Ex Parte Roberts

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12189624 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/189,624 08/1112008
28075 7590 03/21/2016
SEAGER, TUFTE & WICKHEM, LLP
100 SOUTH 5TH STREET
SUITE 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nick Roberts
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.
SMASD-14US 7360
EXAMINER
REYES, REGINALD R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
GEN.USPTO@stwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICK ROBERTS
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,6241
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nick Roberts (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of
the Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 13-16, 19, 26, 27, and 29-
51. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellant identifies Smiths Medical ASD, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,624
THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method of tracking changed parameters in a plurality of
medical infusion pumps, each of the medical infusion pumps
having first, common metadata associated therewith by which
to communicate a defined device identifier for that medical
infusion pump and second metadata associated therewith by
which to communicate operational data collected by that
medical infusion pump, the method comprising:
programming each medical device to have the first
common metadata and the respective second metadata;
establishing communication sessions between the
medical infusion pumps and a medical device server;
in respect of each of the medical infusion pumps,
communicating a packet of information including the first
metadata and defined device identifier for that medical infusion
pump and the second metadata and an original parameter value
of operational data, an updated parameter value of operational
data, and a final parameter value of operational data from that
medical infusion pump to the medical device server;
processing each packet of information to determine the
defined device identifier communicated with the first metadata;
and
storing the original parameter value, the updated
parameter value, and the final parameter value of the
operational data in relation to the second metadata of each
respective medical infusion pump on the medical device server
for the respective medical infusion pump in relation to the
defined device identifier of the first metadata of that medical
infusion pump.
2
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,624
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Samuels son
Lee
Leibner-Druska
Ryu
US 2004/0073276 Al
US 2005/0144204 Al
US 2006/0100746 Al
US 2006/0248465 Al
The following rejections are before us for review:
Apr. 15, 2004
June 30, 2005
May 11, 2006
Nov. 2, 2006
1. Claims 1--4, 7, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Lee, and Samuelsson.
2. Claims 26, 27, 30--40, 42-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska and Samuelsson.
3. Claims 29 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Samuelsson, and Ryu.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1--4, 7, 13-16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Lee, and
Samuelsson; claims 26, 27, 30--40, 42-51under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leibner-Druska and Samuelsson; and claims 29 and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska,
Samuelsson, and Ryu?
3
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,624
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 13-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Lee, and Samuelsson.
Independent claim 1 includes the limitation:
each of the medical infusion pumps having first, common
metadata associated therewith by which to communicate a
defined device identifier for that medical infusion pump and
second metadata associated therewith by which to communicate
operational data collected by that medical infusion pump.
The Examiner found said claim limitation disclosed in paragraphs 16
and 20 of Leibner-Druska. See Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 5---6. According
to the Examiner:
Examiner broadly interprets metadata as data about data. So in
paragraph 20 of Leibner-Druska teaches pumping parameter for
infusing the medical fluid to the patient (first metadata) and
comparing the uploaded pumping parameter to a data base of
predetermined pumping parameter limits and providing an alert
if the uploaded pumping parameter is outside the limits (second
metadata).
Ans. 5---6.
We make the following observation. Appellant contends that the cited
prior art fails to disclose tagging via metadata (see, e.g., "tagging to
communicate" (Br. 24)). According to Appellant, "[e]ach medical device
must send its device identifier tagged by metadata that defines it as device
identifier data. As a consequence, each of the medical devices has common,
first metadata being the tag for the device identifier data." Br. 19. However,
the claims do not require metadata tags or tagging. The claimed subject
matter provides for, more broadly, metadata which "[is] associated [with a
medical infusion pump] by which to communicate a defined device
identifier for that medical infusion pump" (claim 1 ).
4
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,624
Notwithstanding that the Appellant's argument as to tagging is not
commensurate in scope with what is claimed, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection.
Paragraph 20 of Leibner-Dmska teaches communicating and
displaying a "pumping parameter, and associated identification of the
infusion pump" on a monitor. Thus, paragraph 20 discloses a device
identifier for a medical infusion pump, and operational data collected by that
medical infusion pump. However, the cited passage provides no indication
that the pumping parameter, which the Examiner found corresponds to "first,
common metadata," is used "to communicate a defined device identifier" as
required by claim 1. Nor does the cited passage provide any indication that
the predetermined pumping parameter limits, which the Examiner found
correspond to "second metadata," are used "to communicate operational
data" as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, a prim a facie case of obviousness has not
been made out in the first instance by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2--4, and 7
which depend from it, is not sustained.
Independent claim 13 recites a similar limitation, and the Examiner's
rejection suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of independent
claim 1. See Final Act. 3. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim
13, and claims 14--16, and 19 which depend from it, is not sustained.
5
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,624
The rejection of claims 26, 27, 30--40, 42-51 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska and Samuelsson.
Independent claims 26, 38, 39, and 51 recite a similar limitation, and
the Examiner's rejection suffers from the same deficiency as the rejection of
independent claim 1. See Final Act. 6-7;see also Ans. 6-8. Accordingly,
the rejection of independent claims 26, 38, 39, and 51, and claims 27, 30-37,
40, and 42-50 which depend from them, are not sustained for similar
reasons.
The rejection of claims 29 and 41under35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Samuelsson, and Ryu
These rejections are directed to claims which depend from
independent claims 26 and 39, whose rejections we have not sustained, as
described above. For the same reasons, we will not sustain the rejections of
claims 29 and 41 over the cited prior art. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious. ").
CONCLUSIONS
The rejections of claims 1--4, 7, 13-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Lee, and Samuelsson;
claims 26, 27, 30--40, 42-51under35U.S.C.§103(a) as being unpatentable
over Leibner-Druska and Samuelsson; and claims 29 and 41under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leibner-Druska, Samuelsson, and Ryu
are not sustained.
6
Appeal2013-008210
Application 12/189,624
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 7, 13-16, 19, 26,
27, and 29-51 is reversed.
REVERSED
7