NIHON KOHDEN CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2022

2020005180 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 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. 15/559,106 09/18/2017 Hironori SUGAWARA Q235537 3639 65565 7590 02/08/2022 SUGHRUE-265550 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. NW SUITE 9000 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER LEIBY, CHRISTOPHER E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2622 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2022 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM SUGHRUE265550@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIRONORI SUGAWARA and HIROSHI KUBO Appeal 2020-005180 Application 15/559,106 Technology Center 2600 Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26. Final Act.2 2; Advisory Act. 1. Appellant appeals the rejection of claims 1-26. Appeal Br. 8, contra id. at 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NIHON KOHDEN CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We use “Spec.” to refer to the Specification filed September 18, 2017; “Final Act.” to refer to the Final Office Action mailed September 13, 2019; “Advisory Act.” To refer to the Advisory Action mailed December 11, 2019; “Appeal Br.” to refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 3, 2020; “Ans.” to refer to the Examiner’s Answer filed May 8, 2020; and “Reply Br.” to refer to the Reply Brief filed June 30, 2020. Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 2 22 (Claims App. (listing claims on appeal as 1-16 and 18-26)). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention is directed to a patient monitor where monitor settings can be changed while ensuring vital signs are still displayed. Spec. ¶ 7. The monitor includes an input unit with a display section. Id. ¶ 8. The display section displays a setting screen for a patient monitor connected to the input unit, which input unit receives an “input of setting information for the patient monitor.” Id. The display section also includes “a communication section [for] transmit[ting] the setting information that is input from the input section to the patient monitor.” Id. The setting information is for changing how the display functions, including for example, “Display of unit=ON.” Id. ¶¶ 15, 35. Figure 1 is reproduced below. Figure 1 illustrates the use of the patient monitoring system. Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 3 Spec. ¶ 11. “The patient monitor 20 can be placed at a location separated from the input unit 10 and a patient P.” Id. ¶ 13. “The patient monitor 20 receives biological signals of the patient P through the input unit 10, and converts the signals to visible vital signs (e.g., waveforms and measurement values of various vital parameters).” Id. “Then, the patient monitor 20 displays the vital signs, and performs notification by alarming.” Id. “[T]he vital signs (waveforms and measurement values of various parameters) of the patient are continued to be displayed on the patient monitor 20” . . . and thus “the setting change is performed while the vital signs of the patient P are displayed.” Id. ¶ 15. “The control process of the controller 22 [see Fig. 3] includes: conversion from the biological signals to various vital signs (measurement values and waveforms of various parameters); a display control on the patient monitor 20 (screen control on the display and input section 25); a setting process on the own monitor in accordance with the setting information supplied from the input unit 10; a setting process and measurement control on the controller 14 of the input unit 10; and the like.” Spec. ¶ 27. When any one of the vital signs has an abnormal value the controller 22 outputs an alarm sound through the speaker 23. Id. Claims 1, 7, and 11 are independent apparatus or system claims. Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-26 are dependent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. An input unit comprising: a display section configured to display a setting screen for changing a setting of at least one of a display and a sound of a patient monitor connected to the input unit and arranged at a Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 4 location separated from a patient and a sensor attached to the patient; an input section configured to receive an input of setting information indicative of an instruction for changing the setting of the at least one of the display and the sound of the patient monitor; and a communication section configured to transmit a biological signal of a patient acquired from the sensor attached to the patient to the patient monitor to allow the patient monitor to display vital sign information of the patient based on the biological signal, and also to transmit the setting information that is input from the input section to the patient monitor, the vital sign information including at least one of a waveform and a measurement value of at least one of blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, body temperature, respiration, electrocardiogram, and heart rate, wherein the setting information is indicative of the instruction for changing the setting of the at least one of the display and the sound of the patient monitor in background in a state in which the vital sign information, different from the setting information, is continued to be displayed on the patient monitor. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references. Name3 Reference Date Zhang US 2010/0076321 A1 Mar. 25, 2010 Drees US 2014/0067007 a1 Mar. 6, 2014 REJECTION Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Drees and Zhang. Final Act. 2. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Issue: Is the “display” taught by Drees a “patient monitor” as recited in claim 1?” The Examiner’s Findings The Examiner finds Drees teaches a display in its teaching of a “clinician programmer” (CP), shown in Figure 2. Final. Act. 2 (citing Drees, Fig. 2 (CP 104)). Regarding Drees’ teachings of a “display section,” the Examiner finds the following: [A] display section (figure 2 reference CP [clinician programmer] 104 comprising primary display screen 168) configured to display a setting screen for changing a setting of at least one of a display and a sound of a patient monitor (figure 2 reference secondary display unit 152) connected to the input unit (paragraph [0062] describes that the display screen 152 is a monitor whose image is controlled via the clinician programmer 104: figure 2 depicts CP 104 wirelessly connected with secondary display unit 152; paragraph [0125] describes an electronic programmer 820A may include setting input including power and volume buttons which control settings of display and sound: paragraph [0122] describes the programmer 820A may be the clinician programmer with reference to figure 3; paragraph [0043] describes figure 3 to regard a programmer CP 104) and arranged at a location separated from a patient and a sensor attached to the patient (figure 1 B reference IPG [implanted pulse generator] sensor 102 implanted in patient; Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 6 figure 2 depicts implanted IPG sensor 102 at a different location than CP 104 comprising display 168 and patient monitor 152); Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds Zhang discloses “a sensor assembly includes a sensor that is attached by implanting into a patient to sense biological signals of a patient including vital sign information including blood pressure, respiration, heart sounds/beats/rate, and to transmit said information to a display wirelessly.” Id. at 4 (citing Zhang ¶ 67). Appellant’s Contentions Appellant argues that Drees does not disclose a “patient monitor” but acknowledges that Zhang expressly discloses “an external patient monitoring assembly (e.g., a bedside monitor located in a person’s home).” Appeal Br. 9-10 (quoting Zhang ¶¶ 50, 68). Appellant argues Zhang does not disclose either a “use of a patient monitor” or the “configuration thereof.” Id. at 10. Appellant argues “[i]nstead, Zhang describes the patient monitor in the context of monitoring ‘[p]hysiologic patient status . . . . derived from information provided by various sensors.’” Id. (quoting Zhang ¶ 44). Relative to Drees, Appellant acknowledges Drees has a “secondary display unit” which “at most, tangentially or inferentially describes a patient monitor.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Drees ¶ 80). Further, according to Appellant, what is disclosed by Drees was disclosed in the “Background Art” section of the Specification. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 2-3). Appellant argues the second display is a “larger, secondary display unit” which does not fall within the plain and ordinary meaning of “patient Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 7 monitor.” Appeal Br. 13-14. As such, the secondary monitor is just a “supplemental display” and not a patient monitor. Id. at 4. Appellant also argues Drees does not specifically disclose that the implant sensor provides/transmits the vi[t]al sign information” (Final Office Action at p. 4), (2) Drees discloses a sensor (see Final Office Action at p. 4), and (3) that it would have been obvious for the artisan of ordinary skill to have combined Drees and Zhang (see Office Action at p. 5). Appeal Br. 11-12 (citing Final Act. 5). Appellant argues generallythat a person of ordinary skill would not combine Drees with Zhang. Id. Appellant also argues, without any citation to the record that, even if a person of ordinary skill would have combined Zhang with Drees that neither reference would have disclosed or suggested the combination of limitations recited in claim 1 including “changing a setting of at least one of a display and a sound of a patient monitor” and “transmit[ting] a biological signal of a patient acquired from the sensor attached to the patient to the patient monitor to allow the patient monitor to display vital sign information of the patient based on the biological signal, and also to transmit the setting information that is input from the input section to the patient monitor, the vital sign information including at least one of a waveform and a measurement value of at least one of blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, body temperature, respiration, electrocardiogram, and heart rate,” as recited. Id. at 12. Appellant contends the Final Action is wrong in finding the CP of Drees controls the settings of a “patient monitor.” Id. at 13. This is because “the CP (104) is a programming device ‘to direct or control an implant in a certain manner.’” Id. (citing Drees ¶ 33). Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 8 Analysis For purposes of this decision, we adopt the Examiner’s findings as ours. The following discussion summarizes those findings. All of Appellant’s arguments are directed to claim 1, which as previously noted is illustrative. “Before considering the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the scope of] the claims.” In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974). Appellant argues the plain and ordinary meaning of “patient monitor” should be applied. Appeal Br. 14. The Specification describes a “patient monitor” in the context of “Background Art” as “configured to measure and display various vital signs (e.g., blood pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, body temperature, respiration, electro cardiogram, heart rate and the like).” Spec. ¶ 2. We find this statement is the plain and ordinary meaning of “patient monitor.” Applying the plain and ordinary meaning of “patient monitor,” we find Drees discloses the recited “patient monitor” because Drees’s CP is part of a system that measures vital signs, and both the primary display screen 168 of the CP and display screen of the secondary monitor display the same information. Drees ¶ 80, Fig. 2. The secondary monitor specifically discloses the display of vital signs. Id. ¶ 80; see also Final Act. 2-4 (citing Drees Fig. 2 for the claimed display section and paragraph 80 for “additional information”). Furthermore, Appellant acknowledges Drees has a “secondary display unit” which “tangentially or inferentially describes a patient monitor.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Drees ¶ 80). As understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the inference is sufficient to conclude that Drees teaches a “patient monitor.” Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 9 We are not persuaded that Drees does not teach the recited “changing a setting” on the display or a sound or “transmit[ting] a biological signal of a patient acquired from the sensor.” Paragraph 60 of Drees is cited by the Examiner as showing changing the setting of the “patient monitor.” Final Act. 3 (citing Drees ¶ 60). Paragraph 60 specifically describes how the CP can set parameters of an implantable pulse generator (IPG). Zhang’s cardiac rhythmic device (CRM) is relied on by the Examiner to a sensor implant that can communicate with external devices, like a display. Id. at 4 (citing Zang ¶ 67 (the CRM can communicate with an external device). Appellant does not provide any reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill would not combine Zhang with Drees, nor is the Examiner’s rationale refuted. See Final Act. 5 (setting forth a reasonable rationale for the combination based on a predictable result). We are not persuaded that the CP of Drees does not control the settings of a “patient monitor” because it directs or controls the implant in a certain manner. Appeal Br. 13 (citing Drees ¶ 33). The cited paragraph of Drees also explains the CP communicates with a second display viewable by others. Drees ¶ 33. Regardless, Appellant does not explain how control of the implant as opposed to the CP is relevant to the rejection. See Ans. 4. Regardless, we find the Examiner’s response is sufficient support for the rejection. See id. at 4-6. Appellant does not raise any additional arguments for the other independent claims, 7 and 11. Likewise, the dependent claims, including claim 17, are not separately argued and the rejection of those claims is sustained. Appeal 2020-0055180 Application 15/559,106 10 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject 1-26 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-26 103 Drees, Zhang 1-26 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