Ex Parte Kautzky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

11756801 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111756,801
86860 7590
Anthony G Sitko PLC
P.O. Box 315
06/01/2007
04/01/2016
Harbor Springs, MI 49740
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans Kautzky
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.
29452/38686C 1490
EXAMINER
HYUN, PAUL SANG HWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1797
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
asitko@anthonysitko.com
docket@anthonysitko.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS KAUTZKY
Appeal2014-001697
Application 11/756,801 1
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and
KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's final rejections of claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Coramed Technologies LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-001697
Application 11/756,801
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to an apparatus for measuring
hemostatis.
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is representative
and is reproduced below.
1. An apparatus for measuring hemostasis comprising:
a container adapted to hold a blood sample, the container
including a portion transparent to an emission from a sensor;
a shaker adapted to displace the container in order to cause
a resonant excitation of the blood sample, the resonant excitation
of the blood sample being time variant corresponding to
coagulation and lysis of the blood sample;
and the sensor adapted to determine a movement of the
blood sample corresponding to the resonant excitation of the
blood sample within the container responsive to the displacement
of the container by the shaker by generating the emission and
directing the emission toward the blood sample through the
portion;
wherein data from the sensor is indicative of the time
variant resonant state of the blood sample.
Br. 7 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14--16, 18, 21-24, 26, and 29-33 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringrose (US
4, 149 ,405, issued Apr. 17, 1979) and Wu et al. (US 6,200,532 B 1, issued
Mar. 13, 2001) ("Wu"), and Husar (US 4,341,111, issued July 27, 1982).
Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 3, 13, 17, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ringrose, Wu, Husar, and Newman (US 5,146,289,
issued Sept. 8, 1992). Final Act. 5---6.
2
Appeal2014-001697
Application 11/756,801
Claims 5, 6, 19, 20, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ringrose, Wu, Husar, and Durley et al.
(US 5,075,077, issued Dec. 24, 1991) ("Durley"). Final Act. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant has not presented separate
arguments for rejected claims 1-33. Rather, Appellant's arguments are
directed to claim 1, which we select as representative. As such, claims 2-33
will stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found Ringrose teaches most of the limitations of claim
1 but does not teach a container adapted to hold a blood sample, wherein the
container includes a portion transparent to an emission from a sensor. Final
Act. 3. However, the Examiner found that Wu satisfies this limitation as Wu
teaches an optically transparent container. Id. The Examiner concluded it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the art to
substitute the plate disclosed in Ringrose with an enclosed transparent
container as taught by Wu to provide a sanitary container. Id.
The Examiner also stated that Ringrose does not explicitly teach a
shaker that is configured to cause a resonant excitation of the blood sample
but found that Husar teaches an apparatus for measuring hemostasis
comprising an oscillation system that vibrates the blood sample at its
resonant frequency during the course of coagulation. Id. at 4, citing Husar,
Abstract, 3:52--4: 17. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious
to one skilled in the art to configure the shaker disclosed by Ringrose to
oscillate the blood sample at its resonant frequency during the course of
coagulation given Husar' s teaching that measuring the resonance frequency
of a liquid provides clear and easily recognized viscosity values
3
Appeal2014-001697
Application 11/756,801
uninfluenced by heterodyning disturbances. Id., citing Husar 3:40-45.
Appellant first argues the Examiner erred in combining the teachings
of Ringrose and Wu, asserting the references are incompatible. Specifically,
Appellant asserts the plate of Ringrose is incompatible with any container
structure because the "sample surface [in Ringrose] must be free to move in
response to the excitation" and be observed. Br. 3.
This argument is not persuasive as the Examiner found, and Appellant
does not rebut, the plate of Ringrose could be modified to provide a
container as Ringrose' s plate area is much larger than the dimensions of the
sample droplet. Ans. 7. The Examiner found that erecting walls around the
perimeter of the plate to confine the sample in a sanitary matter during
analysis would not interfere with the motion of the sample positioned on the
plate. Id. Appellant does not dispute these findings nor otherwise show the
Examiner's findings or reasoning are in error.
Appellant also argues the apparatus of Ringrose could not be modified
so as to cause a resonant excitation of the blood sample, asserting that
exciting a blood droplet on a plate to resonant vibration would cause the
sample droplet to lose integrity. Br. 3--4. This argument is not persuasive as
the Examiner found a blood sample that is on the verge of completely
coagulating would maintain its integrity when it is vibrated at its resonant
frequency. Ans. 8. Appellant does not dispute this finding or otherwise
show the Examiner's findings or reasoning are in error. As such, Appellant
has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as well as the rejections of claims 2-33,
which were not argued separately.
4
Appeal2014-001697
Application 11/756,801
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-33 are affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
5