Ex Parte Van Der Heide et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

14348078 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/348,078 03/28/2014 Esther Marjan Van Der Heide
24737 7590 05/02/2018
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.
2011P01809WOUS 7901
EXAMINER
PHILIPPE, GIMS S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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 ESTHER MARJAN VAN DER HEIDE, ADRIENNE
HEINRICH, and THOMAS FALCK1
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
N.V. App. Br. 1.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Mar. 28, 2014
(claiming benefit of US 61/544,321, filed Oct. 7, 2011); Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.") filed Mar. 1, 2017; andReplyBrief("ReplyBr.") filed Sept. 7, 2017.
We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed July 14, 2017; and
Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Sept. 9, 2016.
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
We reverse.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns patient
monitoring a patient and "detecting delirium of the patient" (Spec. 1 ),
including processors, systems, storage media, and methods for automated
monitoring of a patient and detecting delirium. Spec. 2---6; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A monitoring system for automated monitoring of a
patient and detecting delirium of the patient, comprising:
a monitoring unit for obtaining image data of the patient
over time,
an image analysis unit for detecting motion events of the
patient from the obtained image data,
an evaluation unit for classifying the detected motion
events into delirium-typical motion events and non-delirium-
typical motion events, wherein said evaluation unit is configured
to determine high and/or low movement counts of detected
motion events, and
a delirium determination unit for determining a delirium
score from the duration of high or low movement counts and/or
the duration, intensity, type, location and/or occurrence of
delirium-typical motion events, said delirium score indicating
the likelihood and/or strength of delirium of the patient.
2
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 12-14, 16, and 173 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Osterweil (US 6,049,281, issued
Apr. 11, 2000).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 8-11 and 18-20 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Osterweil and Brooks et al.
(US 6,893,407 Bl, issued May 17, 2005) ("Brooks").
3. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Osterweil and Jakovljevic (US 2011/0207098 Al,
published Aug. 25, 2011 ).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding Osterweil discloses
classifying the detected motion events into delirium-typical
motion events ... determin[ing] high and/or low movement
counts of detected motion events, and ... determining a delirium
score from the duration of high or low movement counts . . .
indicating the likelihood and/ or strength of delirium of the
patient
within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of claims 12-14?
3 The Examiner does not list claims 5, 16, and 1 7 in the statement of the
rejection (see Final Act. 6), but discusses these claims in the substantive
rejection (see Final Act. 8-9). Appellants include claims 5, 16, and 17 in
their statement of the rejection. See App. Br. 8. Accordingly, we find the
Examiner's typographical error (omission) harmless and correct the
statement of the rejection for clarity and consistency of the record.
3
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Re} ection
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being anticipated by
Osterweil. See Final Act. 14--21; Ans. 2-24. The Examiner finds that
Osterweil describes patient monitoring utilizing image analysis and motion
detection, classifying detected motion, determining if a patient is about to
exit a bed, and triggering an alarm/determining risk based on a threshold.
See Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 9-13 (citing Osterweil, col. 2, 11. 41--48; col. 5,
11. 17-34; col. 6, 1. 65---col. 7, 1. 7; col. 8, 11. 3-10; col. 9, 11. 40-48; col. 10, 11.
12-26; col. 14, 11. 57---61; Figs. 1, 2). The Examiner further explains that
Osterweil' s description of using image analysis and motion detection: to
determine relative position, velocity, and/or acceleration with respect to a
structure (bed) (see col. 5, 11. 17-34); to determine the probability of a bed
exit (see col. 8, 11. 3-1 O); to trigger an alarm when a motion exceeds a
threshold (see col 9, 11. 40-48); and to determine that a patient is high risk
(see col. 10, 11. 12-25), discloses "classifying the detected motion events into
delirium-typical motion events," determining "high and/or low movement
counts of detected motion events," and "determining a delirium score" as
recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 9-13.
Appellants contend that Osterweil does not disclose the disputed
features of claim 1. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-5. Specifically,
Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Osterweil does not disclose
"classifying the detected motion events into delirium-typical motion events"
(App. Br. 8) or "determining a delirium score from the duration of high or
low movement counts ... " (App. Br. 9). See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-5.
Appellants also contend that Osterweil, in general, "does not disclose
4
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
anything related to detecting delirium in a patient" (App. Br. 9). See App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-5. Instead, according to Appellants, Osterweil merely
describes monitoring a patient (having physical and/or mental illness) to
anticipate a patient exiting (or falling from) a bed. See Reply Br. 4--5.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not explain
sufficiently how the cited portions of Osterweil describe the disputed
features----classifying detected motion as (into) delirium-typical motion,
determining high and/or low movement counts from the detected motion,
and determining a delirium score based on the movement counts.
Appellants' Specification defines "movement counts" as "the intensity of
motions of the patient" (Spec. 4). Even ifwe concur with the Examiner and
broadly interpret Osterweil' s detection of movement ( and movement
velocity and/or acceleration) as motion intensity (i.e., movement counts), at
best, Osterweil describes determining motion/movement intensity,
comparing the intensity to a threshold, and triggering an alarm if the
threshold is exceeded. Osterweil does not describe classifying the
motion/movement as indicative of delirium ( delirium-typical motion) or
determining a delirium score based on the motion (intensity and duration of
the movement counts). Osterweil instead describes triggering an alarm
when a patent exceeds a motion threshold (i.e., comparing motion to a
predetermined value). Osterweil's disclosure of determining motion data
and comparison of the motion data to a predetermined threshold value does
not amount to an explicit disclosure of classifying motion (movement) and
calculating a ( delirium) score based on the motion data (intensity and
duration of the movement counts). Further, Osterweil provides no
explanation of how a patient is determined to be high risk (see col. 10,
5
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
11. 12-25}-other than to define a "high risk" individual as an "individual
that frequently attempts to exit their bed" (col. 10, 11. 16-18). The Examiner
does not provide sufficient explanation supporting the finding that Osterweil
discloses determining a delirium score. See Final Act. 7; see also Final
Act. 8 (discussing claims 12-14); compare Osterweil, col. 9, 11. 40-48;
col. 10, 11. 12-25.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Osterweil anticipates Appellants' claim 1.
Independent claims 12-14 include commensurate limitations, and dependent
claims 2-7, 16, and 17 depend from and fall with claims 1 and 13.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
claims 1-7, 12-14, 16, and 17.
Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 8-11 and 18-20 as being
obvious in view of Osterweil and Brooks (see Final Act. 10-11; Ans. 13-
14), and rejects independent claim 15 as being obvious in view of Osterweil
and Jakovljevic (see Final Act. 11-12). The Examiner relies on the same
reasoning as claim 1 (supra) for rejecting claims 8-11, 15, and 18-20. See
Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established
on this record, that the additionally cited Brooks and Jakovljevic references
overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of Osterweil.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Osterweil and
Brooks renders obvious Appellants' dependent claims 8-11 and 18-20,
which depend from independent claims 1 and 13, respectively. We are also
constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in
6
Appeal 2017-011414
Application 14/348,078
concluding that the combination of Osterweil and Jakovljevic renders
obvious Appellants' independent claim 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 8-11, 15, and 18-20.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7,
12-14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-11,
15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7