Ex Parte Martikka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2017

12482004 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 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.
12/482,004 06/10/2009 Mikko MARTIKKA 0365-0776PUS1 6294
127226 7590 12/06/2017
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
BAYS, PAMELA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3766
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKKO MARTIKKA, ERIK LINDMAN, and JARI AKKILA1
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
Technology Center 3700
Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and TIMOTHY G.
MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
heart-rate measuring apparatus, and a related method and system. The
Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ “invention relates to a coupling . . . [and] a method for
detecting heart rate.” (Spec. 1:3—6.) According to the Specification, “[t]he
1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as SUUNTO OY. (Br. 1.)
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
invention is based on using analog electronics to process the heart-rate signal
to remove interference from it before it is forwarded or taken to the
processor.” (Id. at 1:21—22.)
Claims 1—11, 13—21, and 23—27 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. Coupling in a heart-rate measuring apparatus, comprising:
one or more electrodes for receiving a heart rate signal;
analog circuitry configured to store a reference level
proportional to a maximum value of the heart rate signal received
from the electrodes;
a peak detector configured to compare the heart rate signal
received from the electrodes with the stored reference level from
the analog circuitry; and
a transmitter for wirelessly transmitting heart rate data
based on the output from the peak detector.
(Br. (Claims App. 1).)
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 1—7, 9—11, 13—17, 19-21, and 23—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Lo2 and Turcott3 (“Rejection I”).
II. Claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lo, Turcott, and
West4 (“Rejection II”).
III. Claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lo, Turcott,
and Hojaiban5 (“Rejection III”).
2 Lo et al., US 5,738,104, issued Apr. 14, 1998.
3 Turcott, US 6,491,639 Bl, issued Dec. 10, 2002.
4 West et al., US 2002/0013517 Al, published Jan. 31, 2002.
5 Hojaiban, US 4,018,219, issued Apr. 19, 1977.
2
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
I
The Examiner rejected claims 1—7, 9-11, 13—17, 19-21, and 23—25 as
obvious over the combination of Lo and Turcott. For independent claim 1,
the Examiner finds Lo teaches, inter alia, a heart-rate measuring apparatus
comprising one or more electrodes, “analog circuitry ... for defining a
reference level proportional to a maximum value of the heart-rate signal
received from the electrodes (finding peaks of signal[),] . . . and a transmitter
for wirelessly transmitting heart rate data based on the output.” (Ans. 2.)
According to the Examiner, however, Lo “does not specifically disclose a
peak detector configured to compare the heart rate signal received from the
electrodes with a reference level from the analog circuitry, or wherein the
analog circuitry stores the reference level.” {Id. at 2—3.) So, the Examiner
turns to Turcott.
The Examiner finds that “Turcott teaches a heart signal detecting
apparatus . . . comprising an analog peak detector (Col. 16, Lines 22-45)
configured to compare the heart rate signal received from the electrodes with
a reference level from the analog circuitry (maximum peaks greater than a
threshold[)].” {Id. at 3.) The Examiner further finds “the analog circuitry
stores the reference level (Col. 16, Lines 22-50).” {Id.)
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Lo’s
heart-rate measuring apparatus with Turcott’s peak detector and analog
circuitry. {Id.) More specifically, the Examiner reasons, “[i]t would have
been obvious ... to use a peak detector for detecting a maximum in the
received heart rate signal when the received signal is greater than a reference
level, wherein the analog circuitry stores the reference level... in order to
3
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
determine cardiac issues and to minimize battery drain.” (Id. (citing Turcott
16:22-45).)
The Examiner provides substantially the same findings and reasoning
in support of the rejection of the other two independent claims — claim 11
(a method) and claim 21 (a system).6 (Ans. 3—4, 9-10.)
The preponderance of the evidence on this record does not support the
Examiner’s conclusion that claims 1, 11, or 21 would have been obvious
over Lo and Turcott. Claims 1 and 21 include, among other things, the
limitation “analog circuitry configured to store a reference level proportional
to a maximum value of the heart rate signal received from the electrodes.”
(Br. (Claim App. 1, 4).) And claim 11 recites, in part, “storing, using analog
circuitry, a reference level proportional to a maximum value of the received
heart rate signal.” (Id. (Claim App. 2).) We are not persuaded that Lo or
Turcott teach or otherwise make obvious these limitations.
As the Examiner acknowledges, Lo does not disclose analog circuitry
that stores (or is configured to store) a reference level proportional to a
maximum value of the heart rate signal from the electrodes. (Ans. 2—3.)
Instead, as Appellants contend, “the analog circuitry of Lo consists of filters
for refinement of an analog signal, e.g., a band pass filter.” (Br. 3.) These
analog signals are not stored but fed to an analog-to-digital converter for
digital signal processing that isolates the pulse rate. (See, e.g., Lo 5:15—62.)
6 As indicated by the Examiner’s findings, however, claim 21 does not
include the “peak detector” or “detecting” limitations of claims 1 and 11
respectively. (Ans. 9-10.)
4
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
The Examiner cites Turcott’s analog “peak detector” as remedying
this deficiency. (Ans. 3.) Yet, as Appellants argue, Turcott does not clearly
disclose that a maximum value of the heart rate signal received from the
electrodes — or a reference level proportional to that maximum value — is
stored in analog circuitry. (Br. 4.) Rather, Turcott discloses that a peak
detector may be used to capture maximum or minimum excursions of a
pulse waveform, which signals are then apparently fed to an A/D converter
for digital conversion for each cardiac cycle. (Turcott 16:40-48 (disclosing
that a design with the peak detector “requires only one or two A/D
conversions per cardiac cycle ... in contrast to one every 10 msec in the
case of the preferred embodiment.”).) No clear teaching of storing a
reference level on the analog side is provided. And we are unpersuaded that
a mere capturing or detecting of the maximum of a pulse waveform with a
peak detector teaches storage in analog circuitry of a reference level
proportional to a maximum value of the heart-rate signal as claimed.7
7 Further, with respect to at least claim 1, the Examiner does not adequately
explain how Turcott’s “peak detector” is, in any way, “configured to
compare the heart rate signal received from the electrodes with the stored
reference level from the analog circuitry.” (See also claim 11 (implying a
comparison is required in the “detecting” step — “detecting a maximum in
the received heart rate signal when the received signal is greater than the
reference level.”) Even if capturing a maximum of a waveform signal
satisfied storing of a reference level in analog circuitry, Turcott does not
clearly teach using a peak detector to compare a heart rate signal from the
electrodes with this stored reference level.
5
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
Citing a different embodiment, distinct from Turcott’s aforementioned
“peak detector,” the Examiner points to Turcott’s disclosure of “threshold”
crossing. (Ans. 3, 14.) The relevant disclosure is as follows:
In still another alternate embodiment, detection of an
arterial pulse and detection of noise or motion artifact are
performed in analog circuitry. The crossing of a threshold,
predetermined to be lower than a hemodynamically stable
systolic pulse but significantly higher than the noise floor, is
detected in analog circuitry using a comparator. The threshold
crossing causes the contents of a free-running timer to be copied
to a register which contains the history of intervals between
detected pulses. This information can be used alone or in
conjunction with sensed electrical activity to determine whether
an arrhythmia is present which requires electrical therapy.
(Turcott 16:22—34.) Here again, the Examiner does not persuade us this
disclosure — alone or combined with other teachings in Turcott or Lo —
teaches or makes obvious the limitations of the claims. As Appellants argue,
“the threshold crossing detected ... is used to determine whether an
arrhythmia is present, not to determine (and store as a reference level) a
maximum value of the heart rate signal received from the electrodes.” (Br.
4.) Inasmuch as the Examiner is suggesting the “threshold” is a “reference
level,” and even if we assume it is stored in analog circuitry, the Examiner
does not explain how such a threshold is “proportional to a maximum value
of the heart rate signal received from the electrodes” as required in the
claims.
For the above reasons, we are unpersuaded independent claims 1,11,
or 21 would have been obvious. The rejection of these claims (as well as the
rejected dependent claims) as obvious over Lo and Turcott is thus reversed.
6
Appeal 2017-000479
Application 12/482,004
II & III
The Examiner rejected dependent claims 8 and 18 over Lo, Turcott,
and West (Rejection II) and dependent claims 26 and 27 over Lo, Turcott,
and Hojaiban (Rejection III). Rejections II and III rely on the findings
related to Lo and Turcott with respect to Rejection I. (Ans. 10—11.) The
Examiner has not asserted or shown that West or Hojaiban make up for the
deficiencies of Lo and Turcott explained above. Accordingly, we also
reverse Rejections II and III.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of the claims on appeal as obvious.
REVERSED
7