null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

14234454 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
14/234,454 01/23/2014 Vincent Jeanne 2011P00876WOUS 2203
24737 7590 12/02/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
KWON, YONG JOON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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 VINCENT JEANNE, MAARTEN PETER BODLAENDER, and
WILLEM VERKRUIJSSE
Appeal 2019-000985
Application 14/234,454
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE DANIEL N. FISHMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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 2019-000985
Application 14/234,454

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “obtaining and processing measurement
readings including at least a component representative of a physical
phenomenon in a living being.” Spec. 1:2–4. Claims 1–3 and 5–23 are
pending; claims 1, 13, 14, and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 19–26.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A device for obtaining and processing measurement
readings including at least a component representative of a
physical phenomenon in a living being, comprising:
a sensor configured to obtain measurement readings from
at least one body part of a living being from a distance having at
least a component representative of the physical phenomenon in
the living being;
at least one processor programmed to:
identify the at least one body part of the living being from
the obtained measurement readings;
extract at least one first signal from the measurement
readings representing at least one component representative of
the physical phenomenon;
obtain at least one calibration curve corresponding to the
at least one identified body part, the at least one calibration curve
including calibration values corresponding to first signal values
of the at least one first signal;
adjust the at least one first signal by adjusting the first
signal values of the at least one first signal to correspond with the
corresponding calibration values of the at least one calibration
curve; and
generate at least one output signal representing the
physical phenomenon of the living being by processing the
calibration curve and the adjusted at least one first signal with
the adjusted first signal values.
Appeal 2019-000985
Application 14/234,454

3
References and Rejections2
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Campbell
De Haan
US 2008/0221410 A1
US 2012/0195473 A1
Sept. 11, 2008
Aug. 2, 2012

Claims 1–3 and 5–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Haan in view of Campbell. Final Act. 6.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1,
as “one of skill in the art would not combine the calibration operations of
Campbell to the motion suppression operations of De Haan to arrive at the
subject matter of the present claims.” Appeal Br. 9.
We find the Examiner’s rejection is in error. In rejecting independent
claim 1, the Examiner relies on the teachings of both Campbell and De
Haan. See Final Act. 6–8. As correctly noted by Appellant, however, the
Examiner provides “simply no motivation or teaching” in support of the
proposed combination. Reply Br. 4. At most, the Examiner finds both
references “are directed to the same field as each other and also to the
Applicant’s invention.” Ans. 5. The Examiner’s broad characterization of
the references as “both falling within the same alleged field . . . , without
more, is not enough . . . to meet [the] burden of presenting a sufficient

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. See Advisory Action, mailed April 17, 2018.
Appeal 2019-000985
Application 14/234,454

4
rationale to support an obviousness conclusion.” Securus Techs., Inc. v.
Glob. Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Here, the Examiner does not provide more than a statement regarding
De Haan and Campbell’s field of use, as the rejection lacks any explanation
of why or how one of ordinary skill would combine the references. See Ans.
3–6. Rather, the rejection merely maps each limitation to a teaching of one
of the cited references, separately. See Final Act. 6–8. Such analysis is
insufficient to support a finding of obviousness; as such, we find the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“A patent composed of several elements is
not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was,
independently, known in the prior art.”).
CONCLUSION
We find the Examiner has not properly supported the obviousness
rejection of claim 1. See MPEP§ 2143 (Rejections under obviousness have a
“requirement for explanation.”). The Examiner similarly fails to provide an
explanation in the obviousness rejection of the remaining claims. See Final
Act. 6–13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1–3 and 5–23.

Appeal 2019-000985
Application 14/234,454

5
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–3 and 5–
23
103 De Haan, Campbell 1–3 and 5–
23

REVERSED