arterial tree from patient-to-patient, and
2
Appeal2017-000995
Application 12/993,544
over time. See Spec. ,r 7. Appellants' invention is directed to overcoming
those problems.
Claims 1, 11, and 54 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for determining a central aortic pressure (AP)
waveform for a subject, comprising:
measuring, by a sensor, a peripheral artery pressure (PAP)
waveform from the subject;
deriving a mathematical transformation relating PAP to
AP using a distributed model, the transformation is defined in
terms of unknown parameters;
estimating, by a computing device, the unknown
parameters by minimizing a variable representing the magnitude
of central arterial flow during diastole when applied to the PAP
waveform, wherein estimating the unknown parameters uses
only one PAP waveform measured from the subject; and
determining, by the computing device, the AP waveform
for the subject by applying the derived mathematical
transformation to the measured PAP, where the steps of
estimating and determining are implemented by computer-
executable instructions executed by a computer processor of the
computing device.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1--4, 8-23, 26-33, 35, 36, 40, and 44--54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-patentable subject matter.
ANALYSIS
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereto, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
3
Appeal2017-000995
Application 12/993,544
recognized exceptions excluding from patentability laws of nature, physical
phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 601
(2010).
According to the Supreme Court, a two-step analysis is to be used to
determine whether the subject matter of a claim falls within one of the
exceptions to patent eligibility. First, one must determine whether the claim
is "directed to one of [the] patent-ineligible concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). Second, if so, one must
determine if the remainder of the claim recites an "inventive concept," such
that the claim as a whole recites a specific application of the patent-
ineligible concept. Id. at 2357-58.
For claims that include computer-related technology, the first step of
the Alice analysis includes identifying with specificity what the claims are
directed to, Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 2017), and "ask[ing] whether the claims are directed to an improvement
to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea." Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Although
numerous decisions have held claims ineligible as directed to an abstract
idea where the claims recite a mere collection of electronic information,
display of information, or mental processes that could be performed by
humans, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting cases), the Federal Circuit has explained that
" [ w] e must ... ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are
directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is
meaningful." Thales, 850 F.3d at 1347.
4
Appeal2017-000995
Application 12/993,544
Here, the Examiner states that Appellants' claims are "directed to the
abstract idea of an algorithm for determining a central aortic pressure
waveform from a periphery artery pressure waveform." Final Act. 3.
Further, the Examiner states "the abstract idea is directed to the deriving,
estimating, and determining steps which are clearly mathematical functions"
performed on generic computers. Ans. 2.
Although Appellants' invention certainly involves mathematics,
recognition of that fact does not end the analysis required for step one. As
the Federal Circuit has explained, "[t]hat a mathematical equation is required
to complete [ a claimed method] does not doom the claims to abstraction."
Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349. Claims must be considered in their entirety to
ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter. McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Examiner's analysis focuses on the mathematics involved in
Appellants' claims without proper consideration of the particular steps and
context recited in Appellants' claims. As noted above, Appellants'
invention recites a method for determining aortic pressure from
measurements of peripheral artery pressure by deriving a mathematical
transformation relating peripheral artery pressure to aortic pressure using a
distributed model with unknown parameters; and estimating the unknown
parameters by minimizing a variable representing the central arterial flow
during diastole. As additional context, Appellants' Specification explains
that "[t]he key innovation is to fully adapt the mathematical transformation
relating PAP to AP to the inter-subject and temporal variability of the
arterial tree by using a distributed model in conjunction with the fact that
5
Appeal2017-000995
Application 12/993,544
central aortic flow is negligible during the diastolic intervals due to aortic
valve closure." Spec. ,r 22.
By reducing Appellants' invention to the abstract idea of an algorithm
or mathematical functions performed on generic computers, the Examiner's
analysis failed to consider the invention as a whole, in contravention of the
controlling case law. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1--4, 8-23, 26-33, 35, 36, 40, and 44--54.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 8-23, 26-33, 35,
36, 40, and 44--54.
REVERSED
6