Ex Parte Dicks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

11876711 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2017)

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.
1001.001.999 6721
EXAMINER
FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3762
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/876,711 10/22/2007
7590
Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
2216 Beacon Lane
Falls Church, VA 22043
01/19/2017
Kent Dicks
01/19/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT DICKS, RALPH KENT, ROBERT TRIPP,
TERRY BARTLETT, and THOMAS CROSLEY
Appeal 2015-002256
Application 11/876,711
Technology Center 3700
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Kent Dicks et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
rejection of claims 1—26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kapoor
(US 2005/0102167 Al, pub. May 12, 2005). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-002256
Application 11/876,711
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
a plurality of medical devices each receiving data
through a wired connection via a first communications protocol,
wherein the first communications protocol is different for at
least two of the data received;
reformatting each of the received data to a second
communications protocol that is the same for each of the
received data and transmitting the received data to an
intermediary device;
the intermediary device formatting a message and
transmitting it to a medical data server, wherein the message
includes the received data;
the intermediary device receiving a command from the
medical data server to alter the operation of at least one of the
plurality of medical devices;
the intermediary device reformatting said command for
said at least one medical device to create at least one
reformatted command; and
said at least one medical device receiving said command
from the intermediary device.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses each and every limitation of
independent claims 1 and 23. See Final Act. 2-4. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Kapoor discloses an “intermediary device receiving a
command from the medical data server to alter the operation of at least one
of the plurality of medical devices” as required by claims 1 and 23. See id.
at 3. In support of this finding, the Examiner identifies Local
Communications Controller (LCC) 340 and Access Point 350 as
intermediary devices and finds that these intermediary devices receive a
2
Appeal 2015-002256
Application 11/876,711
command from the medical data server to alter operation of at least one of
the plurality of medical devices. See id. (citing Kapoor || 53, 86, 93).
Paragraph 53 describes a method of identifying a patient and describes
a “[sjerver [that] downloads various instructions as a web page on LCC to
guide the care provider.” Kapoor 153. Paragraph 86 describes a method of
identifying wireless transceiver modules (WTUs) associated with a specific
patient. See id. 1 86. This method includes updating the LCC’s list to
include “all the WTUs associated with the patient.” Id. Thus, neither
paragraph 53 nor paragraph 86 describe an “intermediary device receiving a
command from the medical data server to alter the operation of at least one
of the plurality of medical devices” as required by claims 1 and 23.
Paragraph 93 describes changing the operation of an IV pump. See
Kapoor 193. This change is accomplished by “direct import from a
database or entered manually by the medical staff at the point-of-care on
LCC.” Id. Kapoor describes a further embodiment where this change is
accomplished by a command from the LCC received by the IV Pump. See
id. However, there is no indication that in the later alternative the command
is received by the LCC from a medical data server. See id.
Appellants contend that “Kapoor does not disclose ‘the intermediate
device receiving a command from the medical data server to alter the
operation of at least one of the plurality of medical devices. [’]” Appeal Br.
10 (emphasis added). In support of this contention, Appellants explain that
“Kapoor discloses that the IV pump command is either send [sic] from the
intermediary device (i.e., the LCC) or entered by medical staff at the IV
pump itself.” Id. at 11. Appellants are correct. As discussed supra, none of
the paragraphs of Kapoor cited by the Examiner disclose this limitation.
3
Appeal 2015-002256
Application 11/876,711
For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting
independent claims 1 and 23, and claims 2—22 and 24—26, which depend
from claims 1 and 23, respectively.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—26 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4