Ex Parte Hill

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

13086519 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
13/086,519 04/14/2011 Gerard J. Hill P0025563.07/LG10126 4342
27581 7590
Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM)
710 MEDTRONIC PARKWAY NE
MS: LC340 Legal Patents
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55432-9924
EXAMINER
GHAND, JENNIFER LEIGH-STEWAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
medtronic_crdm_docketing @ c ardinal-ip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERARD J. HILL
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,5191
Technology Center 3700
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, and
DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
implantable medical device system, which have been rejected as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
“A wide variety of implantable medical devices ... are available for
monitoring physiological conditions and/or delivering therapies.” (Spec. 1.)
Although these devices are often coupled to medical leads which carry
sensors, leadless devices have also been described where the sensors are in
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Medtronic, Inc. (Appeal
Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
the housing of the device. (Id.) The function of implantable medical
devices and patient care “may be enhanced by including sensors distributed
to body locations that are remote from the [device].” (Id. at 2.) However,
having a physical connection between the device and the sensors could “be
cumbersome, highly invasive, or simply not feasible.” (Id.) Appellant’s
invention is directed to “implantable medical device systems and, in
particular, to a communications network for use with implantable sensing
and/or therapy delivery devices organized in a distributed, mesh network.”
(Id. at 1.)
Claims 5—12 and 14—182 are on appeal. Claim 5 is representative and
reads as follows:
5. An implantable medical device system, comprising:
multiple implantable medical devices, each of the
medical devices having a node status comprising a power status
of a power supply of the medical device and an operational
workload of the medical device corresponding to a primary
function of the medical device;
means for providing a wireless communication network
between the multiple medical devices via multiple
communication pathways;
means for receiving an adjusted network rule set; and
means for automatically configuring the network wherein
the configuring means comprises means for assigning network
tasks to the multiple medical devices in response to the node
status of each of the medical devices.
(Appeal Br. 11.)
2 Claims 1,3,4, and 13 were canceled by Appellant in an Amendment filed
April 16, 2015, when the Appeal Brief was filed. (Advisory Action dated
Feb. 22, 2016.)
2
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
The following ground of rejection by the Examiner is before us on
review:
Claims 5—12 and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Arent,3 Singh,4 Lee,5 Tran,6 and Chiu.7
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Arent teaches a system that includes multiple
devices to be implanted within a patient that are “configured to communicate
over an internal wireless network or an external computer network.” (Ans.
2.) The Examiner further finds that Arent teaches the implantable medical
devices each have a power source and a microprocessor for controlling
device functions and various memories, including a random access memory
“for storing instructions for device operation including how the device
communicates ‘network rule set’.” (Id.) The Examiner also finds that the
microprocessor of Arent “contains software for implementing networks of
medical devices.” (Id. at 3.)
The Examiner notes that although Arent does not specifically state
“that the wireless network in which the devices communicate over is a mesh
network[,] it would have been obvious to make the wireless network a mesh
network since the use of mesh networks for communicating between devices
3 Arent, EP 1022035 Al, published July 26, 2000.
4 Singh et al., Power-Aware Routing in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, MobiCom
’98 Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM/IEEE Inf 1 Conf. on Mobile
Computing and Networking, 181—190 (1988)
5 Lee et al., A Workload-Based Adaptive Load-Balancing Technique for
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Commc’ns Soc’y, 2002—2007 (2005).
6 Tran, US 2007/0273504 Al, published Nov. 29, 2007.
7 Chiu, US 2006/0092855 Al, published May 4, 2006.
3
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
is well known in the art as shown by Tran.” (Id.) In addition, “the
[EJxaminer notes that the use of a learning process/mode during which a
node within a mesh network gathers information regarding other network
nodes to determine a routing scheme for communicating with other nodes is
well known as shown by Chiu.” (Id. )
The Examiner further notes that “Arent does not teach monitoring a
power status or an operational workload for communication purposes.” (Id.)
However, the Examiner contends that such monitoring would have been
obvious in light of the teachings of Singh and Lee. (Id.) The Examiner
finds that Singh “teaches power-aware routing in mobile ad hoc networks
which discloses looking at power-aware metrics of the node in determining
which nodes will be used for routing to increase node life and network life.”
(Id. at 3 (citing Singh 182, col. 1, 1st | and 187 § 5.1.) The Examiner further
explains that “Singh discloses looking at power-aware metrics of the node in
determining which node will be used for routing to increase node life and
network life” and “that it is best to route packets through nodes that have
sufficient remaining power.” (Id. at 6 (citing Singh 182, col. 1, 1st ]f.) The
Examiner concludes, therefore, that “[i]t would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the . . .
system of Arent with the teachings of Singh to include monitoring power-
aware metrics at each node to determine remaining battery power in order to
increase node life and network life.” (Id. at 4.) The Examiner explains that
the foregoing combination meets the claim requirement of “a node status
comprising a power status of a power supply” because she has interpreted “a
power status of a power supply,” as used in the claims, “to include power
4
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
metrics related to a status of the power source of individual nodes,” “such as
remaining power available.” {Id. at 6—10.)
Regarding monitoring workload, the Examiner finds that Lee “teaches
a workload-based adaptive load-balancing technique for mobile ad hoc
networks which discloses looking at the load status/workload of each node
when determining which nodes will be used for a routing protocol.” {Id. at
3.) The Examiner explains that the technique involves assessing whether a
“workload is near a threshold value then additional communications using
the node are not allowed . . . achieving load balance and alleviating
congestion that causes long packet latency, poor packet delivery] and high
routing overhead.” {Id.) The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to further modify the system of Arent modified by Singh with the
teachings of Lee to include looking at a workload of the node in order to
achieve load balancing and alleviate congestion.” {Id. at 4.)
We disagree with the Examiner’s factual findings concerning Singh
and the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of references renders
obvious the claimed invention, particularly as to the requirement that “the
configuring means comprises means for assigning network tasks to the
multiple medical devices in response to the node status of each of the
medical devices.” (Claim 5) (emphasis added).
We note that claim 5 defines node status as comprising “a power
status of a power supply of the medical device and an operation workload. . .
.” Thus, the “means for assigning in response to the node status” requires
assigning to be done in response to a power status of a power supply and an
5
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
operation workload and the claim further requires that the assigning in this
way has to consider the status “of each of the medical devices.”
Singh notes that “[intuitively, it is best to route packets through nodes
that have sufficient remaining power (rather than through a node whose
battery is on its last legs).” (Singh 182, col. 1, 1st |.) Singh states that it
“show[s] that power-aware routing (built on top of a power-aware MAC
protocol) can save overall energy consumption in the network and,
simultaneously, increase battery life at all nodes.” {Id.) However, the
foregoing is not a disclosure of a network that has a configuring means that
includes a means for assigning network tasks in response to a power status
of each of the devices.
Singh section 5.1 also does not disclose this. That section states:
Based on the simulations, we can conclude that using power-
aware metrics to find routes is very beneficial because the
difference in battery consumption between various nodes is
reduced. This typically means longer network life and longer
time to node failure.
(Singh 187.)
Singh provides a discussion of “several power-aware metrics that do
result in energy-efficient routes” {id. at 183—185), including one “that
reflects] a battery’s remaining lifetime” (id. at 184 (see metric “4. Minimize
Cost/Packet”). However, Singh notes that these metrics “express our
intuition about conserving energy in the network by selecting routes
carefully” and that metrics 3—5, which includes metric 4 that incorporates
consideration of battery life, have not been implemented yet. {Id. at 185.)
And even if Singh can be considered to have implemented metric 4, the
Examiner has not directed us to where, and we do not discern that, there is a
6
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
disclosure of assigning network tasks to multiple medical devices utilizing a
node status of each medical device that comprises a power status of a power
supply. (See also Reply Br. 4 noting that nothing in Singh discloses such
assignment.)
Furthermore, Singh details its power-aware protocol for its ad hoc
network, and it also does not describe monitoring a power status of a power
supply, much less in determining assigning network tasks based on the
power status of the power supply. (Singh at 185—186.) In this protocol, the
conditions under which nodes power off are stated to be:
• A node powers off if it is overhearing a transmission and does
not have a packet to transmit,
• If at least one neighbor is transmitting and at least one
neighbor is receiving a transmission, a node may power off.
This is because, even if the node has a packet to transmit, it
cannot do so for fear of interfering with its neighbor’s
reception.
• If all of a node’s neighbors neighbors are transmitting (and the
node is not a receiver), it powers itself off.
(Id. at 185.)
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art. . .
, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In sum, the Examiner has not pointed out
to us where, nor do we discern that, Singh teaches a disclosure of a network
that has a configuring means that includes a means for assigning network
tasks in response to a power status of power supply of each of the devices.
Furthermore, because the Examiner has not identified any other teaching of
this limitation in the references, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.
7
Appeal 2016-006291
Application 13/086,519
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 5—12 and 14—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Arent, Singh, Lee, Tran, and Chiu.
REVERSED
8