Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01334/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01334-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis S. Fernandez
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ,

Appellant

______________________

2019-1334

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/385,054.

______________________

Decided: February 6, 2020

______________________

DENNIS S. FERNANDEZ, Fernandez & Associates, LLP, 

Atherton, CA, pro se. 

 MONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W.

KRAUSE, JOSEPH MATAL, AMY J. NELSON, MAUREEN 

DONOVAN QUELER. 

 ______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pro se appellant Dennis S. Fernandez appeals from a 

decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming an 

examiner’s rejection of Fernandez’s applied-for claims as 

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2020
2 IN RE: FERNANDEZ

obvious. Because substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s obviousness determination, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

I.

Inventor Fernandez filed U.S. Patent Application 

No. 11/385,054 (“the ’054 application”) with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office on March 20, 2006. 

The ’054 application is directed to implantable network-biosensors and software for monitoring and analyzing biological hosts. According to the ’054 application, biosensors 

and software were both known in the art but were not easily integrated or reconfigurable. The ’054 application aims

to overcome this difficulty by disclosing “an integrated biosensor-simulation system” that encompasses sensors with 

a software platform and that provides the user with a diagnosis or proposed therapy.

Figure 1(a), reproduced below, illustrates an implantable network biosensor.

J.A. 106.

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2020
IN RE: FERNANDEZ 3

Central to this appeal are the “simulation” and “reconfigurable” limitations of independent claim 11 of the ’054 

application. Claim 11 recites: 

11. Implantable network-biosensor comprising:

a sensor unit for receiving a multi-sensor signal 

from a biosensor platform for detecting a biological material of a host;

a controller comprising multi-levels of incorporations of computational and/or simulation 

data for processing a systems-biology platform for configuring said sensor unit and/or 

analyzing said multi-sensor signal; and

a wireless communication unit, whereby said 

multi-sensor signal and/or data generated by 

said controller could be communicated wirelessly with external sources, devices or services, from which a suggested diagnosis or 

therapy is accessible to patients or medical 

professionals;

wherein the suggested diagnosis or therapy is 

generated automatically by the controller 

running the systems-biology platform as a 

computer-automated multi-model simulation 

application that computationally models a diagnostic or therapeutic computer-modeling of 

the biological material or host automatically 

in response to the multi-sensor signal representing actually sensed stimuli to the biological material or host, whereby the systemsbiology platform automatically simulates to 

generate the diagnostic or therapeutic suggestion in response to the actually sensed multisensor signal stimuli using computationally 

modeled simulation of the biological material 

or host as a whole biological system using 

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 02/06/2020
4 IN RE: FERNANDEZ

multiple levels of simulation modeling; [i.e., 

the “simulation limitation”] 

wherein the sensor unit couples to the systemsbiology platform via a hardware-reconfigurable logical interconnect, thereby enabling signal switching of such interconnect that is 

logically multiplexed between the sensor unit 

and the systems-biology platform, such that 

the systems-biology platform provides electronic feedback automatically to reconfigure 

the hardware-reconfigurable logical interconnect according to the computationally modeled simulation of the biological material or 

host as a whole biological system using both 

multifunctional sensing by the sensor unit 

and multiple levels of simulation modeling by 

the systems-biology simulation unit [i.e., the 

“reconfiguration limitation”].

J.A. 2682-2683 (disputed limitations emphasized).

II.

The examiner rejected appellant’s claims 11-12, 15, 18, 

21, 32-33 and 35 as obvious over Arent1 in view of Petrella2, 

Parker3, Brown4, and Halperin5. Arent discloses an implantable medical device for real-time monitoring of a

host’s physiological parameters at multiple anatomical locations. The device can also be mounted externally on the 

1 U.S. Patent No. 6,358,202 BA. 

2 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 

2003/0184577 A1. 

3 U.S. Patent No. 6,997,882 B1.

4 U.S. Patent No. 7,167,818 B2 (“Brown ’818”) and 

U.S. Patent No. 7,877, 274 B2 (“Brown ’274”). Hereinafter, 

Brown ’818 and Brown ’274 will be referred to as “Brown.”

5 U.S. Patent No. 5,810,735.

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 02/06/2020
IN RE: FERNANDEZ 5

host. The examiner found, and no party disputes, that Arent discloses most of the limitations in claim 11. The only 

two limitations that Arent does not disclose are the simulation and reconfigurable limitations emphasized above.

The examiner found that Petrella, Parker, and Brown 

each disclose the simulation limitation. Petrella discloses 

a method of using simulation to analyze a prosthetic device. Parker discloses a device and method that uses simulation to monitor and analyze a host’s movements and 

physiological status. Brown discloses a system that monitors the physiological status of a host through monitoring 

certain parameters, such as blood glucose and blood pressure. The Brown system also simulates and predicts the 

effects of an action on a disease parameter.

The examiner found that Halperin discloses the reconfiguration limitation. Halperin discloses a system for longterm monitoring of a host’s physiological status through 

sensors and a monitoring apparatus. In a preferred embodiment, Halperin teaches that a sensor is implanted in 

the host and the data collected from the sensor can be used 

to “adaptively reconfigure or change the functioning of the 

implanted device.” J.A. 2839. The examiner found that a 

person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have 

been motivated to combine the five references with a reasonable expectation of success.

The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claim 

11 as obvious and adopted the findings and rationale provided by the examiner. Fernandez appeals the Board’s determination. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4) and 35 U.S.C. § 141. 

DISCUSSION

Fernandez challenges the Board’s obviousness rejection on three separate grounds. First, Fernandez challenges the Board’s findings as to the scope and content of 

Petrella. Second, Fernandez challenges the Board’s 

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 02/06/2020
6 IN RE: FERNANDEZ

motivation-to-combine finding by arguing that Halperin 

teaches away from the claimed invention. Third, Fernandez argues that the Board failed to articulate a motivation 

to combine the references. 

We review the Board’s factual determinations for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de novo. Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133, 1136 (Fed. 

Cir. 2019). Whether an invention would have been obvious 

is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings. 

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). Determinations about the scope and content of prior art, and 

whether an artisan would be motivated to modify prior art

with a reasonable expectation of success, are questions of 

fact. Id.

I.

Fernandez argues that the Board erred when it

adopted the examiner’s findings as to the scope and content 

of Petrella. Fernandez asserts that the Board should have 

engaged in its own analysis of Petrella and rendered its

own factual findings. We reject this argument. As this 

court has explained: 

It is commonplace in administrative law for a reviewing body within an agency to adopt a fact-finding body’s findings. On judicial review, the adopted 

material is treated as if it were part of the reviewing body’s opinion. This court does the same in the 

case of Board opinions adopting patent examiners’

findings.

In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 698 n. 2 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 

1367, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 

1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Fernandez also argues that in adopting the examiner’s 

findings, the Board erred by improperly shifting the burden to Fernandez to prove patentability. This is not true. 

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 02/06/2020
IN RE: FERNANDEZ 7

When examining patent claims, the examiner has the initial burden to set out a prima facie case that the claims at 

issue are obvious over the prior art. ACCO Brands Corp. 

v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The 

burden then shifts to the applicant to produce evidence or 

argument supporting patentability. Id. Here, the Board 

did not shift the burden to Fernandez but instead found 

that the examiner made out his prima facie case and that 

Fernandez failed to rebut it.

Fernandez next argues that even if the Board articulated sufficient factual findings, Petrella does not disclose 

the simulation limitation because it does not control a prosthetic device. The examiner found that Petrella discloses a 

method for controlling a prosthetic device. Fernandez did 

not challenge this factual finding before the Board and instead raised it for the first time in its opening brief in this 

appeal. Therefore, Fernandez waived this argument. In re 

Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]it is important that the applicant challenging a decision not be 

permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not presented to the Board. We have frequently declined to hear 

arguments that the applicant failed to present to the 

Board.”). 

II.

Fernandez argues that claim 11 is not obvious because 

Halperin teaches away from the claimed invention. He asserts that Halperin teaches “against a solely internal system-biology monitoring platform and require[s] an external 

monitoring system.” Appellant Br. 25 (emphasis in original). We reject this argument. Fernandez’s claimed invention is not limited to a solely internal system-biology 

monitoring platform. Claim 11 provides that the biosensor 

comprising a monitoring platform be “implantable.” It does 

not state that the biosensor must be implanted. Additionally, the specification of the ’054 application indicates that 

the “implantable network biosensor” can “also operate 

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 02/06/2020
8 IN RE: FERNANDEZ

without being implanted” and can function “through external contact or attachment thereto.” J.A. 33. Accordingly, 

Halperin’s external monitoring system does not conflict 

with or teach away from claim 11. 

III.

Lastly, Fernandez summarily argues that substantial 

evidence does not support the Board’s finding of a motivation to combine. We disagree. 

As an initial matter, Fernandez argues that the Board 

erred because it “rubber stamped” the examiner’s motivation-to-combine finding and did not present its own. As 

noted above, the Board may adopt the examiner’s factual 

findings and analysis as its own. In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 

at 698 n. 2. Here, the Board adopted the examiner’s motivation-to-combine finding. Because this finding was supported by substantial evidence, the Board committed no 

reversable error. 

No party disputes that Arent discloses all of claim 11’s 

limitations except for the simulation and reconfigurable 

limitations. Regarding the simulation limitation, the examiner found that Arent meets most of this limitation’s requirements, including a biosensor that interacts

physiologically with the host, collects data, and produces a 

therapeutic response such as the monitoring or controlling

of artificial organs and prosthetic devices and the dispensing of medicine. The examiner noted that what was missing from Arent was disclosure of computational modeling 

necessary to process Arent’s data. The examiner found

that Petrella, Parker, and Brown all disclose methods of 

computational modeling for controlling prosthetics, artificial organs, and monitoring of a host’s vitals. The examiner 

explained that a POSITA would have been motivated to 

combine the known data processing of computational modeling taught by these three references with Arent’s invention because, in order to perform the functions taught by 

Arent, “a required amount of data processing is necessary.”

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 02/06/2020
IN RE: FERNANDEZ 9

This is substantial evidence that supports the examiner’s 

motivation-to-combine finding for the simulation limitation. 

Regarding the reconfiguration limitation, the examiner 

found that Arent does not explicitly disclose a reconfigurable sensor. The examiner, however, found that Arent suggests this limitation because Arent discloses implantable 

devices capable of dispensing or delivering medicine. The 

examiner explained that Arent teaches the delivery or dispensing of medicine based on the host’s current conditions.

The examiner also found that a POSITA would have recognized that because a host’s conditions change, an implantable device that dispenses medicine would need to be 

reconfigured. As a result, the examiner found that a 

POSITA would have been motivated to combine Halperin’s 

reconfigurable and reprogrammable implantable sensor

with the implantable biosensor network system disclosed 

by the combination of Arent, Petrella, Parker, and Brown.

Taken together, this is substantial evidence that supports 

the examiner’s motivation-to-combine finding for the reconfiguration limitation. 

CONCLUSION 

We have considered Fernandez’s other arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. We affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-1334 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 02/06/2020