Ex Parte Ukawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12878325 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/878,325 09/09/2010 TeijiUKAWA
39083 7590 07/05/2016
KENEALY VAIDYA LLP
3000 K Street, N.W.
Suite 310
Washington, DC 20007
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.
6002-0045 4805
EXAMINER
WU, FUMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
avaidya@kviplaw.com
uspto@kviplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TEIJI UKA WA
Appeal2015-000626
Application 12/878,325 1
Technology Center 2100
Before KEVIN C. TROCK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicates the Real Party in Interest is Nihon Kohden
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-000626
Application 12/878,325
Invention
The invention relates to a biological signal processing apparatus and
medical apparatus controlling method for causing a medical apparatus to
perform a predetermined process such as a generation of an alarm, based on
a biological signal. Spec. 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A biological signal processing apparatus comprising:
a provider which provides state probability based upon one of a
state probability table which corresponds to a value of a first
biological signal and a calculation based on a deemed continuous
value based on a measured biological signal;
an acquirer which acquires a first biological signal in time
series from a living body and which acquires state probability in time
series which corresponds to a value of the acquired first biological
signal from the provider and which is based upon one of the state
probability table and the calculation based on the deemed continuous
vaiue based on the measured bioiogicai signai; and
a determiner which acquires present determination probability
based on the state probability acquired by the acquirer and a past
determination probability and which performs a determination
whether a process is performed or not by using a recurrence
expression to calculate the present determination probability, wherein
the present determination probability is different from, and calculated
using different basis as compared to, the state probability.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Iso
De V aul et al.
John et al.
us 5,737,488
US 2006/0282021 Al
US 2008/0188763 Al
2
Apr. 7, 1998
Dec. 14, 2006
Aug. 7,2008
Appeal2015-000626
Application 12/878,325
Saeed et al. US 2008/0214904 Al Sept. 4, 2008
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saeed and Iso.
Claims 3, 9, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Saeed, Iso, and John.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saeed, Iso, and De Vaul.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1 and 10 because Saeed and Iso fail to teach the recited relationships
between state and determination probabilities. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant argues that Saeed teaches that the basic score and the
comprehensive acuity score are independent from each other, and that the
basic score is not used to make the composite acuity score. App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 2. Thus, Appellant argues, Saeed cannot disclose the recited
relationship between the state and determination probabilities, wherein the
3
Appeal2015-000626
Application 12/878,325
determination probability is made from time-series data of the state
probability. Id. Appellant also argues that Iso only generally teaches the use
of a recurrence expression in speech pattern recognition, and that Iso
provides no disclosure of the recited relationship between the state and
determination probabilities. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, that Saeed teaches a composite acuity
score generator (70) that automatically determines one or more real time
composite acuity scores by receiving at least the updated basic acuity scores
from the basic score generator (60). Final Act. 3; Ans. 10 (citing Saeed, Fig
2; i-f 32). The Examiner also finds that the "basic acuity score" and the
"composite acuity score" in Saeed correspond to the recited "state
probability" and the "determination probability," respectively. Ans. 8.
Appellant provides no citation to the record in support of its argument that
Saeed teaches that the basic score and the comprehensive acuity score are
independent from each other and that the basic score is not used to make the
composite acuity score. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Appellant has not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to the remaining claims, 2-9 and 11-18. See App.
Br. 15, 16. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We
conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require
applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for
4
Appeal2015-000626
Application 12/878,325
individual claims to be treated separately."). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-
9 and 11-18 as well.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18.
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
5