Ex Parte Russell

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2012

11127841 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________
Ex parte CLAUDIA J. RUSSELL
____________________

Appeal 2009-014789
Application 11/127,841
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOOD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014789
Application 11/127,841

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a medication delivery system that provides
a graphical display of medication delivery parameters. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system that graphically displays medication delivery
information, the system comprising;
an input device that produces a medical fluid signal
representative of a medical fluid to be delivered;
a medication delivery device that delivers the medical fluid, the
medication delivery device operating in accordance with a
selected value of a delivery parameter;
a display that graphically presents medication delivery
information;
a memory in which is stored a predetermined range of the
delivery parameter associated with the medical fluid to be
delivered; and
a processor that receives the medical fluid signal, accesses the
memory to retrieve the predetermined range of the delivery
parameter associated with the medical fluid represented by the
medical fluid signal, presents the predetermined range of the
delivery parameter on the display in graphical form, and
presents in graphical form on the display the selected value of
the delivery parameter showing where in reference to the
displayed graphical predetermined range the value of the
delivery parameter is located;
whereby a clinician can visualize from observing the display
where in the predetermined range the selected value of the
delivery parameter lies.

Appeal 2009-014789
Application 11/127,841

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ford
Connell
Meinzer
US 5,681,285
US 5,744,027
US 5,782,805
Oct. 28, 1997
Apr. 28, 1998
Jul. 21, 1998

REJECTIONS
Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections:
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ford;
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Connell; and
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ford or Connell in view of Meinzer.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 – Anticipation – Ford
The Appellant argues all of the claims rejected under Ford – claims 1-
3 – as a group. App. Br. 11. We select claim 1 as representative with claims
2 and 3 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, a graphical display of a “predetermined
range” of a “delivery parameter” of a “medical fluid,” as well as a graphical
display of a “selected value” of the delivery parameter depicted in relation to
the predetermined range. App. Br. 14. The Examiner relied on the graph
shown in Ford Figure 20 to teach these elements. Ans. 3. Figure 20 depicts
a log-log graph of fluid flow (in ml/hr) versus patient body weight (in Kg).
Appeal 2009-014789
Application 11/127,841

4
Ford, Fig. 20; col. 16, ll. 54-62. Lines 231, 232 and 233 on the graph depict,
respectively, the minimum, default, and maximum doses (expressed in mcg
of drug/ Kg of patient body weight/minute) for the selected drug and
concentration. Ford, col. 17, ll. 63-65. More specifically, for the drug
Amrinone at a concentration of 4mg/ml and for different patient body
weights, line 231 represents the minimum dose of 5 mcg/Kg/min.; line 232
represents the default dose of 7.5 mcg/Kg/min.; and line 233 represents the
maximum dose of 10 mcg/Kg/min. Id. The Appellant contends that “[n]one
of these lines represents a selected value of a medical fluid signal[,] a
claimed feature of claim 1.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis in original). According
to Appellant, Figure 20 “merely presents the user with choices, from which
to consider a selection of an appropriate operating parameter.” Id. The
Examiner responds that the “default rate” – line 232 – is the “‘selected
medical parameter’ because the operator of the pump selects/programs the
default value into the pump memory.” Ans. 5.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant essentially argues that a
value expressed in terms of mcg/Kg/min cannot be a claimed “selected value
of a delivery parameter.” But the Appellant has not identified anything in
the Specification or elsewhere that would support that notion. On the
contrary, the Specification indicates that a medication’s dose can be
expressed in these units. See Spec. 16, ¶¶ [0006], [00056]; Fig. 8. Further,
the Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the default value
represented by line 232 is “selected” by the pump operator. We therefore
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 as anticipated by Ford.

Appeal 2009-014789
Application 11/127,841

5
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-10 – Anticipation – Connell
The Appellant argues all of the claims rejected under Connell – claims
1, 2, 4, and 6-10 – as a group. App. Br. 12. We select claim 1 as
representative with claims 2, 4, and 6-10 standing or falling with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner relied on Connell Fig. 8 to disclose the claimed
graphical display of the drug delivery parameters. Ans. 3-4, 5-6. The
Examiner identified the blood pump rate display, which according to the
Examiner shows blood pump rate ranging from 100-700 mL/min and a
selected flow rate of 300 mL/min. Ans. 6. Appellant acknowledges that
there is a “linear indicator that indicates a blood pump flow rate,” but asserts
that “[t]here is no description or suggestion that this graphical display shows
a predetermined operating range of a medical fluid signal with a selected
value of medical fluid signal presented on this range.” App. Br. 11. We
agree with the Examiner, however, that the range of 100 to 700 mL/min
depicted on the display of Fig. 8 is a predetermined operating range and that
300 mL/min is a selected value on that range. The Appellant provides no
explanation or evidence to support its contrary assertion. We therefore
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Connell.

Claim 5 – Obviousness – Ford or Connell in view of Meinzer
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claim 5. App.
Br. 12. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.

Appeal 2009-014789
Application 11/127,841

6
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

JRG