Ex Parte Panken et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

12432993 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/432,993 0413012009
13582 7590 08/30/2016
Medtronic Inc. (Neuro)
710 Medtronic Parkway NE
MS: LC340 Legal Patents
Minneapolis, MN 55432
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric J. PANKEN
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.
P0034557.00/LG10137 8193
EXAMINER
MAHMOOD, NADIA AHMAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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):
medtronic _neuro _ docketing@cardinal-ip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC J. P ANKEN and DENNIS M. SKELTON
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
Technology Center 3700
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LISA M. GUIJT, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Eric J. Panken and Dennis M. Skelton (Appellants) 1 seek review,
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-55.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Medtronic, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
The disclosed subject matter "relates to posture detection techniques,
and more particularly, to medical devices that detect posture states." Spec.
1, 11. 18-19. Claims 1, 25, 38, 45, and 46 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below, with emphasis added:
1. A method of classifying a posture state of a
patient, comprising:
obtaining a defined vector from at least one
sensor disposed in a substantially fixed manner
relative to the patient, the defined vector being
described in a coordinate system of the at least one
sensor and without regard to an orientation in
which the sensor is disposed in relation to the
patient;
obtaining a detected vector from the at least
one sensor, the detected vector being described in
the coordinate system of the at least one sensor
and being indicative of the posture state of the
patient;
comparing the detected vector and the
defined vector;
classifying the posture state of the patient
based on the comparison and without regard to the
orientation in which the sensor is disposed in
relation to the patient; and
initiating via a medical device an action
related to providing care for the patient, the action
being based on the posture state classification.
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-33, 35-38,
40-52, 54, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
2
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
over Wang '056 (US 2007/0118056 Al, published May 24, 2007) and
Clarkson (US 2006/0284979 Al, published Dec. 21, 2006). 2
2. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and Sanghera (US 2008/0188901
Al, published Aug. 7, 2008).
3. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wang '056, Clarkson, and McNeil (US 2007/0032748 Al, published
Feb. 8, 2007).
4. Claims 20 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and Kim (US 6,879,352 Bl, issued
Apr. 12, 2005).
5. Claims 23, 26, 39, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Wang '056, Clarkson, and Wang '277 (US
2007/0115277 Al, published May 24, 2007).
2 As noted by Appellants (Appeal Br. 7 n.44), claim 21 is not listed in
the header for Rejection 1 (see Final Act. 2-3 (dated Apr. 9, 2013); Ans. 2))
but the Examiner discusses claim 21 in the body of Rejection 1 (see Final
Act. 5---6; Ans. 5) and lists claim 21 in the Office Action Summary (Final
Act. 1 ). As such, we consider claim 21 to be rejected. Further, although
claim 20 is listed as rejected in the header for Rejection 1 (Final Act. 2; Ans.
2), the Examiner does not discuss that claim in the body of Rejection 1. See
Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 2-8. As such, we do not consider claim 20 as rejected
under Rejection 1. The Examiner does, however, address claim 20 under
Rejection 4. See Final Act. 10-11.
3
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
DISCUSSION
Rejection I -The rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, 24,
25, 27-33, 35-38, 40-52, 54, and 55 under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
A. Claim 1 (and claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, and 24)
Independent claim 1 recites, among other limitations, "obtaining a
defined vector from at least one sensor disposed in a substantially fixed
manner relative to the patient, the defined vector being described in a
coordinate system of the at least one sensor," "obtaining a detected vector
from the at least one sensor, the detected vector being described in the
coordinate system of the at least one sensor" and "comparing the detected
vector and the defined vector." Appeal Br. 40 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites an "approach that is not taught or
even suggested by Wang in view of Clarkson that relates to comparing two
vectors, both being described in the coordinate system of the at least one
sensor." Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). Although we agree with the
Examiner that Wang ;056 discloses comparing a detected posture and a
defined posture in order to classify a patient's posture (see Ans. 11-12
(discussing Wang i-f 9) ), we agree with Appellants that, in the prior art, any
defined posture vector is not, as required by claim 1, "described in a
coordinate system of the at least one sensor." We now address the various
findings by the Examiner regarding this limitation (which we refer to as the
"coordinate system limitation"). As discussed below, any defined posture
vector in the prior art is described in the coordinate system of the patient's
body, rather than in the coordinate system of the sensor.
First, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner appeared to rely on
Clarkson to address the coordinate system limitation. See Final Act. 3
("Clarkson discloses where the activity of the subject (which may include
4
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
posture) can be determined independent of the sensor unit's orientation
[0036]."). We agree with Appellants, however, that the "general description
of determining activity independent of the sensor unit's orientation [in
Clarkson i-f 3 6] does not teach the requirements of [ c ]laim 1 of obtaining f!
defined vector described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor."
Appeal Br. 15; see also Ans. 13 (responding to Appellants with, "Examiner
points to paragraph [0036] of Clarkson which states that activity of the
subject can be determined independent of the sensor unit's orientation");
Reply Br. 15 (stating that "nothing in paragraph 36 of Clarkson relates the
statement 'the activity of the subject can be determined independent of the
sensor unit's orientation' to a defined vector").
Second, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner also appeared to rely
on paragraphs 5 and 21 of Wang '056 to address the coordinate system
limitation. See Final Act. 2 (stating that Wang '056 discloses "a defined
vector as one or more sensors indicative of a posture state of a patient [e.g.
0021]"); id. at 3 (stating that Wang '056 discloses "obtaining a defined
vector from at least one sensor where the vector is in a coordinate system in
paragraph [0005] where [Wang] states the 'outputs of one or more sensors
disposed in relation to a patient's body are measured while the patient
assumes a plurality of body postures"'). As discussed by Appellants
(Appeal Br. 8), the system described in Wang '056 performs posture
detection by obtaining a vector (indicative of posture) in the coordinate
system of a sensor, then translating (using a "transfer matrix" (Wang '056
i-f 5)) that vector into the coordinate system of a patient's body, before
comparing the translated vector to a defined posture vector, also in the body
coordinate system. See Wang '056 i-f 44 (discussing Figure 1 and stating that
5
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
"[t]he position of the patient's body may be expressed in body coordinates
by translating the vector gravitational force G acting on the patient's body
from device coordinates (U,V,W) to body coordinates (X,Y,Z)").
Paragraphs 5 and 21 support this understanding, and show that the
defined posture vector in Wang '056 is described in the body coordinate
system, not the sensor coordinate system. See Wang '056 i-f 5 ("The transfer
matrix defines a relationship between a coordinate system of the one or more
sensors and a coordinate system of the patient's body. The posture of the
patient's body is determined using the body coordinate system as a reference
coordinate system."); i-f 21 ("The posture processor of the posture detector
may be configured to define a vector associated with the posture and to
determine the posture, e.g., tilt or tilt angle, based on an orientation of the
vector with respect to a body coordinate system.").
Third, in the Answer, the Examiner appears to identify the "threshold
values" described in paragraph 9 of Wang '056 as the recited "defined
vector." See Ans. 11-12. As argued by Appellants, however, "the Examiner
has not cited to anything in Wang that indicates that [the] threshold values
are described in a coordinate system of the at least one sensor." Reply Br. 8.
Fourth, in the Answer, the Examiner also refers to paragraph 10 of
Wang '056 regarding the recited "defined vector." See Ans. 12 (first full
paragraph). Appellants contend that certain statements in the Answer show
that the Examiner "recognize[ s] that any alleged comparison occurs in the
body coordinate system." Reply Br. 12 (discussing Ans. 12). Regardless of
whether statements in the Answer amount to an admission on this issue,
paragraph 10 of Wang '056 supports the view that the defined posture
vectors in Wang '056 are described in the body coordinate system, not the
6
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
sensor coordinate system. See, e.g., Wang '056 il IO ("The posture
processor is configured to determine a posture of the patient's body using
the body coordinate system as a reference coordinate system.").
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or the
rejection of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 22, and 24, which depend
from claim 1.
B. Claim 25 (and claims 27-33 and 35-37)
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 25 recites, among other
limitations,
a storage device configured to store at least one posture
state definition referencing at least one defined vector expressed
in a coordinate system of the sensor; and
a processor configured to obtain the detected vector in
the coordinate system of the sensor, to compare the detected
vector to the at least one defined vector and to classify a
posture state of the patient based on the comparison.
Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For claim 25 (and claims
27-33 and 35-37, which depend from claim 25), the Examiner relies on the
same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and
Clarkson discussed above with regard to claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4, 7;
Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 25, 27-33,
and 35-37.
C. Claim 3 8 (and claims 40--44)
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 3 8 recites, among other
limitations, "receiving a defined vector from at least one sensor carried in
any orientation within a patient, the defined vector being expressed in a
coordinate system of the at least one sensor" and "classifying the posture
state of the patient based on a comparison between the detected vector and
7
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
the defined vector." Appeal Br. 47 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). For
claim 38 (and claims 40-44, which depend from claim 38), the Examiner
relies on the same deficient findings and conclusions with regard to Wang
'056 and Clarkson discussed above. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-13. Thus,
we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 38 and 40-44.
8
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
D. Claim 45
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 45 recites, among other
limitations, "obtaining one or more posture state definitions that reference
one or more defined vectors, each defined vector being indicated in the
coordinate system of the sensor" and "comparing the detected vector
directly to the one or more defined vectors." Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). For claim 45, the Examiner relies on the same deficient
findings and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and Clarkson discussed
above. See Final Act. 3--4, 7; Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the
rejection of claim 45.
E. Claim 46 (and claims 47-52, 54, and 55)
Similar to claim 1, independent claim 46 recites, among other
limitations, "one or more processors configured to obtain a defined vector
expressed in a coordinate system of a sensor wherein the defined vector is
associated with a posture state definition" and also configured "to compare
the detected vector to the defined vector." Appeal Br. 48 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added). For claim 46 (and claims 47-52, 54, and 55, which
depend from claim 46), the Examiner relies on the same deficient findings
and conclusions with regard to Wang '056 and Clarkson discussed above.
See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-13. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection
of claims 46-52, 54, and 55.
Rejections 2 and 3 -The rejection of claims 8, 11,
and 14 under 35 USC§ 103(a)
Claims 8, 11, and 14 depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 41, 42 (Claims
App.). The Examiner's added reliance on Sanghera (regarding Rejection 2)
and McNeil (regarding Rejection 3) does not remedy the deficiencies in the
9
Appeal2014-005817
Application 12/432,993
combined teachings of Wang '056 and Clarkson, discussed above (see supra
Rejection 1 §A). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 8, 11, and 14.
Rejections 4 and 5 - The rejection of claims 20, 23, 26,
34, 39, and 53 under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
Claims 20 and 23 depend from claim 1, claims 26 and 34 depend from
claim 25, claim 39 depends from claim 38, and claim 53 depends from claim
46. Appeal Br. 44--47, 49 (Claims App.). The Examiner's reliance on Kim
(regarding Rejection 4) and Wang '277 (regarding Rejection 5) does not
remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Wang '056 and
Clarkson, discussed above (see supra Rejection 1 §A). Thus, for the same
reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 20, 23, 26,
34, 39, and 53.
DECISION
We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 1-55.
REVERSED
10