Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2021

2020005684 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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. 15/719,885 09/29/2017 John A. Biewer 18196-0311001 1161 26216 7590 12/02/2021 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (FRESENIUS) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER BOCAR, DONNA V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2021 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN A. BIEWER and GURPREET SINGH ___________________ Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 22 all pending claims. Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.); Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed July 29, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 5, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Action mailed February 10, 2020 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed January 2, 2019 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). The Appeal Brief identifies Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 2 We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a system and method for enabling connection of medical devices to a network. See Abstr. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, the sole independent claim, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A medical system, comprising: a medical device having an originating display, the medical device being located in a home of a user; a receiving display located in the home; a transmitted display casting system that wirelessly transmits a screen of the originating display that is received at the receiving display via a one-way wireless communication channel, wherein the transmitted display casting system includes a first wireless dongle coupled to the medical device that casts the screen of the originating display to a second wireless dongle coupled to the receiving display via the one-way wireless communication channel, wherein the first wireless dongle is securely paired with the second wireless dongle, wherein the first wireless dongle and the second wireless dongle are pre-configured, prior to coupling the first wireless dongle to the medical device, to operate with each other and the medical device, wherein the receiving display displays a duplicate screen of the screen of the originating display, and Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 3 wherein the transmitted display casting system prevents the receiving display from controlling or changing the originating display of the medical device; and a gateway device located in the home that facilitates the one-way wireless communication channel between the first wireless dongle and the second wireless dongle via a local area network, the gateway device being configured to transmit data to or receive data from the medical device, and the gateway device being configured to communicate with an external network to transmit data to or receive data from the external network, wherein the transmitted display casting system includes a communication pairing component, wherein the communication pairing component includes electronics and software distributed between the first wireless dongle and the second wireless dongle, and wherein the electronics and software establish the one- way communication channel between the first wireless dongle and the second wireless dongle via the gateway device. Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims App.). Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Bhatt US 2013/0132848 A1 May 23, 2013 Brands US 2015/0121466 A1 Apr. 30, 2015 Joshua US 2017/0004106 A1 Jan. 5, 2017 Dewitt US 2019/0079855 A1 Mar. 14, 2019 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 4 REJECTION4 AT ISSUE5 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Joshua, Dewitt, Brands, and Bhatt. Final Act. 4–11. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. We add the following primarily for emphasis. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. 5 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b). Ans. 7. Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 5 CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 11, AND 22: OBVIOUSNESS OVER JOSHUA, DEWITT, BRANDS, AND BHATT. Claim 1 recites, inter alia: “wherein the receiving display displays a duplicate screen of the screen of the originating display.” The Examiner finds Joshua generally teaches the claimed system, located in a home, wherein a screen of an originating display is wirelessly transmitted to a receiving screen. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds Joshua does not teach the receiving screen displaying a duplicate of the originating screen. Id. The Examiner finds Dewitt teaches a system wherein a transmitted display casting system, including a first wireless dongle coupled to an originating display, casts an image of the originating display to a second wireless dongle coupled to a receiving display. Id. (citing Dewitt ¶¶ 28, 33, 47, 72). Appellant contends Dewitt teaches a feature adjustment module 104 that is enabled to “mirror input between devices 102.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Dewitt ¶ 47). Appellant argues, “mirror[ing] input,” as taught by Dewitt, is not the same as duplicating a screen because the input discussed in Dewitt is a touch input, which Dewitt describes as “e.g., one or more taps, swipes, pinches, drags, keystrokes.” Id. (citing Dewitt ¶ 63). Appellant contends “[d]uplicating such an input cannot be equated with duplicating a screen.” Id. The Examiner re-iterates the finding that Dewitt teaches a feature adjustment module and instruction that is enabled to “mirror input between devices 102, or the like.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds Dewitt discloses: Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 6 In certain embodiments, instead of and/or in addition to executing a script, a testing module 302 may provide an interface allowing a user to provide input (e.g., one or more simulated user input events) and may mirror the provided input (e.g., touch input events) on one or more testing devices 102 (e.g., which may actually receive the provided input in independently executing applications on the different devices 102, as touch input events or the like, instead of simply mirroring a display). Id. (citing Dewitt ¶ 72). The Examiner interprets this teaching from Dewitt as providing the capability of providing input in addition to mirroring the display. Id. The Examiner further interprets Dewitt’s script as “instructions for displaying a duplicate screen of a screen of the originating display.” Id. Moreover, the Examiner surmises that in order to provide input, the displays must be mirrored “such that the input corresponds appropriately with the screens on the two displays.” Id. at 3–4. Appellant contends, however, Dewitt does not teach mirroring. Reply Br. 2. Rather, Dewitt discloses just the opposite, stating: “instead of simply mirroring a display.” Id. (quoting Dewitt ¶ 72). In agreement with Appellant, and contrary to the Examiner, we fail to find Dewitt discloses duplicating a first screen onto a second screen. We find the Examiner’s rejection to be speculative. Were we to sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to cure the deficiencies in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 22. Appeal 2020-005684 Application 15/719,885 7 DECISION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 11, 22 103 Joshua, Dewitt, Brands, Bhatt 1, 2, 4, 11, 22 REVERSED