Ex Parte Nacey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

10005985 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

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.
10/005,985 11/12/2001 Gene E. Nacey 2556/006 9262
23861 7590 09/21/2012
METZ LEWIS, LLC
11 STANWIX STREET
18TH FLOOR
PITTSBURGH, PA 15222
EXAMINER
STEVENS, ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GENE E. NACEY
____________________

Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a hospital
communication system, and more particularly to presenting patient room
information to hospital personnel (Spec. 1, ll. 6-8).
Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985

2
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus for the graphical display of room and room
occupant information, said apparatus comprising:

a display; and

an arrangement for producing a cell for being viewed on said display,
said cell simultaneously conveying room status information regarding said
room and status information regarding any registered occupant of said
room.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kuban US 4,994,908 Feb. 19, 1991
Crawford Jr. US 5,331,549 Jul. 19, 1994
Khalessi US 6,633,900 B1 Oct. 14, 2003

Claims 1-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuban, Crawford, and Khalessi.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issues before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that Kuban in view of Crawford and Khalessi would have
taught or suggested “an arrangement for producing a cell for being viewed
on said display, said cell simultaneously conveying room status
information… and status information regarding any registered occupant of
Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985

3
said room” (claim 1). In particular, the issue turns on whether the combined
teachings would at least have suggested simultaneously conveying different
status information.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Kuban
1. Kuban discloses an interactive room status/time information
system wherein a maid or inspector can send status information from a
hotel/hospital room terminal over a cable television system to a system
manager location (Abstract).
Crawford
2. Crawford discloses a plurality of vital signs monitors for a
plurality of patients that provide data on a continuing basis to a central
server, which in turn provides supervisory screen display (Abstract).

Khalessi
3. Khalessi discloses a screen for displaying detailed assignment
data, wherein Khalessi’s Figure 11 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985

4

Figure 11 shows a display screen which displays location status such
as “LIGHTS:OUT” and “POLE:BROKEN” and crew status such as
“ENROUTE” and “ARRIVED”.

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Kuban
directed to providing any additional status information relating to anything
other than the room itself” (App. Br. 7). Appellant also contends that
Crawford “conveys absolutely nothing about the room” (App. Br. 9).
Appellant further contends that “there is no description in Khalessi of any
room about which information will be conveyed” and Khalessi contains “no
teaching of a registered occupant of a room” (App. Br. 11).
However, the Examiner finds that Kuban discloses a display
comprising cells “where the cells display information regarding the current
Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985

5
status of a room” (Ans. 3). The Examiner also finds that Crawford discloses
that “a user can see patient (occupant) status information such as vital signs
and color coded alert conditions” (Ans. 4). The Examiner further finds that
“Khalessi teaches a system in which both human information and location
information are conveyed” (Ans. 5). The Examiner then concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify the status displays of Kuban and
Crawford to include the simultaneous display of human status information
and location status information within one cell, as did Khalessi” (id.).
Though Appellant contends that Kuban, Crawford and Khalessi do not
disclose the claimed limitation (App. Br. 7, 9 and 11), Appellant appears to
be arguing that each of the references does not individually anticipate the
claimed invention. However, the Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious over the combined teachings of Kuban, Crawford and Khalessi.
Contrary to Appellant’s apparent argument, the test for obviousness is not
what each reference shows but what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kuban discloses conveying hospital room status information (FF 1).
Crawford discloses conveying status information of a hospital patient, i.e.,
hospital room occupant (FF 2). Further, Khalessi discloses that multiple
status information can be conveyed simultaneously (FF 3). We find no error
in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious “to modify the
status displays of Kuban and Crawford to include the simultaneous display
of human status information and location status information within one cell,
as did Khalessi” (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985

6
The Supreme Court has clearly stated, the “combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007).
This reasoning is applicable here. We find such adding of the conveyance of
the status information of the patient/occupant, as taught by Crawford, to the
conveyance of room status as taught by Kuban, to simultaneously display
status information as taught by Khalessi is no more than a simple
arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such
an arrangement. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. The skilled artisan would “be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since
the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id.
at 420-21.
Furthermore, we note that claim 1 merely requires “an arrangement”
that is “for producing a cell for being viewed on said display.” An intended
use such as “for producing a cell” or “for being viewed” will not limit the
scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention
operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.,
320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, claim 1 merely requires an
apparatus comprising “a display” and “an arrangement.”
Additionally, we note that the terms “room status” and “regarding any
registered occupant” do not change the functionality of or provide an
additional function to conveyance of the information, i.e., do not limit how
the respective information is being conveyed/displayed. Rather, we find that
these terms are merely a description of their respective information content,
Appeal 2010-008133
Application 10/005,985

7
indicating that there are two different “types” of information being
conveyed/displayed. When descriptive material is not functionally related to
the claimed embodiment, the descriptive material will not distinguish the
invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai, 367
F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385
(Fed. Circ. 1983).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
over Kuban, Crawford, and Khalessi. Appellant does not provide arguments
for claims 13, 25, and 37 separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 6).
Accordingly, claims 13, 25, and 37 and claims 2-12, 14-24 and 26-36
depending respectively from claims 1, 13, and 25 fall with representative
claim 1.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc