Ex Parte Small et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2015

11073910 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JAMES R. SMALL, DAVID M. BROOKS,
CHARLES S. NEER, and FRANK M. FAGO
1

__________

Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES and
CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a contrast
media injector system, which have been rejected as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1
According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Mallinckrodt LLC.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–7 are on appeal. Claim 1 is the only independent claim and
reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A contrast media injector system comprising:
a powerhead including a display screen;
the powerhead configured to control injection of a fluid
from within a fluid container coupled thereto to a patient
through tubing connected to the fluid container;
a first iconic graphical element within the display screen
representing the fluid container and the fluid therein, wherein a
color of the graphical element is selected based on an identity
of the fluid; and
a second iconic graphical element within the display
screen representing the tubing and the fluid therein, wherein a
color of the second iconic graphical element is substantially
identical to the color of the first iconic graphical element, and
wherein the second iconic graphical element extends from the
first iconic graphical element on the display screen.

DISCUSSION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based on Lazzaro,
2
Spiller,
3
and Pfeifer.
4
(Ans. 4.) The Examiner
finds that Lazzaro discloses an injector system with a powerhead on a scan
unit having a display that shows information relating to two syringes “using
an iconic representation of the syringe and color coding the syringe based on
the fluid within the syringe.” (Id. at 5.) The Examiner also finds that
Lazzaro discloses a display on a separate control room unit that includes
icons for both the syringes and the tubing connected to the syringes, and

2
US 2004/0064041 Al, April 1, 2004.
3
5,423,750, June 13, 1995.
4
4,483,342, Nov. 20, 1984.
Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910

3
“discloses that features from the control unit may be included in the scan
unit display.” (Id.)
The Examiner finds that although Lazzaro does not teach a second
icon representing fluid in the tubing connected to the syringes, Spiller
teaches “a fluid delivery system with color coding between the fluid
container and tubing where the second icon is identical in color to the first
icon (e.g. Fig 3) for the purpose of improved ease of visual identification and
distinction between fluid lines to improve the visual monitoring.” (Id. at 6.)
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the
display unit as taught by Lazzaro with the color coding between the fluid
container and tubing as taught by Spiller for the purpose of improving the
ease of visual monitoring of the quality and course of the infusion.” (Id.)
Appellants argue that Lazzaro discloses that its scan unit display
shows the amount of fluid in the syringes but does not refer to the amount of
fluid in the tubing, and that what is shown on the control room display of
Lazzaro’s system does not correspond to claim 1, which recites limitations
on the display of a powerhead, not what is shown on the display screen of a
control room display. (Appeal Br. 4–5.) Appellants also argue that “Spiller
does not disclose color coded icons. Spiller simply addresses color-coding
the actual or physical tubing and the actual or physical fluid source
container. No changes would be made to any of the displays taught by
Lazzaro in relation to color coding based upon the teachings of Spiller.” (Id.
at 8.) Appellants argue that “Pfeifer does not remedy the above-noted
deficiencies.” (Id. at 9.)
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that it
would have been obvious to modify Lazzaro’s system to include an icon
Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910

4
representing the tubing, and the fluid in it, attached to the syringes in
Lazzaro’s scan unit display. Lazzaro discloses “a syringe interface and a
mating syringe that cooperate to allow the syringe to be easily, readily and
securely fastened to a medical injector.” (Lazzaro 1 ¶ 9.) Lazzaro’s Figure
128D is reproduced below:
5

Figure 128D shows display area 6130 of scan room unit interface
6100 and display area 6030 of control unit interface 6000. (Id. at 31 ¶¶ 456–
457.) Both displays include icons representing two syringes. The control
unit display also includes an icon representing the tubing connected to the
syringes; the scan room unit interface does not include a tubing icon.
Lazzaro states that “[d]ifferent colors can be used to denote the different
syringes and the different fluids therein.” (Id. at ¶ 456.)

5
The Examiner points out (Ans. 8) that the Lazzaro published application
cited in the rejection has issued as U.S. Patent 7,553,294, and that the figures
in the patent are more legible than those in the published application. The
figure above is from the ’294 patent.
Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910

5
Lazzaro states that “FIG. 1281 [sic, 128I] illustrates the state of
display area 6130 half way through the injection procedure, while FIG. 128J
illustrates the state of display area 6130 upon completion of the injection
procedure.” (Id. at 31 ¶ 459.) Figure 128I shows each of the two syringe
icons with a line across it near its top; syringe A is marked “20” and syringe
B is marked “5.” Figure 128J shows the two syringes without any lines
across them; each syringe is marked “0.”
Spiller discloses “a system for the administration of single or multiple
intravenous fluids through single or multiple intravenous fluid delivery
administration sets.” (Spiller 4:52–55.) “Each administration set is marked
with indicia on both a portion of the intravenous tubing and the intravenous
fluid reservoir; said indicia matching each other within each intravenous
administration system.” (Id. at 4:65–68.) Because of the matching indicia,
“the health care provider can easily and rapidly follow the course of each
tube as well as identify and distinguish between different administration
sets.” (Id. at 5:43–46.)
Spiller discloses that each section of tubing and each fluid storage
container also has a section that is clear, colorless, and transparent. (Id. at
5:5–10.) Thus, “the health care provider can easily and accurately examine
the quality and course of the intravenous fluid administration by examining
the fluid through the clear, colorless and transparent sections.” (Id. at 5:49–
52.)
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Lazzaro’s scan unit display to include a color-coded icon representing the
tubing and fluid in it, “as taught by Spiller for the purpose of improving the
ease of visual monitoring of the quality and course of the infusion.” (Ans.
Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910

6
6.) We agree with Appellants, however, that this reasoning is inadequate to
show that the claimed invention would have been obvious based on Lazzaro
and Spiller.
Spiller discloses that the benefits of color-coding the tubes and IV
bags in its system are to allow a health care provider to quickly follow the
course of each tube and to distinguish between different IV bag/IV tube sets.
But the advantage of allowing easy visual monitoring of the infusion results
from including a clear section in both the tubing and the IV bag in Spiller’s
system.
The Examiner has not pointed to evidence or provided sound
reasoning to support the conclusion that color-coding of tubing would
“improv[e] the ease of visual monitoring of the quality and course of the
infusion,” as the Examiner states. Nor has the Examiner pointed to evidence
or provided sound reasoning to show that a color-coded icon on Lazzaro’s
scan unit display, as required by claim 1 and as opposed to color-coding the
physical tube itself, would provide any of the benefits disclosed by Spiller.
The Examiner cites Pfeifer only for its disclosure of a display
including “a graphical image suggestive of the chronological contrast
medium progression.” (Ans. 7.) Pfeifer therefore does not make up for the
deficiency in Lazzaro and Spiller.
In summary, the Examiner has not provided adequate evidence to
show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to
modify Lazzaro’s scan unit display in the manner required by the claims on
appeal, and therefore has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness.

Appeal 2012-008815
Application 11/073,910

7
The rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2–7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Lazzaro, Spiller, and Pfeifer is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh