Hill-Rom Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2020

15000258 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
15/000,258 01/19/2016 David L. Ribble N1-39041 6724
63565 7590 04/27/2020
HILL-ROM SERVICES, INC.
Legal Dept., Mail Code K04
1069 State Road 46 East
BATESVILLE, IN 47006
EXAMINER
CERIONI, DANIEL LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2020 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):
cindy.bundy@hillrom.com
uspto@hillrom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID L. RIBBLE, YONGJI FU, and
KIRSTEN M. EMMONS
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 44–46.2 See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

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 Hill-Rom Services,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 On March 21, 2019, Appellant filed an Amendment after Final Rejection
cancelling claims 22–28, 34–43, and 47. The Amendment was entered by
the Examiner. See Advisory Act. mailed March 25, 2019. Thus, claims 44–
46 are the only claims before the Board.
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to an apparatus for predicting occupant
egress from an occupant support based on perimeter panel status and
occupant location. Claim 44, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
44. A support apparatus comprising:
a framework having perimeter panels, the panels having
an elevation status;
a mattress;
sensors distributed on the support apparatus to sense
occupant weight distribution on the support apparatus; and
a processor adapted to determine occupant weight
distribution relative to a reference weight distribution and to
designate a risk of occupant egress as a function of:
a) occupant weight distribution, and
b) whether or not a second perimeter panel, which
is adjacent to a first perimeter panel having an elevation
status of DOWN, has an elevation status of UP.
REJECTION3
Claims 44–46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Kostic (US 2016/0128610 A1 published May 12, 2016).

3 A rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with
the written description requirement; a rejection of claims 22–28, 34–36, 38–
40, 42, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kostic and Ribble
(US 2014/0022081, pub. Jan. 23, 2014); a rejection of claims 41 and 43
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kostic, Ribble, and Rodgers (US
2008/0021731, published Jan. 24, 2008); and a rejection of claim 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kostic, Ribble, and Huster (US
2012/0089419, published Apr. 12, 2012) are moot because Appellant’s
Amendment After Final Rejection, filed March 21, 2019, that cancels these
claims, was entered by the Examiner. See Advisory Act. mailed Mar. 25,
2019.
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
3
ANALYSIS
Claim 44
Claim 44 recites, inter alia,
“a processor adapted to . . . designate a risk of occupant egress
as a function of: a) occupant weight distribution, and b) whether
or not a second perimeter panel, which is adjacent to a first
perimeter panel having an elevation status of DOWN, has an
elevation status of UP.”
Appellant argues that Kostic’s use of siderail position is related to the
change in the center of gravity (CG) calculation and is not used to determine
a risk of egress. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant asserts that Kostic’s
“CG calculation is updated to account for changes in siderail position, [and
is] not Appellant’s risk designation that depends on occupant weight
distribution and the UP/DOWN status of two adjacent perimeter panels.” Id.
at 8–9.
The Examiner disagrees with Appellant and states that “the issue is
whether Kostic’s perimeter panel information is used as a function to
designate a risk of occupant egress.” Ans. 4. According to the Examiner,
because Appellant does not explicitly define “risk,” this term is interpreted
consistent with the Specification as the “likelihood” or “possibility” of an
event occurring. Id. at 5–7. The Examiner equates the claimed risk with
Kostic’s bed exit alert “because the alert is a ‘possibility’ or ‘likelihood’ []
of occupant egress.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Kostic, ¶ 53, Fig. 5). According to
the Examiner, because Kostic’s center of gravity determination includes a
zone that changes based upon the UP or DOWN position of the siderail,
Kostic, as a whole, discloses that the elevation position of each side rail
affects the alert and thus, the risk that the patient is likely to egress. Id. at 9–
10 (citing Kostic, ¶ 72, Fig. 5). In addition, the Examiner notes that because
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
4
Kostic’s siderail elevation algorithm has nine possible position combinations
for each siderail with one combination meeting the claim and 8 not, Kostic
inherently “takes into account ‘whether or not a second perimeter panel,
which is adjacent to a first perimeter panel having an elevation status of
DOWN, has an elevation status of UP’ at block 92 for when it makes its
designation of risk at block 96.” Id. at 11.
Appellant replies that although Kostic distinguishes between UP and
DOWN elevations of siderails, Kostic does not disclose a “risk designation
as a function of occupant weight distribution and specific relative positions
(up, down, intermediate) of adjacent siderails.” Reply Br. 4. Appellant
asserts, moreover, that a one in nine possibility that a result may occur is
insufficient to anticipate, which requires that a result necessarily occurs. Id.
at 5 (citing Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990). According
to Appellant, in order for Kostic to meet the claimed limitation, “Kostic
would have to expressly disclose an exit detection system using the
combination of weight distribution and the UP/DOWN status of adjacent
siderails, not just the combination of weight distribution and whatever
configuration the siderails happen to be in.” Id. at 6. Appellant’s arguments
are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Initially, we note that Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
determination that the term “risk” means “likelihood” or “possibility” of an
event occurring (see Ans. 8), or offer a contrary definition. See generally
Appeal Br.; Reply Br. Further, the construction is consistent with the
Specification which discloses “the likelihood or risk” that an occupant will
exit the occupant support. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 22; see also Ans. 5–7. The risk is
further disclosed in terms of being “an elevated or nonelevated risk relative
to the baseline risk,” and the Specification discloses an embodiment where
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
5
“the occupant is at an elevated or nonelevated risk comprises graduating the
risk, for example as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, or green, yellow, red, in order
to provide information about the magnitude of the elevated risk.” Spec. ¶¶
25, 26. The risk could also be quantified (see Spec. ¶¶ 27–33), or compared
to a baseline to determine whether there is “an increased risk … a decreased
risk, [or] … the risk stays the same.” Spec. ¶¶ 34–36.
Similarly, in Kostic, a determination is made to assess the likelihood
of a patient exiting the occupant support. Specifically, Kostic discloses an
occupant support apparatus 20 having four siderails 36 and a footboard 34,
as seen in Figure 1, reproduced below.

Figure 1 is a perspective view of a person support apparatus. Kostic
¶ 28. Figure 1 shows all siderails 36 in a raised position, “but are each
individually movable to a lower position in which ingress into, and egress
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
6
out of, person support apparatus 20 is not obstructed by the lowered siderails
36.” Id. ¶ 47. Kostic’s person support apparatus 20 includes an exit
detection system 56 “adapted to determine when an occupant is likely to
leave prior to the occupant actually leaving, and to issue an alert and/or
notification to appropriate personnel so that proper steps can be taken in
response to the occupant’s imminent departure in a timely fashion.” Id.
¶ 53, Fig. 4. Kostic discloses that the likelihood of an occupant exiting
changes depending on the position of the siderails 36, i.e., “[i]f a siderail is
in an up position, it is less likely that an occupant of person support
apparatus 20 will exit therefrom by climbing over that siderail.” Id. ¶ 72.
“If the siderail is moved to a lower position . . . it is easier for an occupant to
exit support deck 30 in the area of the lowered siderail,” making it more
likely that an occupant will exit. Id.
Kostic’s Figure 5 discloses an exit detection algorithm wherein
controller 58 of exit detection system 56, at step 84, determines an
occupant’s center of gravity, and “determines whether the center of gravity
of the occupant . . . is outside of a predefined zone.” Kostic ¶ 69. We agree
with the Examiner that Kostic’s use of force sensors 60 in a coordinate
system to determine the center of gravity based on the force sensors being in
a known location, and determining whether the center of gravity is outside a
predefined zone, is determining occupant weight distribution relative to a
reference weight distribution, as required by claim 44. See Final Act. 4.
Once the center of gravity (weight distribution) is determined,
Kostic’s exit detection algorithm moves to step 92 to acquire initial values of
one or more bed parameters. Kostic, Fig. 5. Specifically, controller 58
determines, inter alia, “a current value indicating the current position of
each siderail 36 (up, down, or intermediate).” Id. ¶ 68; see also Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
7
As the Examiner correctly finds, based on the determined value, Kostic uses
the position of each siderail to determine a risk of occupant egress. See
Final Act. 5. For example, Kostic discloses that if the controller determines
that a siderail is “in an up position, it is less likely that an occupant of person
support apparatus 20 will exit therefrom by climbing over that siderail.” Id.
¶ 72. Because the risk of exit (egress) is less likely, Kostic’s controller 58
“allows the occupant’s center of gravity to approach more closely to the up
siderail than if the siderail were in a down position before issuing an alarm.”
Id. Thus, Kostic uses both occupant weight distribution, i.e., center of
gravity and side rail position to evaluate the likelihood, or risk, that an
occupant will egress.
We turn now to the specific claim limitation, which requires
designating a risk of occupant egress as a function of “whether or not a
second perimeter panel, which is adjacent to a first perimeter panel having
an elevation status of DOWN, has an elevation status of UP.” Appeal Br. 15
(Claims App.). Specifically, Kostic discloses four siderails (perimeter
panels) and knows the current position of each perimeter panel. Kostic ¶ 68.
The claim requires that a first perimeter panel has an elevation status that is
DOWN. Here, because Kostic knows the elevation status of each siderail,
Kostic knows whether or not the lower right panel, for example, is DOWN.
Id. In order to meet the claim, Kostic must then determine (designate) a risk
of occupant egress as a function of whether or not a second perimeter panel
adjacent to the first perimeter panel has an elevation status of UP. For this
example, the adjacent perimeter panel is the upper right panel. As discussed
above, Kostic discloses that “[i]f a siderail is in an up position, it is less
likely that an occupant of person support apparatus 20 will exit therefrom by
climbing over that siderail.” Id. ¶ 72. Kostic, thus, determines a likelihood
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
8
or risk of occupant egress that is lowered, or less likely, if the second
perimeter panel has an elevation status of UP. Kostic also determines that
the risk increases if the siderail is moved to a lower position, either an
intermediate or a DOWN position, both of which are not an UP elevation
status. Id.
The above analysis applies equally to each of the adjacent pairs of
panels. That is, for each perimeter panel, namely, upper left, lower left,
upper right, and lower right, Kostic determines the elevation status of each
adjacent perimeter panel and assigns a lower risk to those perimeter panels
that are UP relative to those that are DOWN or at an intermediate level.
Consistent with Appellant’s Figure 14, for any perimeter panel having an
elevation status of UP, Kostic determines that a low risk exists, and no
additional risk is assigned. Similar to Appellant’s logic diagram, Kostic’s
algorithm continues to operate, until there is a change in elevation status of a
perimeter panel to DOWN (or intermediate) and a change in center of
gravity that is outside the threshold. Compare Spec. Fig. 14 with Kostic Fig.
5.
Although Appellant’s Figure 14 logic diagram shows an output of
“1,” which designates an increased risk when both the perimeter panel is
DOWN and the adjacent perimeter panel is UP, because claim 44 recites
“whether or not,” the adjacent perimeter panel need not be UP to meet the
claim. That is, we understand the term “whether or not” to mean regardless.
This is consistent with Appellant’s Specification that discloses an alternate
to the Figure 14 embodiment having an increased risk when a perimeter
panel is DOWN and an adjacent perimeter panel is DOWN. See Spec. ¶ 27
(Table 1), ¶ 57 (“table 1 identifies the ‘D’ configurations as riskier than the
‘C’ configurations because the ‘D’ configurations present the occupant with
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
9
an unrestricted opportunity for exit on one entire side of the bed.”). In Table
1, “D” configurations have both a perimeter panel DOWN and an adjacent
perimeter panel DOWN and “C” configurations have a perimeter panel
DOWN and an adjacent perimeter panel UP.
In view of this, claim 44 requires disclosure of a risk designation as a
function of occupant weight distribution and whether one perimeter panel is
DOWN. As discussed above, Kostic discloses this because Kostic discloses
that it is more likely that a person will exit when the person’s center of
gravity moves toward a zone (function of weight distribution) and that zone
includes a siderail that is in a lower position (function of a perimeter panel is
DOWN).
Moreover, claim 44 only requires the processor to “designate a risk of
occupant egress.” There is no requirement that there is an additional risk or
reduced risk, only “risk of occupant egress.” Because Kostic determines a
risk, i.e., less likely for UP and more likely for DOWN, for each side rail,
Kostic designates a risk for all possible siderail and adjacent siderail
configurations, including a second perimeter panel having an elevation
status of UP, which is adjacent to a first perimeter panel having an elevation
status of DOWN.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Kostic anticipates
claim 44.

Claim 45
Claim 45 recites, inter alia, wherein the designation of risk also takes
into account whether or not a force which is greater than a threshold force is
acting on the second perimeter panel.
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
10
Appellant argues that Kostic’s “[f]orce sensors 60 determine the force
exerted by the siderails, not forces exerted on the siderails,” and thus, detect
the weight of the siderails and any force applied to a siderail. Appeal Br.
10–11. According to Appellant, claim 45 requires knowledge of the
magnitude of the force acting on the siderail in order to determine whether
the force exceeds a threshold. Id. at 12.
The Examiner responds that Kostic discloses that a patient's CG is
calculated using force sensors that “take into account all forces acting on the
support deck 30.” Ans. 14. According to the Examiner, the forces in Kostic
include forces acting on any of Kostic’s perimeter panels 36. Id. The
Examiner concludes that because Kostic’s “block 94 uses any force on side
rails 36 to calculate the patient's CG, and the patient's CG is then used to
activate an alert if it is outside of a zone, Kostic anticipates a designation of
risk” based on a force exceeding a threshold force acting on the second
perimeter panel, as required by claim 45. Ans. 14.
In reply, Appellant reiterates that because Kostic does not distinguish
between a force exerted by the weight of the siderail and a force acting on
the siderail, “Kostic therefore cannot possibly disclose taking into account a
force, which might be acting on the siderail.” Reply Br. 6–7. For the
following reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 45.
Claim 45 requires that “the designation of risk also takes into account
whether or not a force which is greater than a threshold force is acting on the
second perimeter panel.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.)(emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that this requires a force sensor (or other device)
that can determine whether the specific amount of force acting on the
perimeter panel. Appellant’s Specification discloses that “force sensor 106
… is capable of sensing force in three axes: longitudinally (± FLONG),
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
11
laterally (± FLAT), and vertically (± FVERT) . . . force is [] applied to that UP
siderail.” Spec. ¶ 58. Force sensor 106 is used in addition to weight sensor
110 to determine the force acting on the panel. See Spec. Figs. 1, 10, 15A,
15B.
Although we appreciate that Kostic’s “exit detection system 56 is
adapted to determine the center of gravity of whatever load is applied to
force sensors 60” (Kostic ¶ 65), we agree with Appellant that a combination
of all forces applied to the force sensor does not enable a determination of
the force acting on a perimeter panel. In Kostic, force sensors 60 are in a
planar configuration as seen in Kostic’s Figure 6B, reproduced below.

Figure 6B is a perspective view of a planar coordinate system that may be
used by the algorithm of FIG. 5 to compute the load's center of gravity and
that also illustrates changes to the center of gravity caused by movement.
Kostic ¶ 35. Kostic discloses that “controller 58 knows the location of force
sensors 60 in the particular coordinate system that is used. In the example
shown in FIG. 6B, force sensors 60 are shown in known locations 87.” Id. ¶
67. Kostic further discloses:
exit detection system 56 determines the center of gravity of the
combined weight of an occupant, mattress, and/or any objects that
are positioned on support deck 30 or litter frame 28, as well as
those components of person support apparatus 20 whose weight
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
12
is supported by force sensors 60 (e.g. litter frame 28, support deck
30, siderails 36, etc.)
Kostic ¶ 65.
Thus, Kostic is able to determine the center of gravity of the entire
load, and is able to determine where that center of gravity is located, but is
not able to distinguish individual elements of the load to determine whether
part of the load is attributed to, for example, a person’s hand placed on the
siderail. If, as the Examiner suggests, “an occupant of Kostic’s system were
to just lean on a siderail 36 with his/her elbow, or place their purse/bag over
the siderail 36, this/these force(s) could be just enough to be greater than the
threshold force required in claim 45.” Ans. 14–15. Although these actions
will move the center of gravity closer to the siderail, so will the person
kneeling on the bed, close to, but not touching the siderail, or the occupant
receiving an object that is placed near the siderail. Because the system of
Kostic is not able to distinguish between these different scenarios that would
result in the same location of the center of gravity, the Examiner’s rejection
is based on speculation.
We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 45.

Claim 46
Claim 46 recites, inter alia, “a processor adapted to . . . designate a
risk of occupant egress as a function of: a) occupant weight distribution,
(and) b) elevation status of the siderails.” The risk is recited as “elevated
relative to a baseline risk if occupant displacement and siderail status are
both as set forth in one of the rows of the (claimed) table.”
Appellant argues that although Kostic discloses four siderails as
recited in claim 46, it does not disclose criterion “b” because “Kostic
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
13
contains no express or inherent disclosure of designating an elevated risk if
the specific combinations of occupant displacement and siderails which have
a status of DOWN enumerated in Appellant’s claim are encountered.”
Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner finds that because Kostic acquires a siderail status that
is used to assess patient CG and generate an alarm, Kostic is designating an
elevated risk compared to no alarm (baseline). Ans. 17. Appellant replies
that although Kostic’s siderails could be arranged as in the table of claim 46
because Kostic does not disclose such an arrangement, Kostic is not
anticipatory. Reply Br. 8. For the following reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claim 46.
Claim 46 recites, “wherein the processor is adapted to designate a risk
which is elevated relative to a baseline risk if occupant displacement and
siderail status are both as set forth in one of the rows of the table.” Appeal
Br. 17 (Claims App.)(emphasis added). Thus, the claim is met when one
row is satisfied. The first row of the recited table requires occupant
displacement to the left and one or both left siderails have a status of
“DOWN.” In order to meet this claim element, Kostic’s processor must
designate a risk which is elevated relative to a baseline risk when the
occupant is displaced to the left and at least one left siderail has a status of
“DOWN.”
As the Examiner correctly finds, Kostic’s algorithm shown in Figure 5
first determines an initial center of gravity at step 84 in coordinate system
86. Ans. 17 (citing Kostic ¶ 67, Fig. 5). Kostic then determines an initial
siderail status at step 92. Id. Based on these initial values, Kostic knows
where the person is on the bed, and whether each siderail is UP or DOWN.
Kostic also discloses that a “predefined zone, in one embodiment, is defined
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
14
in coordinate system 86 and is the trigger controller 58 uses to determine
whether or not to issue an exit alert.” Kostic ¶ 69. Kostic further discloses
that “[i]f a siderail is in an up position, it is less likely that an occupant of
person support apparatus 20 will exit therefrom by climbing over that
siderail.” Id. ¶ 72. Thus, Kostic attributes a low or baseline likelihood when
a siderail has a status of UP, and adjusts the zone closer to the UP siderail.
By contrast, Kostic discloses that
[i]f the siderail is moved to a lower position (has a status of
DOWN), the zone is switched to include a more restricted
boundary — the more restricted boundary representing the fact
that, with the siderail lowered, it is easier for an occupant to exit
support deck 30 in the area of the lowered siderail.
Id. Thus, Kostic attributes an elevated risk to a siderail having a status of
DOWN and shifts the zone away from the DOWN siderail.
Given that Kostic determines the location of the center of gravity and
thus, knows the occupant weight distribution, and knows that a siderail
having a status of DOWN has an elevated risk of egress, Kostic’s processor
is adapted to designate the risk as elevated when the occupant is displaced,
for example, to the left and at least one left siderail has a status of “DOWN,”
as opposed to the siderail having a status of “UP.” That is, Kostic’s alarm is
more readily triggered when the siderail is DOWN and the occupant is
moving toward that siderail. Specifically, Kostic discloses that “controller
58 may use, in that situation (status of UP), a zone that allows the occupant's
center of gravity to approach more closely to the up siderail than if the
siderail were in a down position before issuing an alarm.” Kostic ¶ 72.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 46 as
anticipated by Kostic.
Appeal 2019-005621
Application 15/000,258
15
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed in part.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
44–46 102(a)(2) Kostic 44, 46 45
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART