Ex Parte KautzkyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201611756801 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation