Ex Parte Yano et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

11515012 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111515,012 0910512006
127226 7590 04/29/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hirotsugu Y ano
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.
1248-0900PUS 1 7236
EXAMINER
SLOMS, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROTSUGU Y ANO and HIROAKI NIW AM OTO
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 15-23, 25, and 27-30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is SHARP KABUSHIKI
KAISHA. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
Invention
The claimed invention relates to a device which transmits, to an
information acquisition device, a measured value indicating a health
condition of a measurement target. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A measurement data communication device which
transmits, to an information acquisition device, a measured value
indicating a health condition of a measurement target,
the measurement data communication device
compnsmg:
a communication information generating section
operable to generate communication information which is
constituted by a measurement name corresponding to the
measured value and a code value corresponding to the
measurement name;
a measurement data generating section operable to
generate measurement data based on the code value and the
measured value; and
a communication section operable to receive the
communication information from the communication
information generating section and to transmit the
communication information to the information acquisition
device separately from transmitting the measurement data
received from the measurement data generating section to the
information acquisition device.
App. Br. 40 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Eric Browne
AAPA
Hibbert
Astigeyevich
The myth of self-describing XML
Applicants' Admitted Prior Art
US 2006/0074793 Al
US 2007/0234199 Al
Rejections
Sep., 2003
Sep. 5,2006
Apr. 6, 2006
Oct. 4, 2007
Claims 1-9, 15-17, 19-23, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Browne and AAPA.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Browne, AAP A, and Hibbert.
Claims 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Browne, AAP A, and Astigeyevich.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
3
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
Independent Claims j, j 6, j 9, 20, 2j, 25, and 27
Appellants contend Browne does not teach "a measured value
indicating a health condition," as recited in independent claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27. App. Br.
17-19. Appellants argue that Browne is only concerned with the transfer of
simple demographic information, such as the age of a patient, which does
not indicate a health condition and cannot be interpreted as including health
condition information. Id.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, Appellants argue
Browne individually while the Examiner relies on the combination of
Browne and AAP A to show obviousness. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Browne's patient age, combined with AAP A's health
measurement values being communicated between devices, reads on the
disputed "measured value indicating a health condition." Ans. 4--5.
Appellants also contend that there is no motivation to combine
Browne and AAP A because Browne merely teaches communicating simple
demographic data and is not concerned with any high-speed communication
or any need to communicate measurements as described in AAPA. App. Br.
19-20, 22-23.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that there is a reasonable basis
to combine Browne and AAP A because both Browne and AAP A are
concerned with the transmission of XML data between health
communication devices (e.g., hospital system in Browne). Ans. 5. It would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
4
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
invention to incorporate AAP A's health measurement data into Browne's
overall method of transmitting data between devices in order to "account for
common hospital data" and to "promote the main goal of hospitals, to attend
to the health of individuals." Ans. 5.
Appellants further contend Browne does not teach "a measurement
name corresponding to the measured value and a code value corresponding
to the measurement name." App. Br. 21. Appellants argue that "a
combination of Browne and the asserted AAP A does not allow the
measurement data communication device to, in the case of addition of a new
measurement name, notify the information acquisition device of the code
value of the measurement name." App. Br. 24.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, that Browne's data items
(e.g., name, age, dates, and diagnosis code), which may be described using
tags, annotations, and qualifiers, read on the disputed claim language. Ans.
6. For instance, the "age" tag encompassing the age value qualifier (e.g.,
32.468) corresponds to the claimed "measurement name corresponding to
the measured value," and the "diagnosis code" tag encompassing the code
value qualifier corresponds to the claimed "code value corresponding to the
measurement name." See Browne, pages 1-2. The Examiner also finds, and
we agree, that AAPA's disclosure of transmitting the measurement name
using the code value corresponds to the disputed "code value corresponding
to the measurement name." Ans. 6 (citing AAPA page 8); see also AAPA
page 6 lines 12-15.
As the Examiner correctly points out, the data items explicitly stated
in Browne (i.e., name, age, dates, and diagnosis code) are "just examples of
types of information that may be communicated." Ans. 6 (citing Browne,
5
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
page 2). In view of Browne and AAP A, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that other types of information, including the health
measurement and code values in AAP A, could also be communicated. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
Appellants next contend that Browne does not teach the
"communication section operable to ... transmit the communication
information ... separately from transmitting the measurement data." App.
Br. 28-29. Appellants, however, fail to define, both in the claim and the
Specification, what "transmitting ... separately" means. The Examiner maps
the disputed "communication section" to Browne's mechanism that converts
the data to lower layer signals for transmission. Ans. 7-8. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Browne's serialization of data into bits for transmission
(i.e., O's and 1 's) "such that one data item follows another sequentially in the
message" reads on the disputed "transmitting ... separately." Id.; see also
Browne, page 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Independent Claim 15
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
15 for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1. 2 App. Br. 31-32.
2 To the extent Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 15 for the same reasons asserted with respect to
6
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
Appellants additionally contend the combination of Browne and AAP A does
not teach "a sensor which measures the health condition." App. Br. 32-33.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, that AAPA's disclosure
of a health device with a vital sensor for establishing measurement data
reads on the disputed claim language. Ans. 8. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Browne and AAP A teaches the "sensor which measures the
health condition," as recited in claim 15. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of this claim.
Independent Claim 29
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
29 for the same reasons asserted with respect to independent claims 1 and
15. App. Br. 34--35. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29 for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 15.
Remaining Claims 2-9, 17, 18, 22, 23, 28, and 30
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to remaining claims 2-9, 17, 18, 22, 23, 28, and 30.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 for the
reasons discussed above.
7
Appeal2013-008306
Application 11/515,012
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 15-23, 25, and 27-
30.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8