Ex Parte Ikeya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 9, 2018

14133629 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/133,629 12/18/2013 116 7590 10/11/2018 PEARNE & GORDON LLP 1801 EAST 9TH STREET SUITE 1200 CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hirohiko Ikeya 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. 55702 4289 EXAMINER PIA TES KI, ERIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/11/2018 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): patdocket@peame.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIROHIKO IKEY A, TEIJI UKA WA, NOBUKO KAWASAKI, JUNY A KAW ANO, and TAKAHARU SUZUKI (APPLICANT: NIHON KOHDEN CORPORATION) Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 1 Technology Center 3700 Before DONALD E. ADAMS, CHRISTOPHER G. P AULRAJ, and RICHARD J. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This Appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) involves claims 1 and 3-5 (Final Act. 2 2). Examiner entered rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify "Nihon Kohden Corporation" as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). 2 Office Action mailed June 9, 2016. Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosure "relates to a physiological information monitoring system for monitoring physiological information on a patient, or the like" (Spec. ,r 1 ). Claims 1 and 5 are representative and reproduced below: 1. A physiological information monitoring system comprising: a first monitor including a first display and a first connector; and a second monitor including a second connector removably attachable to the first connector, a signal input unit into which a measurement signal of physiological information is input, and a second display that displays information corresponding to the measurement signal, the second display being brought into a non-display status when the first connector and the second connector are connected to each other, and the information corresponding to the measurement signal is displayed on the first display; wherein, in a case where the first monitor is detected as being inactive when the first connector and the second connector are connected to each other, the second monitor generates an alarm before bringing the second display into a non-display status. (App. Br. 9.) 5. The physiological information monitoring system according to claim [ 1 3], wherein the second display is capable of temporally displaying on the second display information which 3 Appellants confirm that they intended for their claim 5 to depend from claim 1 (App. Br. 7-10; cf Final Act. 2). 2 Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 is being displayed on the first display under the condition that the first connector is connected to the second connector. (Id.) The claims stand rejected as follows: 4 Claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kamen, 5 Brown, 6 and Medica. 7 Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kamen, Brown, Medica, and Morris. 8 ISSUE Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support a conclusion of obviousness? ANALYSIS The rejection over the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medica: Claim 1: Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Kamen suggests the subject matter of Appellants' claim 1 with the exception of a disclosure that: (a) "data input to [a] second monitor is displayed on the second monitor's display;" (b) a "second display is brought into a non-display status when the first connector and the second connector are connected to each 4 Because claim objections are petitionable rather than appealable issues, we decline to address Appellants' contentions regarding the objection to Appellants' claim 5 (App. Br. 7-8). 5 Kamen et al., US 2013/0191513 Al, published July 25, 2013. 6 Brown, US 2001/0011224 Al, published Aug. 2, 2001. 7 Medica et al., US 2012/0087078 Al, published Apr. 12, 2012. 8 Morris, US 2005/0259032 Al, published Nov. 24, 2005. 3 Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 other;" and ( c) "in a case where the first monitor is detected as being inactive when the first connector and the second connector are connected to each other, the second monitor generates an alarm before bringing the second display into a non-display status" (Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 3-7; cf App. Br. 5-7). Appellants do not dispute Examiner's reliance on Brown and Medica, respectively, to make up the first two deficiencies in Kamen outlined above, specifically, Kamen's failure to disclose: (a) "that data input to [a] second monitor is displayed on the second monitor's display" and (b) a "second display is brought into a non-display status when the first connector and the second connector are connected to each other" (Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4--5; cf App. Br. 5-7). Examiner finds that "turning off a display is well-known in the art," as demonstrated by Medica (Ans. 9; see also Ans. 5 ("Medica teaches that when a smart phone ( a secondary display device) is docked to a tablet ( a primary[, or first,] display device), the smart phone may be turned off when the connection is detected and its image output applied to the first display (Medi ca, i"f[0061 ])" ( alteration original)); Final Act. 5). In addition, Examiner finds that "transmitting an alarm or alert to indicate a problem with the equipment is [] known in the art," as demonstrated by Kamen (Ans. 9-10 (citing Kamen ,r,r 368, 390, and 532; see also id. ,r 355 ("determining if the system [] is operating properly or within predetermined bounds" and "determining if an alarm or alert should be issued or sent"))). In this regard, we note that Kamen' s wearable system monitor [] can interrogate various devices to ensure their proper operation. For example, in one example embodiment, [Kamen' s] wearable system monitor [] 4 Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 communicates with [] patient-care devices ... , the monitoring client [], the monitoring-client dock[], the device dock[], and/ or the hub [] ... to determine if any faults, errors, irregularities, data corruption, communication degradation, incomplete operation, slow operation, or other issues exist[]. (Kamen ,r 389; see also Kamen ,r 532 ("[i]f, for example, the wearable system monitor was docked to a wearable dock of the wrong patient, the wearable system monitor can recognize the error ... and send an alert").) Stated differently, Kamen suggests monitoring connected devices and sending an alert, i.e., alarm, if any faults, errors, irregularities, communication degradation, incomplete operation, etc. are detected. Therefore, we find no error in Examiner's conclusion that, based on the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medica, "bringing both [of a patient's] displays into [a] non-display status would be a situation meriting an alarm, in order to ensure continuity of care," because such an instance would reasonably fall within Kamen's disclosure of faults, error, irregularities, communication degradation and/or incomplete operation (Ans. 10; cf Reply Br. 2 ("simply because two elements individually are known does not necessarily mean that their combination would have been obvious" ( emphasis removed)); Reply Br. 3 ("[ t ]he claimed alarm is not known in the prior art")). Thus, we find no error in Examiner's conclusion that the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medica, suggests that when a first monitor is detected as being inactive when the first connector and the second connector are connected to each other, the second monitor generates an alarm before bringing the second display into a non-display status, as required by Appellants' claimed invention (see Ans. 10; see also id. at 10- 11 )). 5 Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions that Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based "merely [on] 'reasoning and logic"' and "is entirely conclusory" (see App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3; cf Ans. 9-11 ). As discussed above, issuing an alert, or alarm, when a fault, error, irregularity, communication degradation, and/or incomplete operation, is detected among connected devices was known in this art prior to Appellants' filing date. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that "an alarm is not necessary or ( as suggested by the lack of prior art) even common amongst monitors that are connected to each other" (App. Br. 7). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that "Examiner improperly supplied a missing limitation without support of prior art references, personal knowledge, or common sense in the rejection of [Appellants'] claim 1" (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2; cf Ans. 9-11). Claims 3 and 4: Having found no deficiency in the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medi ca as it relates to claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that "claims 3 and 4 are allowable over Kamen, Brown and Medi ca for at least the reasons [Appellants] provided in support of ... claim 1." The rejection over the combination of Kamen, Brown, Medica, and Morris: Examiner concludes that the combination of Kamen, Brown, Medi ca, and Morris makes obvious Appellants' claim 5 (Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 3-8). 6 Appeal2017-007008 Application 14/133,629 Having found no deficiency in the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medi ca, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that "Morris fail[ s] to correct the above-noted deficiencies" in the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medica (App. Br. 7). CONCLUSION The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner supports a conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kamen, Brown, and Medica is affirmed. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kamen, Brown, Medica, and Morris is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7