Ex Parte Tice

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2014

11172106 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEE D. TICE
____________

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,1061
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims directed
to a system for monitoring physiological parameters or conditions of a
person. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
BACKGROUND
“The invention pertains to systems that monitor one or more
physiological characteristics of an individual” (Spec. 1, ll. 3–4). “Disclosed

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Honeywell
International Inc. (App. Br. 2).

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

2
embodiments of the invention provide data and trend analysis in a home or
residence for the resident to view and use to adjust behavior accordingly”
(id. at 2, ll. 12–14).
THE CLAIMS
Claims 1–10, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are pending and on appeal. Claim 1
is representative and reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A system comprising:

at least one in-home sensor of a physiological parameter of a
person;

control circuitry and executable software, local to the sensor,
that provide data analysis and that develop trend information
on-site in a home of the person, the control circuitry receives
information from the at least one sensor via a wired or wireless
medium, the software evaluates the information from the at
least one sensor relative to at least one baseline;

multi-level access control software, local to and coupled to the
control circuitry, the multi-level access control software
providing access to medical and personal information of the
person at a predetermined level in response to a locally entered
password, the predetermined level of accessible information
selected from a plurality of stored levels of medical and
personal information, said multi-level access control software
having an access level for caregivers based upon entry of a first
password by the caregiver and another access level for a
physician based upon entry of a second password by the
physician and wherein pre-approved portions of the medical
and personal information of the person is automatically
available to emergency responders without a password only in
the presence of the person;

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

3
an input device, local to and coupled to the control circuitry, the
input device enabling the person to manually enter condition
related information; and

an output device, local to and coupled to the control circuitry,
the control circuitry visually presenting substantially real-time
trend information to the person based upon the information
from the at least one sensor and the input device.

Independent claim 31 is directed to a “monitoring system” and
contains similar limitations. We focus our analysis on claim 1.
THE ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1–10, 31, 32, 34 and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Douglas,2 Brackett,3 and Logan, Jr.4 (Ans.
4–8).
The Examiner finds that Douglas discloses:
control circuitry and executable software, local to the sensor,
the control circuitry receives information from the at least one
sensor via a wired or wireless medium, the software evaluates
the information from the at least one sensor relative to at least
one baseline (Fig. 60 column 7, lines 5–8, and column 10, lines
17–27, wherein control circuitry receives physiological data and
compares it to baseline data to determine if an alert condition is
warranted; said data is received by the central storage database
through wired or wireless mediums as exemplified in column 8
lines 1–5).

(Id. at 5).
The Examiner finds that Douglas “is silent on providing on-site data
analysis” (id. at 7).

2 Douglas et al., US 6,039,688, issued Mar. 21, 2000.
3 Brackett et al., US 2005/0114179 A1, published May 26, 2005.
4 Logan, Jr., US 7,039,628 B2, issued May 2, 2006.
Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

4
The Examiner finds that “Brackett teaches that modality acquisition-
based network data networks can include both local and remote data analysis
(Brackett paragraphs [0043] and [0044] as shown in Fig. 1)” (Ans. 7).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify remote data analysis
systems as disclosed in Douglas with on-site processing because Brackett
teaches by using modality based data networking, local data analysis can be
used to output only relevant patient information to a central network
repository (Brackett paragraph [0013])” (id. at 7).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Douglas, Brackett, and Logan, Jr.
render the claims obvious?5
FINDINGS OF FACT

FF1. Douglas discloses a “therapeutic behavior modification
program, compliance monitoring and feedback system includ[ing] a server-
based relational database and one or more microprocessors electronically
coupled to the server” (Douglas Abstract).
FF2. Figure 59 of Douglas is reproduced below:

5 The Examiner did not rely on Logan, Jr. in treating the “control circuitry
and executable software . . .” limitation discussed here.
Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

5

“Figure 59 is a block diagram of the therapeutic behavior modification
program’s compliance monitoring and feedback system” (id. at col. 5, ll. 14–
16).
FF3. Douglas discloses that:
[t]he servers 510–516 have access to one or more relational
databases 522 (such as SQL) that contain all the health plan
data. . . . For example, pertinent information from a patient’s
journal will be uploaded to the server and downloaded to the
physician and case advisor. Information provided by the
physician will also be uploaded to the same server.

(Id. at col. 21, ll. 44–51).
FF4. Douglas discloses that a patient’s record in the system includes
“baseline values corresponding to the vital signs and patient characteristics
at the beginning of his or her participation in the program” (id. at col. 6, ll.
62–65, col. 7, ll. 5–8; see also id. at col. 6, ll. 14–26, 48–62).
FF5. Douglas discloses that “[t]o use the program, the patient logs
into the system network via telephone line, cable modem, cellular
connection, satellite link or other communication that allows for a
connection into a network server” (id. at col. 8, ll. 1–5).

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

6
FF6. Douglas discloses that:
the system might also prompt the patient to input his or her vital
signs 102, such as blood pressure and heart rate, in the journal.
This can be done manually or automatically. . . . Depending on
the particular program, patients might be required to weigh
themselves on a weekly basis and/or measure their cholesterol
with a home cholesterol kit on a relatively less frequent basis.
This information is stored in the system’s database.

(Id. at col. 9, ll. 28–38).
FF7. Douglas discloses that “the system automatically provides the
physician with reports of patient progress” (id. at col. 10, ll. 10–12) and
“compares actual data about the patient with the goals and parameters
residing in the system’s database and automatically notifies the physician or
case advisor via e-mail or facsimile . . . if a health risk is present” (id. at col.
10, ll. 18–23).
FF8. In paragraph [0013], Brackett discloses:
Specific challenges which arise when large amounts of patient
information are made available, affect both the interface
between users and the systems cataloging and storing the data,
and access issues. While a large number of users may desire
and have use for particular data points, not all users will have
similar interests in either the data, processing of the data, or
relationships between data points. Users, in various medical-
related fields, might include such diverse individuals and
entities as medical institutions, radiology departments,
physicians, governmental bodies, employers, insurance
companies, not to mention the patient himself. However, to be
meaningful, the interface should be tailored to the specific user,
as should the level of access permitted.

(Brackett ¶ [0013]).

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

7
FF9. In paragraphs [0043]–[0044], Brackett discloses:
Other modality acquisition systems 20 may also supply patient
information to the multi-media patient summary 12. In this
illustrative embodiment, patient information may be supplied to
the multi-media patient summary 12 by a computer system 22
(patient data acquisition system) that collects sensor/monitor 24
data via an interface 26. This configuration may include, for
example, a variety of data collection systems designed to detect
physiological parameters of patients based upon sensed signals.
Resulting output data, such as waveforms or video, may be
stored in the computer system 22 and/or at other repositories or
storage sites linked to the medical facility data network.

In particular, system 20 may represent imaging systems,
clinical laboratory resources (such as blood or urine tests),
histological data resources (such as tissue analysis or
crytology), blood pressure analyses, and so forth. System 20
may also represent electrical data resources and modalities,
such as electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography
(ECG or EKG), electromyography (EMG), electrical impedance
tomography (EIT), nerve conduction test,
electronystagmography resources (ENG), combinations of such
modalities, and so forth. For the example of electrical
modalities or resources, components typically include sensors
or transducers, such as sensor/monitors 24, which may be
placed on or about a patient 14 to detect certain parameters of
interest that may be indicative of medical events or conditions.
Thus, the sensors 24 may detect electrical signals emanating
from the body or portions of the body, pressure created by
certain types of movement (e.g. pulse, respiration), or
parameters such as movement, reactions to stimuli, and so
forth. The sensors 24 may be placed on external regions of the
body, but may also include placement within the body, such as
through catheters, injected or ingested means, and so forth.

(Id. ¶¶ [0043]–[0044]).

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

8
FF10. Figure 1 of Brackett is reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 is a general overview of exemplary patient information sources and
a system for generating a multimedia patient information summary” (id. ¶
[0022]).
FF11. Brackett discloses:
[0043] . . . [i]n this illustrative embodiment, patient information
may be supplied to the multi-media patient summary 12 by a
computer system 22 (patient data acquisition system) that
collects sensor/monitor 24 data via an interface 26
. . .
[0053] . . . For the multi-media patient summary, a compilation
workstation 40 may be used to assemble the patient
information. The compilation workstation 40 may receive the
patient data from the various systems previously discussed,
such as the MRI system 16, CT system 18, HIS 36, PACS 38,
and so forth.

(Id. ¶ [0043], ll. 3–6; ¶ [0053], ll. 3–6).

Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

9
PRINCIPLES OF LAW

“An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir.
2011). The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “‘[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”’ KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).

ANALYSIS

Appellant contends that “the claimed invention is directed to a device
that can be used entirely within the home. In contrast, Douglas et al.,
Brackett et al. and Logan, Jr. are all network based” (App. Br. 11).
Specifically, Appellant contends that:
(contrary to the assertions of the Examiner), Bracket [sic] et al.
does not, in fact, disclose “control circuitry and executable
software, local to the sensor, that provide data analysis and that
develop trend information on-site in the home of the person.”
Instead, paragraph [0013] of Bracket [sic] et al. merely
discusses data, processing of the data and the relationships
between data points in the general sense without the specifics of
where the data is to be processed. Similarly, paragraphs [0043-
44] of Bracket [sic] et al. merely discussed the possibilities of
where data is to be stored.

(Reply Br. 2 (emphasis added)).
Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

10
We agree with Appellant.
We find that Douglas discloses a network-based behavior monitoring
and feedback system (FF1) that includes remote servers and a relational
database (FF2). Douglas further discloses that the database stores patient
records, which contain information such as baseline vital characteristics
(FF3–4). Douglas discloses that a patient record may be updated (FF6) over
a conventional communications link (FF5) to reflect physiological
parameters detected by at least one in-home sensor (FF6). And although
Douglas discloses developing trend information by evaluating sensed and
uploaded data relative to baseline and goal information, this data is
developed remotely (FF7).
The Examiner relies on paragraphs [0013], [0043]–[0044], and
Figure 1 of Brackett to find that Brackett discloses performing data
processing on-site in a home of the person (Ans. 7). We disagree with the
Examiner’s finding.
The Examiner states: “Brackett teaches by using modality based data
networking, local data analysis can be used to output only relevant patient
information to a central network repository (Brackett paragraph [0013])”
(Ans. 7). Cited paragraph [0013], however, does not provide the purported
disclosure. Rather, paragraph [0013] discloses that different users may have
different interests in “data, processing of the data, or relationships between
data points” (FF8; see Brackett ¶ [0013], ll. 4–7), and that a data interface
should be tailored to the specific user (FF8; see Brackett ¶ [0013], ll. 12–14).
Disclosure of a tailored data interface does not constitute a disclosure of
“on-site” data processing, as required by claim 1.
Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

11
Likewise, in paragraphs [0043] and [0044], cited by the Examiner,
Brackett discloses that sensed data may be stored locally in computer system
22 (FF9; Brackett ¶ [0043], ll. 9–12). But disclosure of local storage is not
the same as disclosure of local processing.
Figure 1 also fails to support the Examiner’s finding. Figure 1 shows
a local computer system 22 that collects and sends sensor data to remote
workstation 40 for processing into a patient summary 12 (FF10–11; see
Brackett ¶ [0043], ll. 9–12; ¶ [0053], ll. 1-8). This does not teach on-site
data processing.
Because Bracket does not present a teaching of on-site data
processing, the Examiner has not presented “an articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”’ KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (emphasis added). We, therefore, are
constrained to reverse this rejection because the Examiner has not provided
evidence establishing that the specific limitation of “control circuitry and
executable software . . . that provide data analysis and that develop trend
information on-site in a home of the person” in claim 1 is found in the prior
art. For similar reasons, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 31,
which recites “control circuits including control software that provides data
analysis and that develops trend information on-site in a home of the
individual,” and dependent claims 2–10, 32, 34, and 35.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that the combination of Douglas, Brackett, and Logan, Jr. renders the claims
obvious.
Appeal 2012-006909
Application 11/172,106

12
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–10, 31, 32, 34, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Douglas, Brackett, and Logan,
Jr.

REVERSED

Klh