KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2020

14776793 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
14/776,793 09/15/2015 Patrick GUINEY 2012P01718WOUS 3391
24737 7590 04/30/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
FAIRCHILD, MALLIKA DIPAYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2020 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):
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 PATRICK GUINEY, WILLIAM DOUGLAS GRUBE,
JOHN MARDIROSIAN, SCOTT ALAN WUTHRICH, and
SIMON EDWARD KOZIN
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
Technology Center 3700
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAYAT, 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 1, 2, 6, 8–12, 14–16, and 18–24, which
are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 the assignee of
record Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to monitor defibrillators having a
touchscreen with additional user interface windows. Spec. ¶ 1. The
Specification describes that typically a “monitor defibrillator has one user
interface while other software applications generally require a separate user
interface on a laptop or other computer or tablet. Accordingly, EMS
personnel must typically juggle two devices and two or more user interfaces
to collect and manage information when treating patients.” Id. ¶ 56. The
claimed invention is described as “enabling new functionality not possible
with existing user interfaces of monitor[] defibrillators” (id. ¶ 18), using a
display that includes a touch screen (id. ¶ 19), that “can be configured to
have multiple user-interface windows” (id. ¶ 24). In this way, “[o]ne
window can be configured to only display functions related to the monitor
unit and/or the therapy unit. One or more windows can be configured to
display one or more software applications, which software applications can
include an electronic patient care record (ePCR) application.” Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A monitor defibrillator comprising:
a monitoring unit configured to generate output signals
conveying information related to a person's electrocardiogram
(ECG);
a therapy unit configured to administer a therapy based on
the information in the output signals; and
a display operatively coupled to the monitoring unit and
the therapy unit, the display configured to simultaneously display
at least two separate user interface windows, wherein a first
window of the at least two separate use interface windows is
configured to display information related to the ECG and/or the
administration of the therapy, wherein a second window of the at
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
3
least two separate user interface windows is configured to
display one or more softwares configured to collect and manage
information related to the person, and wherein the display
comprises a touch screen.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Parker US 6,321,113 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
Vaisnys US 2011/0213262 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
Parker US 2011/0246875 A1 Oct. 6, 2011
Powell US 2014/0019901 A1 Jan. 16, 2014
Vonshak US 2014/0096049 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9–11, 14–16, and 18–21 under Pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Vaisnys et al. (US 2011/0213262
A1, published Sept. 1, 2011) (“Vaisnys”) and Parker et al. (US 6,321,113
B1, issued Nov. 20, 2001) (“Parker”).
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 6, and 8 under Pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vaisnys, Parker, and Powell et al.
(US 2014/0019901 A1, published Jan. 16, 2014).
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 22, and 23 under Pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vaisnys, Parker, and either
Vonshak et al. (US 2014/0096049 A1, published Apr. 3, 2014) or Parker et
al. (US 20110246875 A1, published Oct. 6, 2011).
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vaisnys, Parker, and Toepke et al. (US 2002/0105504 A1,
published Aug. 8, 2002).

Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
4
OPINION
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 16, and 19 together as a
group. Appeal Br. 16–21. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Vaisnys discloses the claimed device, but
“does not specifically teach that the display is configured to simultaneously
display at least two separate user interface windows.” Final Act. 16. The
Examiner finds Parker teaches a device where the “display has a graphical
user interface (e.g. 40 Fig 1, 50 Fig. 2) configured to simultaneously display
at least two separate user interface windows (e.g. 40 Fig 1, 54, 56 Fig 2a).”
Id. at 17. The Examiner explains that in Parker,
a first window of the at least two separate user interface windows
is configured to display information related to the ECG (e.g. 56
Fig 2a) and/or the administration of the therapy (e.g. 114,
Fig 2a), wherein a second window of the at least two separate
user interface windows is configured to display one or more
software applications configured to collect information related to
the person.
Id.
Appellant argues Parker teaches but a single “window for viewing
ECG data simultaneously with entry and review of all other data available in
the single screen user interface,” but fails to disclose “multiple separate user
interface windows” or “a pair of separate graphical user interfaces
windows 40a and 40b,” and instead teaches only “simultaneously
display[ing] the ECG and the administration of therapy as joined together in
a single resident view screen.” Appeal Br. 20–21.
The Examiner responds: “Parker further describes that the ECG
window which graphically displays the real time representation of the ECG
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
5
can be reduced or enlarged and can be deactivated (e.g. Col. 5 lines 15-25).
Thus they teach that there are two separate graphical user interface windows
that are simultaneously displayed as claimed.” Answer 5. The Examiner
asserts that the “claim does not require that the two separate windows be
separate from the single user interface but just requires that the two separate
windows be displayed simultaneously on a single screen.” Id. at 6.
In response, Appellant argues that Parker teaches “two user interface
windows on separate sections of a touchscreen,” but not “two separate user
interface windows on a touchscreen.” Reply Br. 11–12. We are not
persuaded by the Appellant’s argument.
The Specification does not define the term “window,” and only uses
the term “section” twice, in paragraphs 59 and 60, without clearly
differentiating the terms. The Specification describes a display with
“multiple user-interface windows,” where “[o]ne window can be configured
to only display functions related to the monitor unit and/or the therapy unit,”
and “[o]ne or more windows can be configured to display one or more
software applications, which software applications can include an electronic
patient care record (ePCR) application.” Spec. ¶ 24. We thus do not
discern, from the claims or Specification, a difference between a “window”
and a “section of the screen,” because in the Specification, both permit
display of data from multiple sources.
Parker discloses a system which “uses a rescue scene computer to
obtain patient and incident data at the rescue scene and then marry that data
with ECG rescue data and automated external defibrillator (AED) rescue
data.” Parker 1:62–66. In particular, Parker’s system “includes a
Windows®-based single screen graphical user interface for entering and
reviewing the data, and particularly includes a window for viewing ECG
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
6
data simultaneously with entry and review of all other data available in the
single screen user interface.” Id. at 2:4–8. Therefore, Parker provides a
device that accomplishes the same function as described in Appellant’s
Specification, “a single touchscreen implemented on a monitor defibrillator
in accordance with exemplary embodiments of the present invention can
provide a graphical user interface for both the monitor defibrillator and an
independent software application such as an electronic patient care records
(ePCR) application.” Spec. ¶ 55.
Parker accomplishes this with a “single screen graphical user
interface 40 permitting entry, review, and revision of data regarding a
cardiac rescue event,” which has “single view screen 50 having resident
components, such as rescue scene location 52, and selective viewing
components, such as patient information tab window 54, and optional ECG
window 56.” Parker 4:48–54. Parker discloses tabs in the interface, where
“[o]nce a tab is selected, the window corresponding to that tab is displayed
in an overlay fashion over the other tab windows.” Id. at 4:59–61. Figure 2
of Parker also discloses ECG window 56 “graphically displays a real time
representation of the ECG,” and “defines a splitter window 115 that can be
reduced or enlarged vertically on single screen user interface 40. ECG
window 56 also can be deactivated for selective removal from single screen
user interface 40.” Parker thus discloses controls over the ECG window 56
region of the screen, separate from other regions of the screen, and indicates
the ECG window is only optionally displayed.
Appellant also argues “Parker teaches away from simultaneous
display of a screen 50a having a window and a screen 50b having a separate
window by being exclusively premised on a single screen graphical user
interface as a distinguishing feature over the prior art,” citing Parker 1:61–
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
7
2:36. Reply Br. 13. Appellant’s teaching away argument is not persuasive
because the Appellant has not identified, and we do not discern, where
Parker actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the argued
limitations. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy
Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention
claimed.”) (citing Fulton).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9–11, 14–16, and 18–21. As such, we
sustain the rejection.

Rejections of Claims 2, 6, 8, 12, 22, and 23
Appellant argues against these rejections “for at least the same reason
as set forth herein with respect to independent claim 1 being allowable over
Vaisnys in view of Parker.” Appeal Br. 22–25. Because we are not
apprised of reversible error in the rejection of claim 1 over Vaisnys and
Parker, we sustain these rejections for the same reasons.

Rejection of Claim 24
Appellant contests the rejection of claim 24 based on arguments
advanced for claim 1. Appeal Br. 25–28. Thus, we sustain the rejection of
claim 24 for the same reasons as claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-005714
Application 14/776,793
8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9–11, 14–
16, 18–21
103(a) Vaisnys, Parker 1, 9–11, 14–16,
18–21

2, 6, 8 103(a) Vaisnys, Parker,
Powell
2, 6, 8
12, 22, 23 103(a) Vaisnys, Parker,
Vonshak
12, 22, 23
24 103(a) Vaisnys, Parker,
Toepke
24
Overall Outcome 1, 2, 6, 8–12,
14–16, 18–24

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