Mequ ApS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2021002674 (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.
15/643,602 07/07/2017 Ulrik Krogh Andersen 42792-6103 4482
57449 7590 12/02/2021
SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN, PA
c/o PETER NIEVES
1000 ELM STREET
MANCHESTER, NH 03105-3701
EXAMINER
CARPENTER, WILLIAM R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3783
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):
ipadm@sheehan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ULRIK KROGH ANDERSEN
Appeal 2021-002674
Application 15/643,602
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PLENZLER, 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 1–9 and 12.2 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 MEQU A/S.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as including allowable subject matter, but
depending from a rejected claim. Claims 13 and 14 are allowable. Final
Act. 15.
Appeal 2021-002674
Application 15/643,602

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to an infusion fluid warmer. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An infusion fluid warmer comprising:
a casing shell having an upper wall structure and an
opposing lower wall structure;
a fluid channel disposed within and extending through the
casing shell;
fluid inlet and outlet ports coupled to opposite ends of the
fluid channel to allow a flow of infusion fluid through the casing
shell;
a housing shell comprising a plate shaped upper wall
structure and an opposing plate shaped lower wall structure
disposed within the casing shell, the housing shell formed of a
thermally conducting and electrically insulating material;
an electrical resistor having a resistance, wherein the
electrical resistor is bonded to and thermally coupled to the
housing shell;
an aluminum heat exchanger thermally coupled to and
sandwiched between the plate shaped upper wall structure and
the opposing plate shaped lower wall structure;
wherein the fluid channel extends through the aluminum
heat exchanger such that heat energy is transferred to the infusion
fluid by direct physical contact with the aluminum heat
exchanger,
wherein the electrical resistor acts as a first heating
element delivering heat to warm the infusion fluid in the fluid
channel and acts as a temperature sensor sensing a temperature
of the infusion fluid in the fluid channel; and
a controller circuit operatively coupled to the electrical
resistor,
wherein the controller circuit is configured to control an
amount of power being delivered by the electrical resistor into
Appeal 2021-002674
Application 15/643,602

3
the infusion fluid, based on a desired or target temperature of the
infusion fluid and a temperature of the infusion fluid as sensed
by the electrical resistor.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ford US 5,381,510 Jan. 10, 1995
Quinn US 6,036,654 Mar. 14, 2000
Cassidy 2 US 6,175,688 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Manginell US 6,666,907 B1 Dec. 23, 2003
Cassidy US 2005/0008354 A1 Jan. 13, 2005
Newell US 2014/0072288 A1 Mar. 13, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cassidy, Manginell, Cassidy 2, and Quinn.3
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cassidy, Manginell, Cassidy 2, Quinn, and Ford.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Cassidy, Manginell, Cassidy 2, Quinn, and Newell.
OPINION
The Examiner’s rejections require a modification to Cassidy’s
teachings that involves “replac[ing] . . . the current discrete temperature
sensors [in Cassidy] or . . . [including] an additional sensor arrangement to
provide additional data points for the control algorithm by monitoring the
operational heating of the resistor itself.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner

3 The rejection lists the claims as “optionally” rejected over Quinn, and
claim 12 is listed in the rejection in the Answer. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3.
Appeal 2021-002674
Application 15/643,602

4
reasons that such modifications “would have been obvious to try” as “a
simple substitution of suitable equivalents” or to provide the benefit of “an
additional data point for the control algorithm of Cassidy.” Id.
One of the main issues in dispute is whether the proposed
modification would have been reasonable. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4–12.
Appellant contends, for example, that there is no reason to replace the
multiple sensors in Cassidy, and that such a modification would actually be
detrimental to Cassidy. See id. at 9 (“the modified heater would not have
been able to provide all the required data readings that Cassidy’s controller
. . . needs in order to provide the indicated control”). Appellant further
contends that “there would have been no reason to collect that [additional]
data” for the “additional data point” alternative proposed by the Examiner.
Id.
Appellant has the better position. Consistent with Appellant’s
contentions, Cassidy’s system and control scheme rely on a specific
arrangement of multiple temperature sensors. See Cassidy ¶¶ 43–44, 62.
Cassidy’s control scheme relies on evaluation of the various temperature
sensor outputs relative to temperature limits to determine proper operation of
its fluid warming device. Id. at ¶¶ 62–67.
The Examiner’s characterization of the proposed modification as
“obvious to try” as “a simple substitution” is conclusory and insufficient to
support the proposed modification. Rather, the modification proposed is a
significant change to Cassidy’s system and would involve more than just
replacing one known sensor with another. The Examiner’s reliance on
Cassidy’s disclosure that other suitable temperature sensors may be used
Appeal 2021-002674
Application 15/643,602

5
does not cure this deficiency. See Final Act. 6. The substitution would
eliminate some of the sensor outputs.
As for the “additional data point” rationale, we also agree that the
Examiner fails to establish this reasoning as sufficient basis for the proposed
modification. As Appellant notes, the Examiner fails to clearly articulate
why one skilled in the art would have seen this “additional data point” as
beneficial to Cassidy’s system.
Overall, the basis for the proposed modification lacks rational
underpinning. For at least the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2021-002674
Application 15/643,602

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 12
103 Cassidy,
Manginell,
Cassidy 2, Quinn
1, 2, 4, 5, 6,
7, 9, 12
3 103 Cassidy,
Manginell,
Cassidy 2, Quinn,
Ford
3
8 103 Cassidy,
Manginell,
Cassidy 2, Quinn,
Newell
8
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 12

REVERSED