Ex Parte Nacey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2014

11221418 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2014)

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.
11/221,418 09/07/2005 Gene E. Nacey 569.019 4869
122546 7590 11/06/2014
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 Broad Street
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
TRIEU, VAN THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/06/2014 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 GENE E. NACEY
____________________

Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 5–8, 10–17, 19, and 20. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 18 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a mobile visual display and modification of
bed management and patient placement information. Abst.; Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for modifying and graphically displaying a
facility's bed management and patient status information, the
apparatus comprising:

a transportable data input/output device; an arrangement for
producing a plurality of data cells for being viewed on a display
of the data input/output device, the cells having a plurality of
user modifiable attributes simultaneously relating to: (i) bed
management information, including at least one of bed
occupancy and bed availability; and (ii) patient status
information; and a controller which modifies at least one of the
attributes of at least one of the cells to convey said bed
management and patient status information upon commands
wirelessly transmitted from said data input/output device.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ballantyne US 5,867,821 Feb. 2, 1999
Rosow US 2003/0074222 A1 Apr. 17, 2003
Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

3
REJECTION
1

The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10–17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosow and Ballantyne. Ans. 5–
11.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Rosow does not teach or suggest the ability to make changes to a
database in real time from a remote device. App. Br. 7.
2. Rosow’s incidental reference to a PDA or other mobile input/output units
fails to teach or suggest providing the PDA with data or use of a remote,
mobile input/output unit to display the required information. App. Br. 7–
8.
3. Ballantyne’s PDAs are passive data collectors, i.e., input devices which
fail to teach or suggest the display of updated bed and patient data once
entered, use for output of data, or other management functions. App. Br.
8–9.
4. The combination of Rosow and Ballantyne is improperly based on
hindsight and would not result in the claimed invention. App. Br. 9–10.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7–10)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4–7), the issues presented on appeal are:
1. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Rosow
and Ballantyne teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.

1
Appellant collectively argues the rejection of all pending claims.
Therefore, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10–17, 19, and 20 based
on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

4
2. Whether the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of Rosow
and Ballantyne was obvious.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4–11) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 11–14) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In connection with contentions 1 and 2 Appellant argues “[a]ll of the
claims, either directly or indirectly, include the limitation of the user
remotely modifying or manipulating the data of the database by wirelessly
transmitting instructions from a remote, mobile data input/output unit, which
displays the bed and patient/occupant status data.” App. Br. 7. Appellant
further argues Rosow fails to teach or suggest making changes in real time
from a remote device. Id.
We disagree with Appellant and consider Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive because, inter alia, they are not commensurate in scope with
the claims. Claim 1 neither mentions the argued database nor modifying or
manipulating data of a database in real time or otherwise. To the contrary, in
pertinent part, claim 1 only requires data cells be viewed on the
[transportable] input/output device. Neither is there any requirement for the
input/output device to receive data from the controller or elsewhere.
Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

5
Furthermore, we disagree Rosow is deficient in teaching or suggesting
the argued, albeit, unclaimed features. For example, Rosow discloses a “bed
management system [allowing users] to easily access, analyze and display
real-time patient and bed availability information from ancillary information
systems, databases and spreadsheets” (Rosow Abst., emphasis added), “[t]he
system of the present invention is real-time” (Rosow ¶ 12, emphasis added),
“a user . . . can view, enter or update [(i.e., modify)] the patient data”
(Rosow ¶ 89, emphasis added), “system 10 . . . [is] updated to indicate the
patent has a bed reserved” (Rosow ¶ 96, emphasis added.) Thus, Rosow’s
client computers 22 remotely access and update bed management database
(BMD) 20 via servers 12 and 18 (Rosow ¶ 49), i.e., Rosow provides access
to database 20 from the remote locations of computers 22. Still further
Rosow’s client computers 22 include displays 24 for viewing data equivalent
to and disclosing the data cells of claim 1. Rosow Figs. 1, 12–18. Because
data can be entered using client computers 22, the updated data would also
be displayed on the associated display 24 once entered, contrary to
Appellant’s argument. See App. Br. 9. Although claim 1 does not require the
input/output device (Rosow’s client computers 22) to display updated data
(i.e., modified attributes) transmitted by and received from a remote
database as Appellant argues (App. Br. 8–9 contending Rosow fails to teach
allowing a user to observe the database from a remote location), Rosow
nevertheless teaches access to and display of updated patient data. Rosow
¶ 89.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are neither commensurate in scope
with the claims nor supported by the evidence of record. Accordingly, for the
Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

6
reasons supra, Appellant’s contentions 1 and 2 are not persuasive of
Examiner error.
We are also not persuaded of error by Appellant’s contention 3
because the Examiner relies on Rosow, not the argued Ballantyne reference,
for teaching or suggesting the disputed features. Ans. 5–6, 13–14. Ballantyne
is relied upon only for teaching commands wirelessly transmitted from the
data input/output device, i.e., wireless PDA connectivity. Id. Because Rosow
teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1, including the argued display of
updated data, except for specifically disclosing a wireless PDA (for which
the Examiner applies Ballantyne), we find unpersuasive Appellant’s
contention the combination is deficient because Ballantyne discloses only a
passive PDA input functionality. See App. Br. 9.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded the combination of Rosow and
Ballantyne is improper (Appellant’s contention 4, supra.) See App. Br. 9–
10. The Examiner explains:
[I]t would have been obvious to one skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to substitute the PDA having RF/IR
wireless communications used in hospital environment of
Ballantyne et al for the user computer or handheld PDA of
Rosow et al for providing convenience and easily updating of
the beds statuses in the hospital facility to accommodate each
patients with reliabilities and smoothly, since the wireless
technologies of PDAs, wireless computers, LAPTOPs and/or
wireless electronics are available in the market for replacing of
wire/cable electronic devices for easily use and eliminating of
wires/cables being used in the hospital facilities and clinics.
Ans. 7–8. We find the Examiner’s explanation to constitute articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal
conclusion of obviousness. In contrast, Appellant fails to provide sufficient
Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

7
evidence or reasoning to persuade us that requiring Rosow’s PDA to include
wireless connectivity as taught by Ballantyne yields anything other than
predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
We are also not persuaded combining the respective familiar elements of the
cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. at 418). Therefore, we find the Examiner’s proffered combination
of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions would
have conveyed a reasonable expectation of success to a person of ordinary
skill at the time of the invention. Accordingly, the Examiner’s combination
of Rosow and Ballantyne is not improper. Furthermore, for the reasons
supra, we are not persuaded the combination of Rosow and Ballantyne fails
to teach or suggest any disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claims 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Rosow and Ballantyne together with the rejections of dependent claims
2, 5–8, 10–17, and 19, which were not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner did not err in concluding the combination of Rosow and
Ballantyne teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
2. The Examiner did not err in concluding the combination of Rosow and
Ballantyne was obvious.
Appeal 2012-005165
Application 11/221,418

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10–17, 19, and 20
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis