KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020000324 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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.
14/192,905 02/28/2014 Erik BRESCH 2012P01364US02 7479
24737 7590 06/29/2021
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK BRESCH, JENS MUEHLSTEFF, ROLF NEUMANN,
MUKUL JULIUS ROCQUE, and WILLEM VERKRUIJSSE
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–18, and 20–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “[s]ystem and method for determining
vital sign information.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for determining vital sign information of
a subject comprising:
an illumination device configured to illuminate the
subject with radiation of a first intensity level during a first
phase,
a detection device configured to receive radiation
reflected from the subject during the first phase,
a processing unit configured to locate a region of interest
from the reflected radiation in the first phase,
a control unit configured to control said illumination
device to locally illuminate, in a second phase, only the located
region of interest with radiation of a second intensity level
greater than the first intensity level such that in the second
phase, reflected radiation includes vital sign information, and
an analysis unit configured to determine vital sign
information of the subject from the radiation reflected from said
region of interest detected in said second phase.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Schuler US 2009/0226071 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Colbaugh US 2013/0053929 A1 Feb. 28, 2013
Jeanne US 2013/0226007 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Kurzenberger US 2013/0296716 A1 Nov. 7, 2013

Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 10, 16–18, 21, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schuler, Jeanne, and Colbaugh. Final Act.
4–15.
Claims 7–9, 11–15, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Schuler, Jeanne, Colbaugh, and Kurzenberger. Final
Act. 15–22.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5, 10, 16–18, 21, and 22 over
Schuler, Jeanne, and Colbaugh
The Examiner finds Schuler, Jeanne, and Colbaugh teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5–8; see also Ans. 20–21. In particular, the
Examiner finds Colbaugh’s illumination of the eyelid of a subject teaches
“to locally illuminate, in a second phase, only the located region of interest
with radiation of a second intensity level greater than the first intensity
level” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7 (citing Colbaugh Figs. 6, 9, ¶¶ 29–
34, 47); see also Colbaugh ¶¶ 30 (“[P]rovide electromagnetic radiation
having a substantially uniform distribution onto the eyelid of the subject.”),
47 (“[T]he second light 60 may be increased to an intensity greater [than]
(even multiple times [greater than]) the eyelid attenuation corrected ratio of
the first light’s 58 intensity.”).
The Examiner reasons,
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine
the teachings of Schuler and Jeanne with those of Jay [sic]
because Jay [sic] teaches, in Fig. 9, the perception of
electromagnetic radiation received by the subject during the light
therapy plan of Fig. 8 (See, for example, Figs. 8 and 9, paragraph
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
4
[0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Schuler and Jeanne with those of Colbaugh.
Final Act. 8.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i.
[N]othing about this suggests that the reflected radiation from the
area illuminated by Colbaugh’s second lights 60 would include
vital sign information. Simply increasing a light’s intensity level
(as in Colbaugh) does not show applying an increased intensity
level to an area such that reflected radiation includes vital sign
information (as in claim 1).
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
ii. “[T]he cited passages of Colbaugh do not fairly suggest to
locally illuminate, in a second phase, only the located region of interest.”
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
In response, the Examiner explains Colbaugh “us[es] a technique that
may affect sleep cycle adjustment due to cone-receptor response in the eye
(i.e., ‘vital sign information’).” Ans. 20. The Examiner further explains the
combined teachings of the references teach all limitations of claim 1. Ans.
20–21.
We review the appealed rejections 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).
In the Background section of the Specification, Appellant discloses
“[o]ne major problem encountered in image-based (e.g.[,] camera-based)
vital signs monitoring occurs when no dominant light is present in the
environment.” Spec. 1:12–13. Appellant’s Specification further discloses
“[a]nother challenging scenario is measuring vital sign information in
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
5
darkness or in a low-light condition.” Spec. 2:16–17. Appellant’s
Specification further discloses turning on illumination for each measurement
“can disrupt the patient’s or other patients’ sleep at night.” Spec. 2:21.
Claim 1 provides “a control unit configured to control said
illumination device to locally illuminate, in a second phase, only the located
region of interest with radiation of a second intensity level greater than the
first intensity level such that in the second phase, reflected radiation includes
vital sign information” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). This same concept—
local illumination in a second phase with radiation of an increased intensity
in a system for determining vital sign information of a subject—is not in the
references cited by the Examiner.
The Examiner acknowledges that Schuler and Jeanne are deficient.
See Final Act. 7 (“Schuler and Jeanne do not explicitly teach to locally
illuminate, in a second phase, only the located region of interest with
radiation of a second level greater than the first intensity level.”).
Schuler is directed to “USING VISIBLE LIGHT IMAGES TO
DETERMINE A HEART RATE” (Schuler, Title) and discloses “[b]y one
approach, these visible light images can comprise images that are captured
by use of a cellular telephone camera” (Schuler, Abstract). Schuler does not
teach or suggest local illumination in a second phase with radiation of an
increased intensity.
Jeanne is directed to “CONVERTING AN INPUT SIGNAL INTO
AN OUTPUT SIGNAL” (Jeanne, Title) and discloses “an input signal (24)
comprising physiological information (54) representative of at least one at
least partially periodic vital signal (18)” (Jeanne, Abstract). Jeanne does not
teach or suggest local illumination in a second phase with radiation of an
increased intensity.
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
6
We determine Colbaugh does not remedy this deficiency of Schuler
and Jeanne.
Colbaugh discloses “provide electromagnetic radiation having a
substantially uniform distribution onto the eyelid of the subject.” Colbaugh ¶
30. Colbaugh further discloses “the second light 60 may be increased to an
intensity greater [than] (even multiple times [greater than]) the eyelid
attenuation corrected ratio of the first light’s 58 intensity.” Colbaugh ¶ 47.
To the extent Colbaugh teaches illumination of the eyelid of the
subject in a second phase, Colbaugh is not doing this in a system for
determining vital sign information of a subject. See Colbaugh, Title
(“SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING LIGHT THERAPY
TO A SUBJECT USING TWO OR MORE WAVELENGTH BANDS
OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION.”). Thus, we determine the
Examiner’s reasoning to combine the teachings of Colbaugh with Schuler
and Jeanne lacks a rational underpinning. The Examiner explains that
Colbaugh teaches “the perception of electromagnetic radiation received by
the subject during the light therapy plan” (Final Act. 8) and “sleep cycle
adjustment due to cone-receptor response in the eye” (Ans. 20); however, we
do not agree that light therapy plans and cone-receptor response are related
to determining vital sign information of a subject. Thus, we determine that
the claimed concept—local illumination in a second phase with radiation of
an increased intensity in a system for determining vital sign information of a
subject—is not taught by the references cited by the Examiner.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5 and 10,
which depend from claim 1.
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
7
Independent claim 16 recites “controlling said illumination to locally
illuminate, in a second phase, the located region of interest with radiation of
a second intensity level greater than the first intensity level thereby allowing
determination of vital sign information.”
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, which
depends from claim 16.
Independent claim 18 recites “control said light to locally illuminate
only the located region of interest, in a second phase, with light of a different
frequency than in the first phase, and determine vital sign information of the
subject from the light reflected from said region of interest detected in said
second phase.” We recognize that claim 18 recites a different frequency,
rather than a different intensity, but this does not change the essence of our
analysis.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 22,
which depend from claim 18.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7–9, 11–15, and 20 over Schuler,
Jeanne, Colbaugh, and Kurzenberger
The Examiner does not find Kurzenberger cures the deficiency of
Schuler, Jeanne, and Colbaugh. See Final Act. 15–22.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7–9,
11–15, and 20.
Appeal 2020-000324
Application 14/192,905
8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–18, and 20–22 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10, 16–
18, 21, 22
103(a) Schuler, Jeanne,
Colbaugh
1–5, 10, 16–
18, 21, 22
7–9, 11–15,
20
103(a) Schuler, Jeanne,
Colbaugh,
Kurzenberger
7–9, 11–15,
20
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–18,
20–22
REVERSED