Ex Parte Heimbrock et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

12963015 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 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.
12/963,015 12/08/2010 Richard H. Heimbrock 7175-213599 2015
69781 7590 03/13/2017
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Hill-Rom)
11 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
HARE, DAVID R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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):
indocket @ btlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD H. HEIMBROCK, JONATHAN D. TURNER,
And DAVID W. HORNBACH
Appeal 2014-0063361
Application 12/963,0152
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 12,
2013) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 31, 2014), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 31, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed May 22, 2013).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hill-Rom Services,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, “[t]he present disclosure is related to patient
support apparatuses including inflatable mattresses. More specifically, the
present disclosure is related to a patient support apparatus having an
inflatable mattress that increases in size to lift a patient during egress from a
foot end of a patient support apparatus.” Spec. 11.
CLAIMS
Claims 1—20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed
claims and recites:
1. A patient support apparatus comprising
a lower frame,
an upper frame movable relative to the lower frame,
a deck supported on the upper frame, the deck including
at least a head deck section, a seat deck section, and a foot deck
section,
an inflatable support structure supported on the deck, the
inflatable support structure including at least a head support
section, a seat support section, and a foot support section, each
of the head support section, seat support section, and foot
support section including an inflatable bladder, the inflatable
bladders in the head support section and seat support section
inflatable between a support mode and an egress mode, the
inflatable bladder of the foot section deflatable between a
support mode and an egress mode,
an air system including a source of pressurized air, an air
distribution assembly, and a controller to control the flow of air
from the source of pressurized air through the air distribution
system to the inflatable support structure, and
a control system controlling movement of the deck to
vary the position of the deck between a horizontal bed position
for supporting a patient in a lying position to a chair egress
position for supporting a patient in a sitting position, the control
2
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
system coordinating the inflation of the inflatable bladders with
movement of the deck between the bed position and chair
egress position so that the inflatable bladders of the head
support section, seat support section, and foot support section
will only transition to the egress mode when the patient support
apparatus is in the egress mode.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cawley3 in view of O’Keefe.4
3. The Examiner rejects claims 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cawley in view of O’Keefe and Luff.5
4. The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley and Luff.
6. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over O’Keefe in view of Cawley and Kramer.6
7. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over O’Keefe in view of Cawley and Vanzant.7
3
4
5
6
7
Cawley, US 4,017,118, iss. Apr. 12, 1977.
O’Keefe et al., US 2007/0266499 Al, pub. Nov. 22, 2007.
Luff et al., US 6,008,598, iss. Dec. 28, 1999.
Kramer, US 7,784,128 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2010.
Vanzant, US 5,742,957, iss. Apr. 28, 1998.
3
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
8. The Examiner rejects claims 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley, Vanzant, and Luff.
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness
The Examiner maintains that the limitation “the foot end of the deck”
in claim 4 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Final Act. 2. Appellants do not
raise arguments addressing this rejection. See Appeal Br. 7—25; see also
Reply Br. 2—6. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection.
Obviousness
Claims 1—6
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cawley teaches a
patient support apparatus including a lower frame, a frame, a deck, an
inflatable support, and an air system as claimed. Final Act. 3^4 (citing
Cawley col. 1,11. 51—52; col. 1,11. 55—68; col. 2,11. 1—19; col. 2,1. 68; col. 3,
11. 6—7; col. 3,11. 25—50; col. 5,11. 3—49.) The Examiner acknowledges that
Cawley does not teach a control system as claimed, and the Examiner relies
on O’Keefe for this limitation. Id. at 4 (citing O’Keefe 88, 89). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Cawley with
a control system as taught in O’Keefe “with the motivation of including a
control system connected to a patient support apparatus coordinating the
inflation of a bladder system with movement of the deck, head section, and
foot section while selectively inflating or deflating different bladders
depending on the intended position of the device.” Id.
For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded of reversible
error in the rejection of claim 1 by Appellants’ arguments.
4
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
First, Appellants argue that the proposed combination does not “arrive
at the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellants assert that
the proposed combination does not disclose bladders in the head and seat
sections that are inflatable between a support mode and an egress mode, or
an inflatable bladder in the foot section that is deflatable between a support
mode and an egress mode. Id. at 8. According to Appellants, the
Examiner’s reliance on O’Keefe to disclose the control system recited in the
claims is in error because “O’Keefe teaches a control system that
coordinates only deflation of inflatable bladders when a patient support
apparatus is moved to a chair mode,” which does not meet the claim
requirement that “the head and seat support sections are inflated in the
egress mode.” Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by this argument because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim recites functional
language that the head and seat bladders are “inflatable between a support
mode and an egress mode,” and that the foot bladder is “deflatable between
a support mode and an egress mode.” We find that, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim, this language requires only the
capability of the bladders to inflate or deflate between modes. Further, we
are not persuaded that the claim requires that the head and seat bladders
must be inflated when transitioning from a support mode to an egress mode,
and that the foot bladder must be deflated during that transition. The claim
language states only that the bladders are inflated or deflated between modes
and does not specifically indicate how the bladders are inflated or deflated
during a transition from support mode to egress mode. Thus, we are not
persuaded that any disclosure of deflating head and seat deck bladders
5
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
during egress alone, regardless of whether it is disclosed in Cawley or
O’Keefe, is sufficient to show error in the rejection.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded by this argument because it does
not appear to accurately address the scope of the rejection before us. In
particular, the Examiner relies on Cawley as disclosing bladders that are
inflatable and deflatable as claimed, and only relies on O’Keefe to the extent
that O’Keefe discloses a controller as claimed. Appellants’ argument
appears to conflate the control system and the functionality of the bladders,
which was addressed in the discussion above. In particular, the claimed
controller does not require any specific inflation or deflation of bladders
between operation modes and only requires that inflation of bladders is
coordinated with movement of the deck between bed and chair positions.
We agree with the Examiner that O’Keefe discloses a controller that
coordinates the inflation of bladders according to the movement and position
of the deck, as required by the claim, and it is not relevant to this finding that
O’Keefe teaches deflating bladders in egress mode. See O’Keefe ]Hf 88, 89.
Second, Appellants argue that the combination teaches away from the
claimed invention. Appeal Br. 10—12. In particular, Appellants assert that
O’Keefe’s disclosure of deflating bladders in the egress mode teaches away
from the control system as claimed. We are not persuaded by this argument.
As found above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not
require the specific inflation or deflation of any bladders when the device is
in egress mode. Further, again as found above, the control system in
particular does not require any specific inflation or deflation of bladders and
only requires that that inflation or deflation is coordinated with the
movement of the deck. Thus, the fact that O’Keefe teaches deflating certain
6
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
bladders in egress mode is not inconsistent with the claimed system or the
functionality claimed and cannot be said to teach away from the claimed
system.
Finally, Appellants argue that the rejection fails to present a proper
analysis of obviousness. Appeal Br. 12—15. In support, Appellants indicate
that the rejection is only supported by conclusory statements and that the
Examiner has failed to show how or why the proposed combination would
have resulted in a device as claimed. Id. at 13—14. In particular, Appellants
assert that “[cjommon sense would seem to dictate that one would simply
deflate bladders in the chair egress position if Cawley and O’Keefe were to
be combined as proposed by the Examiner.” Id. at 14. We are not
persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above. Specifically,
the argument is premised on Appellants’ interpretation of the claim as
requiring inflation of head and seat bladders in egress mode and a control
system that specifically requires inflation of those bladders when the deck is
moved from the bed position to the chair egress position. As discussed,
above, we find that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does
not include these requirements.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection,
and thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—6, for which Appellants do not
provide separate arguments.
Claims 11 and 12
With respect to independent claim 11, the Examiner finds that
O’Keefe discloses a patient support apparatus including a deck and a control
system as claimed. Final Act. 10 (citing O’Keefe claim 1, || 88, 89). The
7
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
Examiner further relies on Cawley as disclosing the claimed inflatable
support structure. Id. (citing Cawley col. 1,1. 55—col. 2,1. 19; col. 2,11. 35—
38). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
O’Keefe based on Cawley’s teachings “with the motivation of including an
inflatable support structure supported on the deck including a plurality of
egress bladders to provide support as a patient tries to egress from the
device.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments here are substantially the same as those
arguments presented with respect to claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16—22. In
particular, Appellants argue that the combination fails to arrive at the
claimed invention, that the combination teaches away from the claimed
invention, and that the rejection fails to present a proper analysis of
obviousness. Id. In support, Appellants assert that the claim requires that
the inflatable support structure includes bladders that are inflated during
egress mode, that neither Cawley nor O’Keefe teach this requirement, and
that O’Keefe teaches the opposite configuration, i.e. O’Keefe discloses
deflating bladders during egress mode. Id.
We are not persuaded of reversible error for reasons similar to those
discussed above with respect to claim 1. In particular, we find that
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 11.
More specifically, we agree with the Examiner the language relied upon by
Appellants is a recitation of the intended use of the device, i.e. it is intended
that the device be used such that the bladders are inflated to provide support
during egress. We also agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination is capable of performing the intended use because both Cawley
and O’Keefe disclose bladders that are selectively inflatable and deflatable.
8
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
See Cawley col. 3,11. 25—35; see also O’Keefe 1 89. For these reasons, we
disagree that the combination does not arrive at the claimed invention or that
the rejection fails to present a proper analysis. We also note that O’Keefe
discloses that the seat structure “may be inflated during chair mode,” and
thus we are not persuaded that O’Keefe teaches away from the intended use
recited in the claim. See O’Keefe 191.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection,
and thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 11. For the same reasons, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 12, for which Appellants do not
provide separate argument.
Claims 7—10, 13—20
With respect to dependent claims 7—10 and 13—20, Appellants argue
only that additional references relied upon by the Examiner do not sure the
deficiencies in the rejection of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 15—16,
23—24. However, as discussed above, we are not persuaded of any
deficiencies in the rejections of claim 1 and 11. Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejections of claims 7—10 and 13—
20.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude as follows.
We summarily AFFIRM the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cawley in view of O’Keefe.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 7—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cawley in view of O’Keefe and Luff.
9
Appeal 2014-006336
Application 12/963,015
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley and Luff.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley and Kramer.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley and Vanzant.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 17—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over O’Keefe in view of Cawley, Vanzant, and Luff.
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
10