Ex Parte Eveland

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11734644 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DOUG C. EVELAND
__________

Appeal 2011-005810
Application 11/734,644
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
methods implemented by a medical monitoring system, wherein the medical
monitoring system controls access to itself. The Patent Examiner rejected
the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-10 and 12-18 are on appeal. Claims 17 and 18 are
representative and read as follows:
Appeal 2011-005810
Application 11/734,644

2
17. A method implemented by a medical monitoring system comprising a
patient portable electrocardiographic monitoring device and a monitoring
service, the method comprising:
the medical monitoring system controlling access to itself,
comprising:
receiving information indicating that the electrocardiographic
monitoring device seeks access to the monitoring service, the
electrocardiographic monitoring device configured to monitor cardiac
function of an individual;
determining whether the electrocardiographic monitoring device is
authorized to access the monitoring service, the determination being based at
least in part on authorization data received from a third-party source;
based on a result of the determination, selectively issuing an
activation signal to the electrocardiographic monitoring device.

18. A method implemented by a medical monitoring system comprising a
patient portable electrocardiographic monitoring device and a remote
monitoring service, the method comprising:
the medical monitoring system controlling access to itself, controlling
the access comprising:
receiving information indicating that the electrocardiographic
monitoring device seeks access to the monitoring service;
determining whether the electrocardiographic monitoring device is
authorized to access the monitoring service, the determination being based at
least in part on authorization data received from a third-party source; and
based on a result of the determination, selectively issuing an
activation signal to the electrocardiographic monitoring device.

The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
• claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fu1 and
Haller;2

1 US Patent No. 4,803,625 issued to Ping W. Fu et al., Feb. 7, 1989.
2 Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0052539 A1 by Markus
Haller et al., published May 2, 2002.

Appeal 2011-005810
Application 11/734,644

3
• claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fu,
Haller, and Schmidt;3
• claims 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fu,
Haller, Schmidt, and Righter.4

OBVIOUSNESS
The Examiner’s position is that Fu discloses a personal health home
monitoring system and method, including monitoring cardiac function of a
patient through an ECG device and prompting the patient to medicate. (Ans.
3.) According to the Examiner, Fu’s system “necessarily require[s] the
remote monitoring system to receive a signal that the home ECG monitor is
attempting to connect to the remote system and establishing the connection,
(issuing an activation signal) to the remote system.” (Id.) However, the
Examiner found that Fu did not explicitly teach a third party authorizing the
patient monitor to access the central server. (Id. at 4.)
The Examiner found that Haller taught “that it is known in remote
patient care to provide requirement of third party authorization for services
(i.e., insurance company or reimbursement authority authorization) … for
providing the predictable results of ensuring care is provided to only those
that are authorized[,] as well as preventing patients from incurring improper
billing charges.” (Id.) Therefore, according to the Examiner, it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention

3 Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0083557 A1 by Volker
Schmidt, published May 1, 2003.
4 US Patent No. 5,365,935 issued to William H. Righter et al., Nov. 22,
1994.

Appeal 2011-005810
Application 11/734,644

4
was made to have modified Fu’s system with a third party authorizing the
patient monitor to access the central server “since such a modification would
provide the predictable results of ensuring care is provided to only those that
are authorized as well as preventing patients from incurring improper billing
charges.” (Id.)
Appellants contend that “[n]one of the medical monitoring systems in
either Fu or Haller controls access to itself, much less using the particular
activities of claims 17 and 18.” (App. Br. 5.)
We agree with Appellants. In particular, we agree with Appellants
that Haller’s discussion of gaining authorization from a care provider or an
insurer to provide services to a patient did not teach or suggest a medical
monitoring system controlling access to itself, as required by independent
claims 17 and 18. (See id. at 6.)
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 17 and 18.
In rejecting the dependent claims, the Examiner again found that the
combination of Fu and Haller taught each of the limitations of the
independent claims. (Ans. 23-24.) Therefore, we reverse the rejections of
the dependent claims for the same reason discussed regarding their
respective independent claims.

SUMMARY
We reverse each of the obviousness rejections.

REVERSED
lp