Ex Parte Receveur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

13180929 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/180,929 07 /12/2011
63565 7590 08/15/2016
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Timothy Joseph Receveur
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.
Nl-35044 3372
EXAMINER
POLITO, NICHOLAS F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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 TIMOTHY JOSEPH RECEVEUR, DAVID RIBBLE,
JASON AMRHEIN, CHRISTOPHER R. O'KEEFE,
RACHEL WILLIAMSON, and STEPHEN L. DOUGLAS
Appeal2014-007606
Application 13/180,929
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, AMANDA F. WIEKER and
SEAN P. O'HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 19--21, 23, and 24 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Biondo (US 7,641,623 B2, iss. Jan 5, 2010), Bell
(US 5,664,270, iss. Sept. 9, 1997), and Bolam (US 6,786,879 Bl, iss. Sept.
7, 2004) and of claims 13-15, 17, 18, and 25 over Biondo and Bell. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to hospital beds with pneumatic
appliances. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A care delivery system comprising:
a bed including a bed frame and a bed-side universal interface
unit having one or more fluid ports;
an appliance set comprising one or more appliances and two
or more appliance-side interface units distributed among the one
or more appliances so that each appliance includes at least one
appliance-side interface unit, each appliance-side interface unit
including one or more fluid ports;
a set of one or more adaptors each adaptor comprising a single
host interface unit compatible with the universal interface unit,
and a single client interface unit, each adaptor being arranged to
accommodate fluid flow between its host interface unit and its
client interface unit, wherein each client interface unit of the set of
adaptors, taken individually, is compatible with at least one but
fewer than all of the appliance-side interface units of the appliance
set and, the client interface units of the set of adaptors, taken
collectively, are compatible with all of the appliance-side interface
units of the appliance set taken collectively;
an appliance annunciator; and
an appliance discriminator responsive to the annunciator
thereby configuring the system for pneumatic demands required to
be satisfied.
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 19--21, 23, and 24
over Biondo, Bell, and Bolam
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 19, and 23-24
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 19, and 23-24 as a group.
Appeal Br. 9. We select claim 1 as representative. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
2
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
The Examiner finds that Biondo discloses all of the elements of
claim 1 except for the adaptor and the annunciator/discriminator elements.
Final Action 2-3. The Examiner relies on Bell for the adaptor element and
Bolam for the annunciator and discriminator elements. Id. at 3. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to add adaptors to Biondo. Id.
According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
done this to be able to connect various different devices through one
universal port. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add an
annunciator and discriminator to Biondo. Id. According to the Examiner, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to provide designated
treatment. Id. at 3--4.
Appellants traverse the Examiner's rejection by arguing that Bell's
adaptor lacks certain limitations recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. In
particular, Appellants argue that claim 1 requires that the client interface
adaptors are compatible with all of the appliance side devices. Id. at 12.
Appellants argue that Bell discloses a "popular" unit that connects directly
without need for an adaptor. Id. at 11-12. Appellants characterize the
Examiner's proposed combination as excluding the most popular appliance
from the appliance set. Id. at 13-14. Appellants characterize such exclusion
as changing Bell's principle of operation. Id. Appellants also characterize
Bell's direct connection as a "teaching away" of interposing adaptors
between client and appliance interface units. Id. at 15. Appellants also
accuse the Examiner of engaging in impermissible hindsight. Id. Appellants
argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation
3
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
to combine Biondo and Bolam with Bell because Biondo and Bell would
work "quite satisfactorily" without being modified by Bell's adaptors. Id. at
16-17.
In response, the Examiner points out that Bell teaches a set of
adaptors that are compatible with all of the appliance side interface units
because there is one adaptor available for each appliance that needs
adaptation. Ans. 2. The Examiner explains that it is unnecessary and
illogical to provide an adaptor for an appliance whose connector is already
compatible with the bedside interface. Id. at 2-3 ("A set of adaptors would
therefore not include one which connects like to like.").
In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner misconstrued their
position and that they really meant to argue that it is illogical to exclude the
most popular appliance from an appliance set. Reply Br. 2.
We think the Examiner has stated the better position. We think that it
is well within the province of ordinary skill to provide an adaptor only where
one is required. We did not understand the Examiner's rejection as
excluding the most popular appliance from the appliance set. Rather, Bell's
"popular" appliance needs no adaptor because it already is equipped with a
compatible connection, i.e., it connects "like to like." See Bell, Fig. 1.
Another manner of providing a universal port to address the
stated need is represented in connection with transducer
port 32e. Rather than have multiple sockets for a single type of
transducer, a single temperature transducer port 32e is provided
for multiple makes of temperature transducer leads 31 e. The
port 32e is particularly adapted to receive the most popular, or
most preferred, type of temperature transducer lead, and
adapter 43 is utilized to enable connection to the transducer lead
of a less popular, or less preferred, type of transducer lead. A
plurality of adapters 43 may be made available if it is desired to
4
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
have more than two basic types of transducer leads 31 e
connectable at the same port 32e.
Bell, col. 7, 11. 6-17. Thus, Bell teaches the use of adaptors to join
components that have dissimilar connection interfaces. The Examiner
proposes to use this teaching to "connect various different devices," which
we interpret as devices having different (i.e., dissimilar) connection
interfaces, "through one universal port." Final Action 3. In such a case, the
adaptors, taken collectively, would be compatible with all of the set of
different devices.
We disagree that modifying Biondo with Bell's adaptor changes any
principle of operation. Biondo, as modified by Bell, would supply air to a
plurality of pneumatic appliances. We also disagree with Appellants'
hindsight argument as the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-hindsight
reason to combine the references, namely that such a modification would
enable the connection of various devices. Id; see In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694,
702 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We similarly reject Appellants' teaching away argument. A reference
does not teach away if it merely discloses an alternative invention but does
not "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage" investigation into the
invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants have not directed us to any language in Bell that criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into using adaptors for
making connections with appliances.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding lack of
motivation. An implicit motivation to combine exists when the
improvement is technology-independent and the combination of references
results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it
5
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more
efficient. Dystar Textilfarben GmBH & Co, v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal-and even
common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these
situations a motivation to combine prior art references even
absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.
Id. Here, the Examiner finds motivation in the desire to connect various
devices through one universal port, which we view as improved efficiency.
Final Action 3. This is adequate motivation to support the rejection.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we determine that the Examiner's
findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that
the Examiner's legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-founded.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 19, 23, and 24.
Claims 20 and 21
Claim 20 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1 except that it contains a limitation directed to "a common
appliance-side interface unit serving the two or more appliances, each
appliance-side interface unit including one or more fluid ports." Claims
App. Claim 21 depends from claim 20. Id. Appellants argue claims 20
and 21 together and we select claim 20 as representative. Appeal Br. 9, 17-
19.
The Examiner identifies Biondo's elements 60, 76 as satisfying the
common appliance-side interface unit limitation. Final Action 6-7.
Appellants argue that Biondo's elements 60, 76 are not "common"
because they are not shared by two or more appliances that can
6
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
simultaneously receive fluid. Appeal Br. 17-18, Reply Br. 4. 1 Appellants
support their assertion with a dictionary definition of "common." Appeal
Br. 18.
In response, the Examiner states that Biondo' s elements 60, 7 6 are
"common" because they include an interface coupler with three ports.
Ans. 4. Additionally, the Examiner states that the claims do not require
simultaneous sharing. Id.
Biondo discloses a system for compression therapy that includes a
hospital bed. Biondo, Abstract. Biondo depicts a sleeve 52 with three
inflatable portions 62, 64, and 66. Biondo, Fig. 1, col. 5, 11. 11-19. The
respective inflatable portions each receive fluid through individual
respective tubes 58 of ribbon 56. Id. The respective tubes 58 are coupled to
and pneumatically communicate with respective ports 68 of coupler 60. We
discern no patentable distinction between Biondo's coupler 60 with three
ports 68 serving three appliances 62, 64, 66 and the common appliance side
interface A of Appellants' disclosure. See Spec. i-f 32 (disclosing "a common
appliance side interface unit A having three ports 122A, 122B, 122C serving
the three appliances"), Fig. 14. Using a broad, but reasonable construction
of "appliance," we discern no material distinction between inflatable
portions 62, 64, and 66 of Biondo and mattress bladders 106F, 106H, and
compression boot 108' of Appellants' disclosure, both of which fall within
the scope of the limitation at issue in claim 20.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 20 and 21.
1 Appellants also repeat their arguments from the rejection of claim 1, which
we find equally unpersuasive with respect to claim 20. Appeal Br. 17-19.
7
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
Unpatentability of Claims 13-15, 17, 18, and 25
over Biondo and Bell
Claims 13-15 and 25
Claim 13 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1 except that it does not require an annunciator or discriminator.
Claims App. Appellants argue claims 13-15 and 25 as a group and we
select claim 13 as representative. Appeal Br. 9, 20-22.
Appellants traverse the rejection by raising essentially the same
arguments concerning Bell's purported lack of disclosure of the adaptor set
limitation and teaching away that we previously considered and found
unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 and which we find equally
unpersuasive here for the essentially same reasons.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 13-15 and 25.
Claims 17 and 18
Claim 1 7 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim l except that it does not require an annunciator or discnmmator.
Claims App. Appellants' brief contains a separate sub-heading and group
for claims 17 and 18 and we select claim 17 as representative. Appeal Br. 9,
23.
In traversing the rejection of claims 17 and 18, Appellants rely on the
same arguments concerning Bell's purported lack of disclosure of the
adaptor set limitation, teaching away, and hindsight that we previously
considered and found unpersuasive with respect to claim 1 and which we
find equally unpersuasive here.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 18.
8
Appeal 2014-07 606
Application 13/180,929
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-15,
17-21, and 23-25 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9