Ex Parte Ballis

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 2013

12548850 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JOSEPH A. BALLIS __________ Appeal 2011-013373 Application 12/548,850 Technology Center 3700 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant requests rehearing of the decision entered November 16, 2012 (“Decision”). We have considered Appellant’s arguments but are not persuaded that they show that we misapprehended or overlooked any relevant issues of fact or law in reaching the conclusions set out in the Decision. The request for rehearing is denied. Appellant argues that claim 1 “requires that the detector determines whether the magnitude of ‘detected electromagnetic interference’ exceeds the threshold” (Req. Reh’g. 3). Appellant argues that in Meltzer, “the Appeal 2011-013373 Application 12/548,850 2 ‘detector’ as defined by the Examiner apparently includes both the correlator (which receives both the biomedical and the EMI signals) and the comparator that compares the output of the correlator to the threshold” (id.). Appellant argues that the “comparison of the output of the correlator to the threshold … cannot be the required determination of whether the EMI magnitude exceeds a threshold, because the output of the corellator [sic] is not a signal indicating the magnitude of the detected interference,” but rather a signal indicating whether the correlation between the biomedical signal and the EMI signal is high or low (id. at 3-4). This argument is unpersuasive. Meltzer discloses that “the signal channel from the patient’s heart 12 comprises a biomedical signal containing both cardiac information and an EMI component. The correlator uses the EMI signal and the biomedical signal to produce a correlation function ... [that] indicates the relative level of the EMI component of the biomedical signal.” (Decision 5, FF8.) Meltzer also discloses that the “level of the EMI component is detected by the threshold detector 32. If the level of the EMI component exceeds any of one or more predetermined thresholds, the threshold detector ... provides a signal to microprocessor 21 to initiate ... remedial actions, such as ... a patient warning signal.” (Decision 5, FF9.) Thus, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, Meltzer’s correlator indicates the level of the EMI component of the biomedical signal – in other words, the magnitude of the detected EMI – and Meltzer’s threshold detector compares the level of the EMI component to one or more predetermined thresholds. Thus, the elements named by Meltzer as separate “detector,” “correlator,” and “threshold detector” elements (Decision 4, FF2) are reasonably interpreted as together corresponding to the detector of claim 1 that is “coupled to the sensor Appeal 2011-013373 Application 12/548,850 3 and detect[s] electromagnetic interference and provid[es] a signal indicating the present magnitude of the detected electromagnetic interference.” Appellant argues that Meltzer does not disclose determining whether “the magnitude of the detected interference exceeds a threshold” (Req. Reh’g 3), but has not provided evidence or persuasive reasoning to support the assertion that detecting “the present magnitude of the detected electromagnetic interference,” as recited in claim 1, differs from Meltzer’s detection of the level of the EMI component of the biomedical signal. 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). REHEARING DENIED lp