Frederic Declerck

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2020

13834490 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/834,490 03/15/2013 Frederic Declerck F-6650 3029
112722 7590 01/30/2020
Becker Patent Law, LLC
5424 W. Princeton Pines Ct.
Franklin, WI 53132
EXAMINER
CALDERON IV, ALVARO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDERIC DECLERCK
Appeal 2018-009091
Application 13/834,490
Technology Center 2100

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fenwal,
Inc. Appeal Brief 1, filed October 3, 2017 (“Appeal. Br.”).
Appeal 2018-009091
Application 13/834,490

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “remote visualization and configuration
of medical devices,” particularly “multi-screen visualization and medical
instrument configuration.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 23–28 and 30–42 are pending;
claims 23, 31, and 36 are independent. App. Br. 19–22. Claim 23 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
23. A medical device interface system comprising a
processing circuit configured to implement:
a communication channel configured to communicate
with a plurality of medical devices, the medical devices selected
from a group consisting of a blood processing instrument, an
infusion pump, and a drug delivery system, to receive interface
screen data for each of the plurality of medical devices;
a processing component configured to generate a first
screen comprising representations of the interface screen data
from the plurality of medical devices, each representation to
convey information shown on a respective interface screen of a
corresponding medical device, to receive an indication of user
selection of one of the representations displayed on the first
screen, and to generate a larger screen representation of the
interface screen data of the selected representation,
the processing component further configured to
receive through the communication channel an indication of an
alert or alarm associated with one of the medical devices and to
generate a corresponding indication of the alert or alarm on one
of the first screen and the larger screen,
wherein the representations of the interface screen
data from the plurality of medical devices are miniature screen
representations of screens displayed on the medical devices.

Appeal 2018-009091
Application 13/834,490

3
References and Rejection
Claims 23–28 and 30–42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lyle (US 2002/0056672 A1; May 16, 2002) and Curl (US
2012/0278759 A1; Nov. 1, 2012). Final Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “the
Examiner maintains an overbroad interpretation of the claim language.”
Appeal Br. 8. Particularly, Appellant contends “[c]laim 23 requires
displaying miniaturized screens of actual screens displayed on the medical
devices, not merely ‘an icon’ or ‘other data’ as suggested by the
Examiner[].” Id. Appellant contends the combination of cited references
fails to teach the claim requirements: “Curl does not teach displaying
‘actual screen data’ from medical devices, but instead teaches generating its
own images which are ‘derived from data produced by a plurality of medical
instruments’” (Id. at 9), “[n]or does Lyle teach ‘receive interface screen data
for each of the plurality of medical devices’” (Id. at 13).
Claim 23 recites “a first screen comprising representations of the
interface screen data from the plurality of medical devices, each
representation to convey information shown on a respective interface screen
of a corresponding medical device” (emphasis added). The Examiner
presents two alternative rationales for this limitation. See Final Act. 5–7.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection—under either rationale—is in
error.
The Examiner first finds “Lyle comprehensively shows how each
medical device comprises its own ‘interface’” and “it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a conclusion that said
Appeal 2018-009091
Application 13/834,490

4
fields provided representations of actual interface screen data being shown
on a respective interest screen.” Final Act. 6 (citing Lyle ¶ 3). Paragraph 3
of Lyle refers to the Background of the Invention, and states that current
medical systems usually include an interface. See Lyle ¶¶ 3, 4. Merely
having an interface, however, is not the same as the claim requirement for
information being both shown on a respective screen of a corresponding
medical device and conveyed as a representation on the screen of a system.
See Appeal Br. 13, 14; Ans. 9; Lyle ¶¶ 55–61 (describing an abstract, virtual
interface between the applications resident in the application control
manager and the hardware elements.). The Examiner fails to identify a
teaching in Lyle of an interface screen of a corresponding medical device as
claimed; thus the Examiner has not shown Lyle teaches or suggests “each
representation to convey information shown on a respective interface screen
of a corresponding medical device,” as claimed. See Final Act. 5, 6; In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section
103 clearly must rest on a factual basis.”). Accordingly, we are persuaded
the Examiner’s first provided rationale is in error.
Second, the Examiner finds “the [recited] ‘representations of the
interface screen data from the plurality of medical devices’ were of
considerably wide breadth in scope,” such that “the claims as currently
recited merely require a representation of what would be shown on a medical
device, and not an exact mirroring or duplication as Applicant appears to
imply in their arguments.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds
one of skill in the art would modify Lyle with Curl’s teaching of the
disputed limitation, because “Curl shows a medical device interface system
that ‘is useful for coordinating control of and managing information
Appeal 2018-009091
Application 13/834,490

5
provided by a plurality of medical instruments,” and “allows for the
recording of plural types of data, e.g., digital data, analog data, video data,
instrument status, audio data, from a plurality of instruments.’” Final Act. 7
(quoting Curl ¶ 57) (emphasis omitted).
We disagree. Rather than conveying what “would be shown” (Ans.
4), claim 23 recites the system will convey “information shown” (Appeal Br.
19); in other words, claim 23 requires the system conveys information that is
displayed on the medical device interface. See, e.g., Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ 5, 32.
Curl, as cited by the Examiner, teaches an integration system for
“coordinating control” of medical devices and using information “derived
from data produced by a plurality of medical instruments.” Curl ¶¶ 57, 136;
Final Act. 7; Ans. 6. Such coordination of derived information, however, is
not the same as conveying displayed information. See Reply Br. 2. The
Examiner fails to identify a teaching in Curl of information shown on the
interfaces of medical devices, let alone a teaching of also conveying such
information. See Appeal Br. 9; see also Ans. 6. Accordingly we are
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Curl teaches or suggests “each
representation to convey information shown on a respective interface screen
of a corresponding medical device,” as claimed. See Appeal Br. 7–9.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection: independent claim 23;
independent claims 31 and 36 which similarly recite “each representation to
convey information shown on a respective interface screen of a
corresponding medical device”; or the Examiner’s rejection of the claims
dependent thereon.

Appeal 2018-009091
Application 13/834,490

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
23–28,
30–42
103(a) Lyle, Curl 23–28,
30–42
REVERSED