Mark D'Angelo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 10, 2019

14125663 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2019)

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.
14/125,663 12/12/2013 Mark D'Angelo 2011P00607WOUS 1017
24737 7590 10/10/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
WOODWARD, VALERIE LYNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2019 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 MARK D’ANGELO and JOHN RAYMOND PUJOL
____________________

Appeal 2019-002447
Application 14/125,6631
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellant, the invention is directed “to methods and
systems to configure respiratory therapy modes in respiratory therapy

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
“KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002447
Application 14/125,663

2
devices.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are the independent claims on
appeal. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as representative of the
appealed claims.
1. A system to configure respiratory therapy modes for
users of respiratory therapy devices, the system comprising:
one or more processors configured to execute computer
program modules, the computer program modules comprising:
(1) a data gathering module configured to receive
usage information related to a respiratory therapy device
in a first therapy mode, wherein the usage information
received from the respiratory therapy device represents
therapeutic usage of the respiratory therapy device during
the first therapy mode,
(2) an analysis module configured to determine
effectiveness information related to effectiveness of
therapy based on the usage information during the first
therapy mode, wherein determining the effectiveness
information comprises determining a respiratory
disturbance index;
(3) a provider interface module configured to
receive a first unlock selection responsive to the
respiratory disturbance index reaching a threshold, the
first unlock selection being received while the respiratory
therapy device is operating in the first therapy mode, the
first unlock selection indicating that a second therapy
mode for the respiratory therapy device should be
unlocked, wherein
the second therapy mode is different than the
first therapy mode, and
the second therapy mode is not available for
use on the respiratory therapy device prior to
reception of the first unlock selection; and
(4) a device configuration module configured such
that, responsive to reception of the first unlock selection
by the provider interface module, the device configuration
Appeal 2019-002447
Application 14/125,663

3
module activates the second therapy mode for the
respiratory therapy device, wherein the device
configuration module is further configured to deactivate
the second therapy mode after a predetermined trial period
has expired.

REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Blackwell et al. (US 2010/0108064 A1, pub. May 6,
2010) (hereinafter “Blackwell”), Reed et al. (US 2007 /0193583 A1, pub.
Aug. 23, 2007) (hereinafter “Reed”), and Peiris et al. (US 2012/0291783 A1,
pub. Nov. 22, 2012) (hereinafter “Peiris”).

ANALYSIS
As set forth above, independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part,
a provider interface module configured to receive a
first unlock selection responsive to the respiratory
disturbance index reaching a threshold, the first unlock
selection being received while the respiratory therapy
device is operating in the first therapy mode, the first
unlock selection indicating that a second therapy mode for
the respiratory therapy device should be unlocked,
wherein
the second therapy mode is different than the
first therapy mode, and
the second therapy mode is not available for
use on the respiratory therapy device prior to
reception of the first unlock selection.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). In the Final Office Action, the
Examiner relies on Blackwell to disclose the claimed provider interface
module. See Final Action 2–4. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that
Appeal 2019-002447
Application 14/125,663

4
the Examiner errs by relying on Blackwell to disclose the provider interface
module as specifically claimed. Appeal Br. 10–11.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds that
Blackwell discloses the claimed provider interface module because,
according to the Examiner, Blackwell’s paragraph 38 discloses
provid[ing] a recommendation to an operator or clinician to make
a change to another therapy. The recommendation may be in the
form of a prompt through which the user can confirm a change
in modes. This prompt reads on “a first unlock selection” since
it makes available for selection, a second therapy mode and upon
selection (confirmation of the change), will change the device to
operate in the second therapy mode.
Answer 5 (citation to Appellant’s Specification omitted). We do not sustain
the rejection, however, because consistent with Appellant’s argument, the
Examiner does not support adequately that Blackwell discloses a provider
interface module unlocking a second therapy mode, as expressly recited in
independent claim 1. In particular, there is nothing in the cited paragraph of
Blackwell which discloses unlocking—i.e., making available that which was
previously unavailable—a second therapy mode. For example, although the
Examiner is correct that the cited portion of Blackwell states that the device
may “provide a recommendation,” there is no indication that the
recommendation is for a therapy mode that was not already available prior to
the device providing the recommendation. Blackwell ¶ 38.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 8 and 14 that each
include a similar recitation. See Appeal Br., Claims App. Further, we do
Appeal 2019-002447
Application 14/125,663

5
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2–7, 9–13, and 15–19 that
depend from the independent claims.

CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–19.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103 Blackwell,
Reed, Peiris
1–19

REVERSED