KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2021001784 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2022)

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. 16/301,462 11/14/2018 Hugo VEENSTRA 2016P00274WOUS 1053 24737 7590 02/28/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER GILMAN, ALEXANDER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2831 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 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): katelyn.mulroy@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUGO VEENSTRA, PIERRE HERMANUS WOERLEE, and FRANK VERBAKEL Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s April 20, 2020 decision to finally reject claims 1-10 and 13-15, which constitute all the claims pending in this application (“Final Act.”). Claims 11 and 12 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Philips Koninklijke N.V. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a medical coupling unit for transmitting electrical signals between the medical coupling unit and a medical sensor coupled to the medical coupling unit (Appeal Br. 11). The coupling configurations presented are said to be useable with a multi- measurement module or monitor that can address measurements of various vital signs in a patient and can be applied in all scenarios across the continuum of care. This is said to be achieved by providing a coupling-side connector (10) with a plurality of electrical contacts (11,13), and a sensor- side connector (20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, and 110) with a plurality of electrical contacts (21, 23), as shown for example in FIGS. lA-lB below: Figs. 1A and 1B schematically show a cross-sectional side view and a top view, respectively, of an embodiment of a medical coupling unit according to Appellant’s disclosure Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 3 1. A medical coupling unit comprising: a coupling-side connector comprising a plurality of first electrical contacts in or on a first surface and a plurality of second electrical contacts in or on a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein a medical sensor is removably coupled to the medical coupling unit by a sensor-side connector that is configured to transmit an electrical signal between the medical coupling unit and the medical sensor, wherein the sensor-side connector comprises a first plurality of sidactors coupled between a reference contact and protection resistors, and a second plurality of sidactors coupled between the reference contact and one or more input terminals, to which input signals from are coupled; and a connector interface configured to analyze electrical signals available at one or more of the plurality of first and second electrical contacts to detect one or more of presence of the medical sensor coupled to the medical coupling unit, and the orientation of the sensor-side connector of the medical sensor coupled to the medical coupling unit by evaluating the impedance and/or voltage between predetermined electrical contacts. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sikora US 4,779,027 October 18, 1988 Vester et al. US 5,287,853 February 22, 1994 Lisogurski US 2011/0077473 A1 March 31, 2011 Terlizzi et al. US 2013/0117470 A1 May 9, 2013 Fries et al. US 2014/0275873 A1 September 18, 2014 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fries in view of Lisogurski, and further in view of Sikora. Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 4 2. Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fries in view of Lisogurski and Sikora, and further in view of Terlizzi. 3. Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as unpatentable over Fries in view of Sikora, Terlizzi, and Vester. OPINION The Examiner’s findings are set forth in the Final Action at pages 2-8, and in the Examiner’s Answer at pages 3-5. Rejection 1. Appellant first argues the cited art does not teach or suggest “the sensor-side connector comprises a first plurality of sidactors coupled between a reference contact and protection resistors, and a second plurality of sidactors coupled between the reference contact and one or more input terminals, to which input signals from are coupled” (Appeal Br. 15- 16). The Examiner finds that neither Fries nor Lisogurski teaches this limitation but finds that Sikora discloses an overvoltage protection circuit including sidactors (Final Act. 3-4, citing Sikora, Abstract). Therefore, according the Examiner, it would have been obvious to provide Sikora’s overvoltage protection circuit, including sidactors, to suppress overvoltage (Final Act. 4). Appellant contends that because Sikora only discloses a single resistor with a pair of sidactors, it cannot disclose both a first and second plurality of sidactors, as set forth in each of claim 1 and claim 10 (Appeal Br. 15). Moreover, according to Appellant, Sikora fails to disclose the claimed structural arrangements for the sidactors (the first plurality is coupled between a reference contact and protection resistors, and the second plurality is coupled between the reference contact and one or more input terminals) (Appeal Br. 15-16). Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 5 In response, the Examiner finds that: “[Fries] disclose[s] the plurality of the first contacts and the plurality of the second contacts being separated. For normal functioning of the medical coupling unit, it is obvious and necessary to provide the overvoltage protection for each plurality of contacts since each of pluralities of contacts should be protected.” (Ans. 3). Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence set forth by Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that Appellant has demonstrated reversible error in this rejection. In particular, the preponderance of the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the specific structure of the claimed sidactors would have been obvious. That is, although the Examiner has explained why the use of two different pluralities of sidactors might have been obvious in view of Sikora’s disclosures, there is insufficient evidence as to why the claimed structure would have been used. In addition, we agree with Appellant’s arguments that the evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s determination (Final Act. 2, Ans. 4- 5) that IC chip 110 of Fries is configured to analyze electrical signals available to detect one or more of the presence of the medical sensor coupled to the medical coupling unit, and the orientation of the sensor-side connector of the medical sensor coupled to the medical coupling unit by evaluating the impedance and/or voltage between predetermined electrical contacts. In particular, the Examiner finds that IC chip 110 is connected to first and second contacts 82, and that because impedance and overvoltage are basic characteristics of the electrical circuit, the “electrical circuit with an appropriate impedance and/or voltage would be inherent result of proper connection of the respective sensor to the coupling unit and the receptacle” Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 6 (Ans. 4-5). These findings are not sufficient to sustain the obviousness rejection, because they do not address the specific claim requirement that the connector detect the presence of the medical sensor and its orientation by evaluating the impedance and/or voltage between predetermined electrical contacts. The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, we determine that the Examiner has not adequately shown that either the structure of the claimed sidactors or a connector interface which is configured to detect the presence of a medical sensor or its orientation by evaluating the impedance and/or voltage between predetermined electrical contacts would have been obvious over the cited art. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 10. Because the remaining claims depend from claims 1 and 10, we also reverse the rejection of the remaining claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2021-001784 Application 16/301,462 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 10 103 Fries, Lisogurski, Sikora 1, 2, 10 3-9 103 Fries, Lisogurski, Sikora, Terlizzi 3-9 13-15 103 Fries, Sikora, Terlizzi, Vester 13-15 Overall Outcome 1-10, 13-15 REVERSED