MEDSTAR HEALTH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 16, 2020

2020000059 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 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.
14/775,094 09/11/2015 Mark S. Smith MSH-021288 US PCT 1034
26294 7590 06/16/2020
TAROLLI, SUNDHEIM, COVELL & TUMMINO L.L.P.
1300 EAST NINTH STREET, SUITE 1700
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
FAIRCHILD, MALLIKA DIPAYAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2020 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):
docketing@tarolli.com
rkline@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK S. SMITH and RAHUL BHAT
____________

Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,0941
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–5, 8, and 12–14. 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 MedStar
Health. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relates generally to medical devices, and
specifically to an electrocardiograph display in which the leads representing
each of a plurality of anatomical structure [sic] are displayed in isolation and
in which pairs of leads or collection [sic] of leads can be compared between
two different electrocardiograms.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
Claims 1, 8, and 12 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites (emphasis added):
1. An electrocardiograph system comprising:
a set of electrodes configured to detect a plurality of
voltage differences between various pairs of locations on a body
of a patient;
a display configured to visually represent digital signals
derived from the plurality of detected voltage differences; and
a display interface configured to format the digital signals
for the display, such that they are displayed as a sequence of
proper subsets of the plurality of detected voltage differences,
each proper subset of the plurality of detected voltage differences
comprising leads representing a specific anatomical structure of
a heart of the patient, the display interface configured to display
the sequence of proper subsets of the plurality of detected voltage
differences, such that each proper subset is displayed for at least
a predetermined amount of time regardless of input from a user.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cardinale (US 2013/0165781 A1, pub. June 27, 2013) and
Raj (US 5,956,013, iss. Sept. 21, 1999).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cardinale, Raj, and Ramseth (US 2004/0051721 A1, pub. Mar. 18, 2004).
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

3
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cardinale, Raj, and Powell (US 2014/0019901 A1, pub. Jan. 16, 2014).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cardinale, Powell, and Raj.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cardinale, Raj, and Ramseth.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness is a legal conclusion involving a determination of
underlying facts.
Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be
determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at
issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness
or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such
secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give
light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject
matter sought to be patented.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
With regard to the scope and content of the prior art, the Examiner
finds that
Raj teaches obtaining ECG data and displaying the data on a
display such that the data is displayed for predetermined amount
of time regardless of input from a user (Note: The display screen
is controlled by a VGA graphics board which causes the CRT to
be refreshed 60 times per minute [sic, per second], e.g. Col. 4
lines 15-col. 5 line 5). Therefore it would have been obvious to
a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify the display interface of Cardinale to have
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

4
the teachings of displaying the data for a predetermined period
of time regardless of input from a user[ ]as taught by Raj in order
to provide the predictable results of having a more user-friendly
interface that can help the user/clinician scroll through data
easily.

(Final Action 4–5.)
Appellant argues
that claims are given their broadest interpretation that is
consistent with their plain meaning as understood by one of skill
in the art at the time of the invention. An individual of skill in
the art in the field of electrocardiograph systems, even assuming
they are aware of the refresh rate of CRT monitors, would not
consider each refresh of the monitor to be a new instance of
displaying the ECG to the user. . . . [I]t is respectfully submitted
that one of skill in the art would understand the period for which
an image is displayed to be the period of time for which a human
being would register the presence of the image on the screen. It
is thus respectfully submitted that Cardinale in view of Raj, as
presented in the final Office Action, does not suggest this
teaching, interpreted according to its plain meaning . . . .

(Appeal Br. 7.)
We begin our analysis by construing the claim term “displayed for at
least a predetermined amount of time.”
Claims are construed in light of the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“During examination, ‘claims . . . are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.’”)). We are also mindful that “[t]he general rule . . . is that the claims of
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

5
a patent are not limited to the preferred embodiment.” Karlin Tech., Inc. v.
Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Appellant’s Specification discloses an electrocardiograph system.
(Spec. ¶ 5.)
A set of electrodes is configured to detect a voltage differences
[sic] between various pairs of locations on a body of a patient. A
display is configured to visually represent digital signals derived
from the plurality of detected voltage differences. A display
interface is configured to format the digital signals for the display
. . . .

(Id.) Appellant’s Specification describes the problem that
[t]here are few more hectic work environments than a hospital
emergency department, and ST segment elevation myocardial
infarctions are sometimes ‘missed’ by the interpreting clinician.
In other words, the treating clinician does not properly see or
interpret the ST segment as being elevated, even though on closer
scrutiny it is revealed to be elevated. A ‘missed MI’ is one of the
largest causes of malpractice settlements in emergency
department care . . . .

(Id. ¶ 45.) “The reasons that recognition of ST segment elevation is missed
can vary, but several contributing factors can be identified. One reason is a
rushed and non-systematic approach to electrocardiograph tracing
interpretation . . . .” (Id. ¶ 46.)
To address these issues, a system is provided for
displaying electrocardiograph data to a user, generally a
physician, such that the data representing each of a plurality of
anatomical structures are presented in isolation. In one
implementation, the system sequentially presents to the
physician a first display containing only the anterior leads, a
second display containing only the lateral leads, a third display
containing only the inferior leads, and a fourth display containing
only the posterior leads, forcing the physician to focus on one
part of the electrocardiograph at a time.
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

6

(Id. ¶ 48.) In short, Appellant’s system presents information to the user in a
structured manner. In a particular embodiment, Appellant’s Specification
discloses that “[i]n the illustrated method 150, the lead signals are divided
into sets representing, respectively, the inferior, anterior, posterior, and
lateral walls of the heart. At 152, a next set of lead signals representing one
of the walls of the heart are [sic] selected.” (Id. ¶ 66.)
At 156, it is determined if a predetermined amount of time
has passed. For example, a default time for reviewing each set
of lead signals can be selected by a supervising physician. In one
implementation, different time periods can be selected for each
set of lead signals. Until the predetermined amount of time has
passed (N), the method remains at 156 and the selected set of
lead signals remains on the display.
(Id. ¶ 67.)
Applying a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, we determine that the term “displayed for at least
a predetermined amount of time” includes an amount of time sufficient for a
human to see or interpret the information displayed.
Raj discloses “methods and apparatus in which heartbeat waveforms
contained in stored ECG data are displayed superimposed over one another.”
(Raj, col. 1, ll. 13–15.) Raj further discloses:
Display screen 14 includes 5 consecutive heartbeat
waveforms, taken from the stored ECG data, superimposed over
one another with their R-waves aligned. In the present
embodiment of the invention, the display on CRT 10 is
controlled by a VGA graphics board which causes the CRT to be
refreshed, i.e., written upon, 60 times per second. A forward
button 38, when selected, causes the longest-displayed heartbeat
to be removed and the next heartbeat to be displayed each time
the CRT is refreshed. Thus, 5 heartbeats are always displayed
on window 14.
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

7

(Id. at col. 4, ll. 16–25.) “Actuation of a stop button 41 stops automatic
scanning when, e.g., forward button 38 is selected. When stop button 41 is
selected, the display continues to display superimposed heartbeats, but does
not change.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 42–46.) In other words, Raj discloses that
when the forward button is selected, the information presented on the
display updates every 1/60th of a second by removing the longest-displayed
heartbeat, but still always displaying 5 heartbeats. The updating of the
information presented on the display stops when the stop button is selected.
Therefore, to provide time for a human to see or interpret the information
presented on the display, a user can select the stop button; and to present
newer information on the display, the user can select the forward button.
In view of the above, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not consider 1/60th of a second to be an amount of time
sufficient for a human to see or interpret the information displayed.
But this does not end our inquiry. The Appellant chose to describe the
claim element of displaying “each proper subset . . . for at least a
predetermined amount of time regardless of input from a user” using
functional language, i.e., by what the display interface does. “[T]here is
nothing intrinsically wrong with the use of such a technique in drafting
patent claims.” In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, we now examine whether the prior art device disclosed in Raj is
capable of performing the recited function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to the forward and stop buttons disclosed in Raj that can
be used to allow a user sufficient time to see or interpret information
presented on the display, the Examiner does not indicate where Raj discloses
Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

8
structure capable of performing the function of displaying each proper
subset “for at least a predetermined amount of time regardless of input from
a user,” as recited in claim 1. For example, the Examiner does not indicate
where Raj discloses a timer for determining the passage of a predetermined
amount of time between accepting user inputs of selection of the stop button
and selection of the forward button.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 12 contain similar language and for similar
reasons we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8
and 12, and dependent claim 3. The additional references relied upon in
rejecting claim 12 and the other dependent claims do not cure the deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 8, and 12–14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
Specifically:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8 103(a) Cardinale, Raj 1, 3, 8
2 103(a) Cardinale, Raj,
Ramseth
2
4, 5 103(a) Cardinale, Raj,
Powell
4, 5
12, 13 103(a) Cardinale, Powell,
Raj
12, 13
14 103(a) Cardinale, Raj,
Ramseth
14
Overall Outcome 1–5, 8, 12–
14

Appeal 2020-000059
Application 14/775,094

9
REVERSED