Ex Parte Hassing et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2016

11817922 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111817,922 0910612007 Kai Hassing
38107 7590 04/25/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P. 0. Box 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2005P00449WOUS 8560
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAI HASSING and HARALD GREINER
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/817 ,922 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal to the Board from the Examiner's final rejection of
claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13-27, and 29. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics NV. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 6, 10, 13-17, 20, 21, and 24--26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaco et al. (US 5,822,544;
Oct. 13, 1998) in view ofKamataki et al. (US 2004/0054261 Al; Mar. 18,
2004). Final Act. 2. 2
Claims 11, 19, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaco, Kamataki, and Wesley et al. (US
2005/0203892 Al; Sept. 15, 2005). Final Act. 6.
Claims 18 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaco, Kamataki, and Bui et al. (US 2002/0138017 Al;
Sept. 26, 2002). Final Act. 7.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chaco, Kamataki, and Wildman et al. (US 2004/0193449
Al; Sept. 30, 2004). Final Act. 7.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to "a clinical monitoring
network," and more specifically to "embed a pager client functionality in a
medical device." Spec. 1:6, 3:8-9. Independent claim 1 is directed to a
clinical monitoring network; independent claim 6 is directed to a non-
transient tangible computer program storage medium; independent claim 16
is directed to a patient monitor; and independent claim 1 7 is directed to a
method. App. Br. 20, 21, 23 (Claims App'x).
2 The Examiner's statement of rejection does not include claim 6. However,
claim 6 is grouped in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 16, and 17. As
such, the statement of rejection should include claim 6, as written above.
See Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
Claim 1 recites:
1. A clinical monitoring network comprising:
a network backbone;
a central station connected with the network backbone;
a plurality of medical devices including a plurality of
patient monitors, each patient monitor:
monitors physiological conditions of a
corresponding patient,
displays representations of the physiological
conditions of the corresponding patient on a
physiological display,
communicates the monitored physiological
conditions and critical event conditions with the central
station via the network backbone,
includes a paging display module;
a paging server connected with the network backbone to
receive at least the communicated critical event conditions
concerning a first patient whose physiological conditions are
monitored by a first of the patient monitors and to communicate
paging messages to selected patient monitors other than or in
addition to the first patient monitor;
wherein the display modules of the patient monitors
receive the paging messages communicating critical event
conditions concerning other patients and display the paging
messages on the physiological display in addition to the
displayed representations of the monitored physiological
conditions of the corresponding monitored patient such that at
least some of the patient monitors display the monitored
physiological condition representations of one patient and
paging messages communicating the critical event conditions
concerning one or more other patients.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims App'x).
3
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend Chaco does not teach
a paging server connected with the network backbone to receive
at least the communicated critical event conditions concerning a
first patient whose physiological conditions are monitored by a
first of the patient monitors and to communicate paging
messages to selected patient monitors other than or in addition
to the first patient monitor
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue
Chaco' s "nurse call is not a paging message concerning critical event
conditions which are displayed on the patient monitors." App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds the claimed "paging messages communicating
critical event conditions" include Chaco' s "emergency alert condition" that
"may be automatically sent to the nurse station ... when the patient station
senses an alarm condition such as an irregular heartbeat." Ans. 10. We
agree with the Examiner.
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim. We conclude the claimed paging
message includes Chaco's nurse call for emergency alert condition. See Id.
During examination of a patent application, pending clams are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, Appellants argue the claimed paging message is not functionally
the same as Chaco's nurse call. However, our interpretation is consistent
with Appellants' Specification that states a paging message "contains a
predefined set of data, in accordance with the specific set of conditions."
Spec. 6: 17-18. Appellants' Specification further provides an example of a
4
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
paging message including "patient's name and location, the time-stamp of
the event, the value for the heart rate .... " Id. at 6: 19-20. Although this
example does not further define a paging message, Chaco' s nurse call, based
on an irregular heartbeat, teaches Appellants' exemplary paging message
including the value for heart rate. Therefore, Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence that the claimed paging message does not include
Chaco's nurse call.
In addition, the Examiner finds Chaco' s nurse station teaches the
claimed patient monitors. Ans. 10. As cited by the Examiner, Chaco
describes:
The nurse follow feature allows a staff member to selectively
direct incoming calls to a particular nurse control station to
selected patient stations and/or staff stations .... In the nurse
follow mode, calls which are directed to the nurse control
station 2414 via CPU 2412 and corresponding zone controllers
2420 will automatically be routed to the station or stations
selected by the staff members or to stations in locations where
that staJI member or other staJI members are determined to be
present by staff locator system 2428 ....
Chaco 49:30-55 (emphasis added).
In other words, nurse calls are routed to the patient stations where the
receiving staff member is located. Therefore, Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence that the claimed communicating of "paging messages to
selected patient monitors other than or in addition to the first patient
monitor" does not include Chaco' s nurse calls that are rerouted to the staff
member's nearest patient station.
Appellants further contend Chaco "does not teach a patient monitor
which displays representations of the physiological condition of a
corresponding patient as well as paging messages on a physiological
5
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
display," and Kamataki "does not teach or fairly suggest receiving and
displaying paging messages concerning critical event conditions of other
patients." App. Br. 9-10.
The Examiner finds Chaco teaches the paging messages sent to patient
stations, and Kamataki teaches "a display screen of local bedside monitor
connected to a network that can also display vital signs and alarm
information generated from patients in other beds," wherein the alarm
information acts as "critical event conditions received from other patients."
Ans. 10. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants' contention fails to take into account what the collective
teachings of Chaco and Kamataki would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima
facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." (Citations omitted)). This reasoning is applicable here because
the Examiner used the combined teachings of Chaco and Kamataki in the
rejection of claim 1.
As cited by the Examiner, the prior art describes:
The condition may be sent to the nurse station with a patient
initiated nurse call request ... or it may be sent automatically
when the patient station senses an alarm condition, such as an
irregular heart beat, from data provided by external equipment.
Chaco 24: 18-24.
6
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
[0030] The area of a display screen is roughly divided into a
first display area and a second display area ....
[0031] The first display area includes a bed display (showing
vital signs of a plurality of patients in beds), a personal display
(displaying vital signs of a selected individual), and bed
selection tags (A, B, and C). In accordance with a display
mode selected by a tag, various vital signs and alarm
information are displayed in the first display area ....
[0033] Provided below Tag Bare bed number tags (i.e., Bed 1
through Bed 8) to be used for selecting a patient whose vital
signs are desired to be displayed by reference to a bed number.
By pressing a bed number tag, a current display can be
switched to a display of vital signs of an arbitrary patient.
When a parameter for a certain patient who is being monitored
has changed to an alarm condition, the bed number tag of the
patient is highlighted or caused to blink. Thus, a patient in
alarm condition is ascertained at first sight. The current display
can be switched to a display of the vital signs of a patient in
alarm condition, by pressing the bed number tag.
Kamataki i-fi-130-31, 33.
In other words, Chaco teaches a paging message as an alarm condition
sent to the nurse station; and Kamataki teaches displaying both alarm
conditions as well as vital signs for multiple patients on one patient monitor.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that
wherein the display modules of the patient monitors
receive the paging messages communicating critical event
conditions concerning other patients and display the paging
messages on the physiological display in addition to the
displayed representations of the monitored physiological
conditions of the corresponding monitored patient such that at
least some of the patient monitors display the monitored
physiological condition representations of one patient and
paging messages communicating the critical event conditions
concerning one or more other patients,
7
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
as recited in claim 1, is not taught or suggested by the combination of
Chaco' s messages for alert conditions with Kamataki' s display of received
alert conditions and vital signs for multiple patients on one monitor.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
as well as the rejections of dependent claims 13 and 15, not separately
argued. App. Br. 10.
With regard to independent claims 6, 16, and 1 7, Appellants argue
that these claims are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br.
12-13, 13-15, 16-17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 16,
and 17, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 20 and 24--26, not
separately argued. App. Br. 15, 17.
Claims 10 and 21
Appellants contend the combination of Chaco and Kamataki does not
teach "said displayed paging message includes graphical and textual
representations depicting the physiological conditions of the one or more
other patients not previously displayed on the physiological display," as
recited in claim 10. Specifically, Appellants argue Kamataki does not
suggest displaying messages "concerning one or more other patients that are
not previously displayed." App. Br. 10.
The Examiner finds Kamataki' s monitor for monitoring multiple
patients provides for the numerical value and vital sign waveforms of a
patient being monitored that were not previously displayed. Ans. 11. We
agree with the Examiner.
Claim 10 recites the paging message "includes ... representations
depicting the physiological conditions of the one or more other patients not
8
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
previously displayed on the physiological display." The claim language
allows for two interpretations: either that the representations depicting the
physiological conditions of the one or more other patients are not previously
displayed, or that the representations depicting the physiological conditions
are for the one or more other patients not previously displayed. We
conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 10 requires
information to be displayed that was not previously displayed, either for
newly monitored patients or for newly presented information for patients.
Kamataki describes:
[0033] Provided below Tag Bare bed number tags (i.e., Bed 1
through Bed 8) to be used for selecting a patient whose vital
signs are desired to be displayed by reference to a bed number.
By pressing a bed number tag, a current display can be
switched to a display of vital signs of an arbitrary patient.
When a parameter for a certain patient who is being monitored
has changed to an alarm condition, the bed number tag of the
patient is highlighted or caused to blink. Thus, a patient in
alarm condition is ascertained at first sight The current display
can be switched to a display of the vital signs of a patient in
alarm condition, by pressing the bed number tag.
[0078] ... a display screen for displaying vital signs of a
plurality of patients in beds ... a display screen for a case
where tag A "BED DISP" has been selected.
[0079] Here, vital signs and alarm information pertaining to
patients in eight selected beds are displayed. Numerical value
parameters of vital signs measured from the respective patients
are displayed concurrently. In order to indicate an alarm
condition of each of the parameters or vital signs relevant
thereto, an area in which a numerical value parameter of a vital
sign in an alarm condition is displayed in a highlighting or
blinking manner ....
Kamataki i-fi-133, 78-79. Related Figure 2 of Kamataki shows alarm
messages such as "ASYSTOLE" blinking or highlighted.
9
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
In other words, Kamataki teaches an alarm message that is blinking or
highlighted that was not previously displayed (i-fi-f 78-79, Fig. 2), and
Kamataki also teaches changing the display to show a different patient
(i-f 33). Therefore, Kamataki shows both the information on the display
changing to what was not previously displayed, as well as the patient for
whom the information is displayed not being the patient previously
displayed.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that Kamataki' s
alarm conditions being alerted to the display and Kamataki' s selection of
patient data on a monitor does not teach or suggest "said displayed paging
message includes graphical and textual representations depicting the
physiological conditions of the one or more other patients not previously
displayed on the physiological display," as recited in claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10.
With regard to claim 21, Appellants argue this claim is patentable for the
same reasons as claim 10. App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejection of claim 21.
Claims 11, 19, and 27
Appellants contend Wesley's display of "high priority information
relating to public safety in alerts and tickers" does not teach or suggest "said
paging message includes a scrolling ticker band which shows paging
information relating to a plurality of the other patients," as recited in claim
11. App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds Wesley teaches "displaying high
priority information relating to public safety in alerts and tickers" and that
10
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
"information can be displayed through tickers to convey information to
user." Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence to explain how
utilizing tickers for relating information, as taught in Wesley, to patient
information, as taught by the combination of Chaco and Kamataki, does not
teach or suggest "said paging message includes a scrolling ticker band which
shows paging information relating to a plurality of the other patients," as
recited in claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 11.
With regard to claims 19 and 27, Appellants argue that these claims are
patentable for the same reasons as claim 11. App. Br. 15, 16. Accordingly,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 19 and 27.
Claim 14
Appellants contend Kamataki' s highlighting or blinking of the bed
number tag does not teach or suggest "the paging display module displays
the paging information of the one or more other patients in a pop-up window
on the physiological display," as recited in claim 14. App. Br. 11. The
Examiner responds that Kamataki' s highlighting of a bed number tag of a
patient bed "occurs when an alert condition exist to highlight the area of
interest thereby allowing the user to easily recognize the alert." Ans. 11-12.
As cited by the Examiner, Kamataki describes "[ w ]hen a parameter
for a certain patient who is being monitored has changed to an alarm
condition, the bed number tag of the patient is highlighted or caused to
blink." Kamataki i-f 33. In other words, Kamataki teaches paging
11
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
information for a patient being displaying in a highlighted or blinking
format.
Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Kamataki' s inclusion of
displaying information in a highlighted or blinking format does not teach or
suggest displaying information in a pop-up window, and thereby does not
teach "the paging display module displays the paging information of the one
or more other patients in a pop-up window on the physiological display," as
required by claim 14.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 14.
Claims 18 and 29
Appellants contend Bui' s "patient monitoring system including a LCD
display which provides text messages including ... patient instructions"
does not teach or suggest "the page message displayed on the second patient
monitor includes care instructions for the first patient," as recited in claim
18. App. Br. 17.
This argument is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim. During examination of a patent application,
pending clams are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. We
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition of claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As applicants may amend claims to
narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant. Id.
12
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
The Examiner concludes the claimed "care instructions" includes
Bui's patient instructions. Ans. 12. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants have not defined care instructions to exclude patient instructions,
and have provided no other persuasive evidence or argument to explain how
patient instructions are not included in care instructions. Therefore,
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that "the page message
displayed on the second patient monitor includes care instructions for the
first patient" does not include Chaco and Kamataki' s patient monitor
displaying information with Bui' s patient monitor information including
patient instructions.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
With regard to claim 29, Appellants argue that this claim is patentable for
the same reasons as claim 18. App. Br. 12. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 29.
Claims 22 and 23
Appellants contend Wildman's transceivers to determine "which
person or piece of equipment has been associated with the active tag that
transmitted the identification signal" do not teach "sending the page message
from the page server to the most proximate one or more patient monitors."
App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds "Chaco discloses a nurse follow feature
allowing a staff member to activate nurse presence switch" that "recognizes
a staff closest to the patient station where the switch was activated" and
routing incoming calls to a nurse to those locations. Ans. 13-14. We agree
with the Examiner.
13
Appeal2014-004764
Application 11/81 7 ,922
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence to explain how
Chaco' s nurse follow mode that provides location awareness and forwarding
of nurse calls, and Wildman's identification of staff locations, does not teach
or suggest "sending the page message from the page server to the most
proximate one or more patient monitors," as recited in claim 22.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 22.
With regard to claim 23, Appellants argue that this claim is patentable for
the same reasons as claim 22. App. Br. 18. Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 23.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15-27, and 29 are affirmed.
The rejection of claim 14 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-IN-PART
14