Ex Parte Richard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2019

14363202 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/363,202 06/05/2014 Christian James Richard 24737 7590 03/19/2019 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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. 2011P00649WOUS 9125 EXAMINER MELHUS, BENJAMIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3791 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2019 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTIAN JAMES RICHARD, AARON JAMES PIAZZA, and HANS PATRICK GRIESSER Appeal2018-006604 1 Application 14/363,2022 Technology Center 3700 Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Jan. 5, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Apr. 2, 2018), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 23, 2017). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips N.V. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006604 Application 14/363,202 BACKGROUND The Specification discloses "cardio-pulmonary (CPR) assistance and training devices." Spec. ,r 1. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and recites: 1. A cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) assistance device compnsmg: a substrate; an accelerometer mounted on the substrate and operable to detect motion related to a CPR chest compression; a force sensor mounted on the substrate and operable to detect a force related to the CPR chest compression; a controller mounted on the substrate and disposed in electrical communication with the accelerometer and force sensor; a translucent or transparent visual output layer disposed over the substrate and having an edge surface normal to the substrate and around a periphery of the substrate, the visual output layer having a light with a first color, wherein an activation of the light is controlled by the controller, and wherein the visual output layer comprises a niche disposed to cover the light, the visual output layer also having a thickness sufficient to diffuse and fan illumination from the light out of the edge surface and co-planar with the substrate; and a top cover disposed over the visual output layer and disposed to provide an engagement surface between a rescuer's hands and the force sensor, wherein the light is operable to illuminate the peripheral edge surface of the visual output layer to assist in the application of CPR. Br. 21-22. 2 Appeal2018-006604 Application 14/363,202 REJECTI0NS 3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler4 in view of Elghazzawi 5 and Roach. 6 2. The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view of Elghazzawi, Roach, and Voss. 7 3. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view ofElghazzawi, Roach, Voss, and Pastrick. 8 4. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view of Elghazzawi, Roach, Voss, Pastrick, and Strand. 9 5. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view of Elghazzawi, Roach, and Pastrick. 6. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view of Elghazzawi, Roach, Pastrick, and Strand. 7. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view of Elghazzawi, Roach, and Freeman. 10 3 The Examiner has indicated that the rejection of claims 1-14 as indefinite has been overcome, and thus, we consider that rejection to have been withdrawn. See Advisory Action 2 (mailed Nov. 1, 2017). 4 Celik-Butler et al., US 2008/0312565 Al, pub. Dec. 18, 2008. 5 Elghazzawi et al, US 2011/0130798 Al, pub. June 2, 2011. 6 Roach et al., US 2013/0220856 Al, pub. Aug. 29, 2013. 7 Voss et al., US 2011/0201979 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2011. 8 Pastrick et al., US 9,092,995 B2, iss. July 28, 2015. 9 Strand et al., US 2010/0256539 Al, pub. Oct. 7, 2010. 1Â° Freeman et al., US 2006/0270952 Al, pub. Nov. 30, 2006. 3 Appeal2018-006604 Application 14/363,202 8. The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view of Elghazzawi, Roach, Freeman, and Abreu. 11 9. The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Celik-Butler in view ofElghazzawi, Roach, Freeman, Abreu, and Ray.12 DISCUSSION Independent claim 1 is directed to a CPR assistance device including a visual output layer that is translucent or transparent; includes a light; and has a thickness that is sufficient to diffuse and fan illumination of the light to the edge surface such that "the light is operable to illuminate the peripheral edge surface of the visual output layer to assist in the application of CPR." Br. 21-22. We are persuaded of error in the rejection because the Examiner has not established that the proposed combination of art would result in a visual output layer as required by the claim. The Examiner relies on Celik-Butler as providing a translucent or transparent cover that is coplanar with, and has an edge normal to, the substrate, and the Examiner finds that Celik-Butler teaches "wherein the light [in the substrate] is operable to illuminate the peripheral edge surface to assist in the application of CPR (paragraph 0041)." Final Act. 4. The Examiner separately relies on Elghazzawi as teaching a visual output layer including a niche, an edge normal to the substrate, and a thickness sufficient to diffuse light out of its edge. Id. at 4-5(citing Elghazzawi ,r,r 53-54). The Examiner also finds that Roach teaches a CPR 11 Abreu, US 2009/0105605 Al, pub. Apr. 23, 2009. 12 Ray, II, US 6,427,685 Bl, iss. Aug. 6, 2002. 4 Appeal2018-006604 Application 14/363,202 assistance device with a light pipe for diffusing light. Id. at 5 ( citing Roach ,r 39). The Examiner concludes: Id. [i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transparent layer of Celik have a thickness sufficient to diffuse light throughout its edges and its surface, as taught by Elghazzawi, in order to more provide a more evenly lit apparatus, so that visual checks of the CPR assistance device -- i.e. the visual feedback provided by the interface ( 418) -- where diffuse light may be more easily viewed over a wide angle, as suggested by Roach. However, we find that the Examiner does not explain adequately how the art of record would be combined to arrive at a device with a visual output layer as claimed, or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to do so. In particular, we fail to see why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify the thickness of the Celik-Butler's transparent cover layer in view of Elghazzawi and Roach. We agree with Appellants that Elghazzawi discloses a panel 304 with through-holes to allow for light passing through that layer, and thus, Elghazzawi indicates that panel 304 is opaque. See Br. 14; see also Elghazzawi ,r 53. Further, although Elghazzawi indicates that the panel may serve to diffuse light, Elghazzawi discloses only that panel 304 would diffuse light onto the front of overlay 302 and not to the side edges of the panel. Elghazzawi ,r 54. At best, Elghazzawi discloses only a thickness sufficient to diffuse light onto the front surface of the panel, and it appears from the Figures that the outer edge of the panel 304 would be enclosed within the outer cover of the display 312 when the device is put together. Further, we agree with Appellants that Roach suggests only that the light pipe is configured to 5 Appeal2018-006604 Application 14/363,202 transmit light over a wide angle out of the front panel of the device. See Br. 15; see also Roach (Fig. la; ,r 39). Thus, we agree with Appellants that nothing in the cited portions of Elghazzawi or Roach suggests providing a visual output layer that allows for light to be diffused out of an edge surface of that layer, and at best, the Examiner's reasoning would only provide motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the manner in which light is projected out of the top cover of Celik-Butler's device. See Br. 18- 19. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 10, and 14. Further, the Examiner does not rely on Voss, Pastrick, Strand, Freeman, Abreu, or Ray in a manner that cures the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, we also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3-9 and 11-13. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-14. REVERSED 6