Ex Parte St. Pierre et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12751602 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121751,602 03/31/2010 Shawn C. St. Pierre
92558 7590 08/02/2016
Merchant & Gould- Welch Allyn
P.O. Box 2903
Minneapolis, MN 55402
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.
10156.0006US01 1930
EXAMINER
LONG,FONYAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
USPT092558@merchantgould.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN C. ST. PIERRE,
MICHAEL D. GARRANT, and
KRISTIN ANN ALISANSKI
Appeal2014-006589 1
Application 12/751,6022
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
November 4, 2013), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
February 27, 2014), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 2,
2013).
2 Appellants identify Welch Allyn, Inc. as the real party in interest (Br. 3).
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates generally "to a physiological
monitor device having a user interface configured to operate within and
transition between each of a monitoring workflow and a non-monitoring
workflow" (Spec. i-f 27).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A physiological monitor device comprising:
[a] a central processing unit (CPU) that is configured to
control operation of the device;
[b] a display screen; and
[ c] a set of one or more computer readable data storage
media storing software instructions that, when executed by the
CPU, cause the device to:
[d] store a device ID for the device, the device ID
uniquely identifying the device, the device being
configured with the device ID by a user;
[ e] store a location ID for the device, the location ID
identifying a location in a medical facility, the device
being configured with the location ID by a user;
[ f] send the device ID and the location ID to a server
computer;
[g] after the device ID and the location ID are sent
to the server computer, receive a list of patients for the
location specified by the location ID;
[h] display the list of patients on the device;
[i] receive a selection of a review tab on a user
interface of the device; and
rn after the selection of the review tab is received,
display a review screen on the device, the review screen
displaying a plurality of patient records for patients at the
location specified by the location ID, each patient record
including physiological data for one or more physiological
2
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
parameters measured for the patient at a date and time
indicated in the patient record.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Miodownik (US 2006/0089539 Al, pub. Apr.
27, 2006) and Nacey (US 2006/0143045 Al, pub. June 29, 2006).
Claims 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miodownik, Nacey, and Rosenfeld (US 2006/0085229
A9, pub. Apr. 20, 2006).
Claims 5, 15,3 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miodownik, Nacey, Rosenfeld, and Official Notice.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Miodownik, Nacey, and Braunstein (US 2005/0086082 Al, pub.
Apr. 21, 2005).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Miodownik, Nacey, and Official Notice.
3 The Examiner does not include claim 15, which depends from dependent
claim 13 in any one of the statements of rejection. The Examiner does,
however, state that "[ c ]laims 10-22 recite substantially similar limitations to
claims 1-2, 3-9, and are rejected using the same rationale and reasoning," as
to independent claim 1 (Final Act. 8). We note that claim 15 appears to be
substantially similar to a clause in dependent claim 5 which is rejected as
unpatentable over Miodownik, Nacey, Rosenfeld, and Official Notice.
Thus, we find the rejection of claims 5, 16, 21, and 22 as unpatentable over
Miodownik, Nacey, Rosenfeld, and Official Notice should also include
claim 15.
3
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2, 6, 11, 12, and 17-20
rejected as obvious over Miodownik and Nacey.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument (see Br. 14--17) that
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) because the combination of Miodownik and Nacey fails to disclose
or suggest limitations [i] and rn of independent claim 1 which recite:
[i] receive a selection of a review tab on a user interface of
the device; and
rn after the selection of the review tab is received, display
a review screen on the device, the review screen displaying a
plurality of patient records for patients at the location specified
by the location ID, each patient record including physiological
data for one or more physiological parameters measured for the
patient at a date and time indicated in the patient record.
(Br. 18; Claims App'x.). Independent claim 10 recites substantially similar
limitations. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Miodownik and Nacey renders obvious the argued limitations of
independent claims 1 and 10 (see Final Act. 2--4 (citing Miodownik i-fi-1 68,
81, 93, Figs. 4b, 6; Nacey i-fi-17, 31-34, 70, 71, 77, 79); see also Ans. 10-13).
In this regard, we note that Miodownik is directed to medical care
devices which are used to monitor and treat patients by "allow[ing] alerts
from diverse medical devices to be prioritized, filtered and integrated onto a
single portable communication device in the possession of a caregiver"
(Miodownik i-fi-12, 15). Miodownik describes that its device can monitor
various patient information such as a patient's treatment, condition, or vital
signs treatment and generate, for example, an alert based on the patient's
monitored vital signs data (see e.g., id. i-fi-f 17-19). Miodownik also discloses
that its device can associate a time and/or location with a patient in order to
4
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
produce an audit trail of the patient's care or to locate the patient within a
medical care facility (id. i-fi-122, 23). Miodownik discloses that its server 180
uses an equipment ID "to associate the equipment with the patient whose ID
structure is most recently read, at least for equipment such as data generators
that are included in a network message source" (id. i1 81 ). Miodownik
further discloses
[f]or example, nurse Doe scans the bar code on an infusion pump
added to introduce a pain reduction medication to patient Smith's
IV tube. A device ID number represented in the bar code is
designated herein for convenience as EIDl. As a result, a
message is sent over network 102 to alarm integration server 180
that ID reader 160b is associated with EID 1.
(Id.). Miodownik discloses that its "server 180 also stores a location ID in
room number field 420" (id. i1 93). Miodownik additionally discloses that its
system organizes association data in rows and columns in Table 410 on
server 180, and "include[s] a data-time field 412, a scanner ID field, a
caregiver ID field; a patient ID field; a room number field 420; an equipment
ID field 422, and a medication ID field" in the columns and different patient
records 428a, 428b, and 428c in the rows (id. i1 86; see also id. at Fig. 4C).
Nacey is directed to a hospital capacity workflow management system
which uses a mobile device to "graphically display selected information in a
manner which conveys the information to nurses and other hospital staff in a
form which aids in comprehension of the information and allows for the
remote, mobile, and decentralized approach to bed and patient placement
information management to be accomplished" (Nacey i-fi-12, 7). Nacey's
system provides
[a] plurality of graphical matrices each containing information
related broadly to bed management and patient placement can be
maintained within a mobile device and displayed through a
5
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
plurality of screens accessible to a user by selecting
representative icons from a menu capable of being displayed on
a mobile device. Additional information may be displayed by
selecting an icon within the matrix. Through the use of various
menus available to the user of a mobile device the information
related broadly to bed management and patient placement can be
manipulated in various ways so as to allow for, inter alia, the
reorganizing and sorting of information, as well as updating
information to reflect actual changes occurring within the
hospital itself.
(Id. i-f 8; see also id. i-fi-1 68, 79). More particularly, Nacey discloses that its
system provides a Request Screen 390 which includes information columns
including:
reference numeral 310 depicts the time at which a particular
request was made; the icon at reference numeral 320 depicts the
department from which a particular request was made; the icon
at reference numeral 330 depicts a patient's age; the icon at
reference numeral 340 depicts a physician's name; the icon at
reference numeral 350 depicts a notification that comments have
been added to a particular patient's data and are accessible via
selection of the icon; the icon at reference numeral 360 depicts a
patient's abbreviated name; the icon at reference numeral 370
depicts an abbreviated version of a patient's diagnosis; and the
icon at reference numeral 380 depicts a particular patient unit.
(Id. i-f 68). Nacey further discloses that it system allows a user to "sort[ ]
information options; view[ ]additional information related to one or more
patient units; viewing additional information related to user customized
patient units" (id. i-f 70; see also id. i-f 77).
Appellants also argue the Examiner
fails to provide any rationale as to the motivation to rearrange
any of the screens disclosed by Nacey to display a plurality of
patient records, each patient record including physiological data
for one or more physiological parameters measured for the
patient at a date and time indicated in the patient record.
6
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
(Br. 17; see also id. 14--16). However, Appellants fail to provide any
argument as to why the claimed features are not matters of design choice in
view of the Examiner's asserted combination of Miodownik and Nacey (see
Final Act. 2--4; see also Ans. 10-13). Instead, Appellants merely state that
"[t]here are many benefits to the recited review screen. For example, in
some embodiments, the review screen can 'be used by a clinician to monitor
the physiological parameters of multiple patients at one time"' (Br. 15
(citing Spec. i-f 34)). Appellants do not allege any criticality or unexpected
results related to limitations [i] and Li]; nor do Appellants contend that use of
any claimed features provides a particular advantage or solve a stated
problem over the Examiner's asserted combination. See, e.g., In re Kuhle,
526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (Design choice is inapplicable where use of
the claimed feature solves a stated problem); In re Hopkins, 342 F.2d 1010,
1015(CCPA1965).
Here, we note that the type of data, i.e., device ID, location ID,
physiological parameters, stored, measured, and displayed are taught by
Miodownik (see Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 12-13; see also Miodownik i-fi-115,
17-19, 22, 23, 81, 86, 93, Fig. 4C). We also note that selecting an icon, i.e.,
review tab, and displaying a list of patient records and additional
information, after the selection of the icon, is taught by Nacey (see Nacey
i-f 68; see also id. Fig. 3a), and as the Examiner points out, "Nacey teaches of
a customization feature that states of the flexibility of the user to customize,
organize, and sort patient information in various useful ways (Nacey,
Abstract) including formatting patient information and including additional
patient information into tabs (paragraph[s] 70-71)" (Ans. 11). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that the selection of a particular graphic to display
7
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
information is a matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the combined teaching of Miodownik and Nacey.
To the extent Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to "provide
support for the conclusion that the noted claim limitations are a matter of
mere design choice" (Br. 17), we find that the Examiner has provided
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness" (see KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). On
pages 3--4 of the Final Action, the Examiner provides the required rationale
to support the combination. And, as our reviewing court guides in KSR:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We note that Appellants' arguments do not address
whether the modification described by the Examiner is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions;
nor do they specifically mention or contest the substance of the Examiner's
rationale, but rather only a general assertion that the Examiner has failed to
provide support for the asserted combination (see Br. 15-17). Minor
differences between the prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of
design choice absent evidence to the contrary. See In re Rice, 341 F.2d 309,
314 (CCPA 1965).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same
reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 6, 11, 12, and
17-20, which were not separately argued.
8
Appeal2014-006589
Application 12/751,602
Dependent claims 4, 13, and 14 rejected as obvious over Miodownik, Nacey,
and Rosenfeld; Independent claim 22 and dependent claims 5, 15, 16, and
21 rejected as obvious over Miodownik, Nacey, Rosenfeld, and Official
Notice; claims 7 and 8 rejected as obvious over Miodownik, Nacey, and
Braunstein; and claim 9 rejected as obvious over Miodownik, Nacey, and
Official Notice.
Appellants do not present any additional arguments in support of the
patentability of claims 4, 5, 7-9, 13-16, 21, and 22 (see Br. 13-17).
We are not persuaded, for the reasons outlined above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 4, 5,
7-9, 13-16, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4--22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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