General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2020

2019006562 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
14/586,393 12/30/2014 Erno Petteri Muuranto 278503 (5024-00630) 7127
73387 7590 07/27/2020
Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP
100 East Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 1100
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4178
EXAMINER
STEINBERG, AMANDA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2020 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):
patentdocketing@andruslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ERNO PETTERI MUURANTO,
MAGNUS KALL, EMMA ELINA IKONEN,
KRISTIAN MATTI KARRU, OTTO VALTTERI PEKANDER,
VILLE PETTERI VARTIOVAARA, and
HENRIK EKMAN
__________

Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General
Electric Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a wireless patient monitor for monitoring a
patient’s physiology and health status. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wireless patient monitor comprising:
a first sensor device configured to collect a first
physiological information from a patient and produce a first
digital physiological data, the first sensor device including a first
sensor device housing and including a first connector on the first
sensor device housing;
a second sensor device configured to collect a second
physiological information from the patient and produce a second
digital physiological data, the second sensor device including a
second sensor device housing and including a second connector
on the second sensor device housing;
wherein the first digital physiological data describes a
different physiological parameter of the patient than the second
digital physiological data;
an activator module contained in a first activator module
housing configured to directly connect with both the first sensor
device housing and the second sensor device housing,
exclusively one at a time, the activator module including:
a universal connection port on the first activator
module housing configured to directly mate with both the
first connector and the second connector, exclusively one
at a time;
a battery; and
a radio transmitter wirelessly connected to a host
device;
wherein the activator module provides power from the
battery to the connected one of either the first sensor device or
the second sensor device and receives digital physiological data
from the connected one of either the first sensor device or the
second sensor device via a connection between the universal
connection port and the mated one of either the first connector or
the second connector; and
Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393

3
wherein the radio transmitter transmits the digital
physiological data received from the connected sensor device to
the host device.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
DeVaul US 2006/0282021 A1 Dec. 14, 2006
Elaz US 2008/0110460 A1 May 15, 2008
Le Neel US 2011/0152632 A1 June 23, 2011
Ogino US 2011/0184255 A1 July 28, 2011
Kaskoun US 2015/0150505 A1 June 4, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 14, 20–22, 24, and 25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogino and Elaz. Final Act. 4.
Claims 3–6, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ogino, Elaz, and Le Neel. Final Act. 10.
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ogino, Elaz, and DeVaul. Final Act. 14.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ogino, Elaz, DeVaul, and Le Neel. Final Act. 15.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ogino, Elaz, DeVaul, Le Neel, and Kaskoun. Final Act. 15.

OPINION
Independent claim 1 requires, among other things, “a first sensor
device configured to . . . produce a digital physiological data,” “a second
sensor device configured to . . . produce a digital physiological data,” and
Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393

4
“an activator module.” Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.; emphases added).
Independent claim 7 requires, among other things, “a first sensor device
comprising . . . a first analog-to-digital converter to convert [a] first
physiological information to a first digital physiological data,” “a second
sensor device comprising . . . a second analog-to-digital converter to
convert [a] second physiological information to a second digital
physiological data,” and “an activator module.” Id. at 26 (emphases added).
Each of independent claims 14 and 23 incorporates similar limitations. Id. at
28, 31. Thus, each independent claim requires digitizing the physiological
data by the sensor device. Further, each independent claim requires that the
activator module is configured to directly connect or directly mate with a
sensor device housing, the sensor device, or a connector of the sensor
device. See id. at 24, 26, 28, 31.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Ogino discloses
“an activator module contained in a first activator module housing (body unit
1, Fig. 2).” Final Act. 5 (emphasis added); see also id. at 6–7, 9, 13–14. We
note that the Examiner finds that Ogino discloses an analog-to-digital
converter in paragraph 19, 22, 62, 65, or 67. See id. at 6–7.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends “Ogino does not disclose a
system wherein an activator module housing directly connects with a sensor
device housing” because Ogino’s “body unit 1 housing connects to the signal
processing unit 2 housing by a connection cable 2g, and the signal
processing unit then connects to all of the sensor devices for the patient.”
Appeal Br. 13.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds by providing an annotated
Figure 2 of Ogino and states that “[t]he portions of Ogino taught as the
Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393

5
claimed ‘activator module’ are in the large dashed circle” and “[t]he
annotated black arrow is pointing to one of the two picture[d] sensor
connectors.” Ans. 5. The Examiner’s annotated Figure 2 of Ogino is
reproduced below.

Id. Annotated Figure 2 of Ogino shows a large dashed circle around body
unit 1, connector cable 2g, and signal processing unit 2. Thus, the Examiner
finds that Ogino’s body unit 1, connector cable 2g, and signal processing
unit 2 all together correspond to the recited “activator module.”
In response, Appellant contends that “those sensors taught in Ogino
provide analog signals, not digital data––digitization occurs at the signal
processing unit 2 (which is construed in the Answer as part of the claimed
activator module).” Reply Br. 5–6. In other words, Appellant argues that as
the Examiner now finds Ogino’s signal processing unit 2 as a component of
the recited “activator module,” digitization of the physiological signal occurs
via Ogino’s corresponding activator module, rather than via a sensor device,
as recited. Thus, Appellant argues that “the sensor portions of Ogino cited in
the Examiner’s Answer (annotated by the black arrow in the figure above
Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393

6
and at Page 5 of the Answer) are not configured to digitize the physiological
data and do not produce digitized physiological data as required by the
claims.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s contention is persuasive. None of the passages of Ogino
cited by the Examiner disclose that the physiological signal is digitized by
its sensors rather than by signal processing unit 2. See Ogino ¶¶ 19, 22, 62,
65, and 67; Final Act. 6–7. Notably, paragraph 22 discloses “[t]he signal
processor may perform . . . an AD converting process on the biological
signal,” which suggests that signal processing unit 2 is the component that
produces a digitized physiological data. Ogino ¶ 22 (emphasis added). Thus,
the Examiner fails to establish that Ogino discloses an activator module and
a sensor device in which the sensor device is configured to produce a digital
signal, as claimed.
As all of the Examiner’s rejections presently before us are predicated
on this incorrect finding, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections on the record
presently before us.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2019-006562
Application 14/586,393

7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 7, 8,
10, 14,
20–22, 24,
25
103 Ogino, Elaz 1, 2, 7, 8,
10, 14,
20–22, 24,
25
3–6, 15,
16, 18, 19,
23
103 Ogino, Elaz, Le Neel 3–6, 15,
16, 18, 19,
23
9, 11, 12 103 Ogino, Elaz, DeVaul 9, 11, 12
13 103 Ogino, Elaz, DeVaul,
Le Neel
13
17 103 Ogino, Elaz, DeVaul,
Le Neel, Kaskoun
17
Overall
Outcome
1–25

REVERSED