Ex Parte Arrizza et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

12336867 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/336,867 12/17/2008 John Arrizza
41155 7590 02/11/2016
MICHAEL R CRABB
275 N. FIELD DRIVE
DEPT. NLEG BLDG H-1
LAKE FOREST, IL 60045-2579
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
7202US01 2694
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, CAROLYN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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):
MICHAEL.CRABB ©HOSPIRA.COM
HOSPIRA_DOCKETING@CARDINAL-IP.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN ARRIZZA, MIHAELA COZMI, GLENN DA VIS,
MARWAN A. FATHALLAH, WEN FENG, ANGELA MARINO,
JOHN ERIK MICHAEL P ALMROOS, JAMES R. SHULTS,
SUZANNE WILLEY, and YU XIN
Appeal2013-001358
Application 12/336,867
Technology Center 2600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application, We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
Appeal2013-001358
Application 12/336,867
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to configuring a backlight brightness
level for a medication management unit. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for configuring a backlight by an authorized
person at a medication management unit having an MMU graphical
user interface, the method comprising:
displaying clinical care areas on the MMU graphical user
interface;
receiving a selection of one of the displayed clinical care areas
by the authorized person;
displaying default brightness levels on the MMU graphical user
interface for the selected clinical care area;
receiving selection of one of the displayed default brightness
levels by the authorized person;
updating a drug library in the medication management unit with
the selected default brightness level for the selected clinical care area;
and
transmitting the updated drug library from the medication
management unit.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-12 of co-
pending Application No. 12/336,981. 1 (Final Act. 4.)
Claims 1-11and13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Holland (US 2007/0214003 Al; Sept. 13, 2007). (Final
Act. 12.)
1 Appellants have not presented any arguments challenging the propriety or
the substance of the rejection of claims 1-20 under the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Thus, any such arguments
are deemed to be waived. See MPEP § 804 LB.I. (Nov. 2015).
2
Appeal2013-001358
Application 12/336,867
Claims 12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Holland. (Final Act. 17.)
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection-Holland
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 12; see also
Reply Br. 5---6) that Holland does not describe the limitation "displaying
default brightness levels on the MMU graphical user interface for the
selected clinical care area," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the user interface for the medical device of
Holland, as illustrated in Figure 17, corresponds to the limitation "displaying
default brightness levels on the MMU graphical user interface." (Final
Act. 12.) In particular, the Examiner found that "[a]lthough FIG 1 shows
two separate devices both having user interfaces; a user interface is just a
means by which the user and computer device interacts" and "[t]herefore the
user interface on the MMU and on the medical device can be the same,
because the information that is being sent is the same for both devices."
(Ans. 3--4.) We do not agree.
Claim 1 recites "a medication management unit having an MMU
graphical user interface" (emphasis added). Appellants' Specification
discloses the following:
With reference to FIG. 1, the medication management
system (MMS) 10 of the present invention includes a medication
management unit (MMU) 12 and a medical device 14 .... As
shown in FIG. 1, the MMU 12 communicates to a hospital
information system (HIS) 18 via a caching mechanism 20 that
is part of the hospital environment 16.
(i-f 25 (emphases added).)
3
Appeal2013-001358
Application 12/336,867
Lab system 2 8 and monitoring device 3 0 also
communicate with the MMU 12 to deliver updated patient-
specific information to the MMU 12. As shown, the MMU 12
communicates directly to the lab system 2 8 and monitoring
device 30. However, it will be understood to those of skill in
art that the MMU 12 can communicate to the lab system 28 and
monitoring device 30 indirectly via the HIS 18, the caching
mechanism 20, the medical device 14 or some other
intermediary device or system.
(i-f 28 (emphasis added).)
In the context of the present invention, the term "medical
device" includes without limitation a device that acts upon a
cassette, reservoir, vial, syringe, or tubing to convey medication
or fluid to or from a patient (for example, an enteral pump, a
parenteral infusion pump, a patient controlled analgesia (PCA)
or pain management medication pump, or a suction pump), a
monitor for monitoring patient vital signs or other parameters,
or a diagnostic, testing or sampling device.
(i-f 3 7.) Accordingly, the claimed "medication management unit" (or
"MMU"), when construed in view of Appellants' Specification, would not
encompass medical device 14 because Appellants' Specification discloses
that MMU 12 is separate and distinct from such medical device 14 and
performs different functions. In addition, dependent claim 2, which depends
from claim 1, further recites "a medical device" as a separate element from
the claimed "medication management unit" (or "MMU").
Holland relates to delivering medication to patients, in particular "an
integrated system for maximizing patient safety and caregiver productivity
for medication delivery." (i-f 2.) Figure 1 of Holland illustrates medication
management system and its interaction with a medical device (i-f 26),
including medication management system (MMS) 10 having medication
management unit (MMU) 12 and medical device 14 (i-f 51 ). Figure 1 7 of
4
Appeal2013-001358
Application 12/336,867
Holland illustrates medical device 14 and provides an example of "MMU 12
instructing the medical device 14 to have a display of a particular color or
warning tones/volumes based on the location of the medical device 14 in the
hospital, time of day" in particular, "display brightness ... [is] set lower in
the pediatric clinical care area or at night than in the emergency room
clinical care area or during the daytime." (i-f 122.)
However, Holland explains that MMU 12 instructs medical device 14
to display a particular display brightness, rather than MMU 12 having a
separate display. As discussed previously, the claimed "medication
management unit" (or "MMU") does not encompass a medical device, and
thus, Holland does not disclose the limitation "displaying default brightness
levels on the MMU graphical user interface for the selected clinical care
area." Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "[t]he
MMU [of Holland] controls the medical device display, but the Holland
publication is silent as to selection by an authorized person from among
multiple default brightness levels, particularly how this actually could be
accomplished at the MMU and included and implemented through a drug
library" (App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 6) and "[t]he MMU graphical user
interface is different from the device graphical user interface in light of the
claim language and when interpreted in light of the specification" (Reply
Br. 5).
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Holland describes
the limitation "displaying default brightness levels on the MMU graphical
user interface for the selected clinical care area," as recited in independent
claim 1.
5
Appeal2013-001358
Application 12/336,867
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-11 depend from independent claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claim 13 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 13, as well as dependent claims 14--19, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Holland
Claims 12 and 20 depend from independent claims 1 and 13. We do
not sustain the rejections of claims 12 and 20 for the same reasons discussed
with respect to the rejection of claim 1and13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Holland.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 and 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6