CareTaker Medical, LLC

Mailed: August 14, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re CareTaker Medical, LLC
————
Serial No. 90881906
————
Trevor P. Schmidt of Hutchison PLLC, for CareTaker Medical, LLC.
Candace W. Hays, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,
Loksye Lee Riso, Managing Attorney.
————
Notice of Correction
Before Larkin, Lavache, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
The Board mailed a final decision in this proceeding on August 7, 2026. The
decision is corrected as follows. In footnote 2, an incorrect citation to 15 U.S.C. §
1052(c) is replaced with a citation to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(a), (c). In footnote 3, the
parenthetical text in the citation to TMEP § 714.05(a)(1) is replaced with “indicating
that an acceptable amendment to the Supplemental Register can overcome and thus
moot a Section 2(e)(1) refusal,” and the last “and” at the end of the first sentence in
the second paragraph is deleted. On page 7, the parenthetical quote in the citation to
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 90881906
- 2 -
In re Clorox Co. is corrected to “[A]n application for Supplemental Registration of a
particular term is an admission of descriptiveness.” Lastly, in footnote 21, the citation
to “Id. at TSDR 7-13” is replaced with “Id. at 7-13.”
The final decision otherwise remains unchanged. The period for filing any appeal
of this opinion continues to run from the mailing date of the original decision. See
Trademark Rule 2.145(d)(1), 37 C.F.R. §2.145(d)(1).

Mailed: August 7, 2026
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
————
In re CareTaker Medical, LLC
————
Serial No. 90881906
————
Trevor P. Schmidt of Hutchison PLLC, for CareTaker Medical, LLC.
Candace W. Hays, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 110,1
Loksye Lee Riso, Managing Attorney.
————
Before Larkin, Lavache, and Bradley,
Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Lavache, Administrative Trademark Judge:
Applicant, CareTaker Medical, LLC, seeks registration on the Supplemental
Register of the proposed standard-character mark PULSE DECOMPOSITION
ANALYSIS for the following goods:
Patient monitoring sensors; medical devices, namely, patient monitors
and patient sensors for monitoring and measuring physiological
parameters; medical apparatus and instruments for wirelessly
monitoring physiological parameters; medical apparatus and
instruments for monitoring blood oxygen saturation, vital signs and
1 The application was reassigned from the original examining attorney to the above-named
examining attorney during prosecution. In this opinion, we refer to both examining attorneys
involved with the application as the Examining Attorney.
THIS OPINION IS NOT A
PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

Serial No. 90881906
- 2 -
respiratory events, and recorded software for recording, processing and
transmitting medical data, for use therewith, sold as a unit, in
International Class 10.2
Applicant originally sought registration on the Principal Register. However, the
Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of the proposed mark under
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), on the ground that it is merely
descriptive of Applicant’s identified goods. When the Examining Attorney issued a
final refusal on that ground, Applicant filed a request for reconsideration amending
the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register. The Examining
Attorney then issued a new nonfinal Office Action, refusing registration on the
Supplemental Register under Trademark Act Sections 23(c) and 45,
15 U.S.C. §§ 1091(c), 1127, on the ground that the mark is generic as applied to the
identified goods.3 Once the new refusal was made final, Applicant appealed and filed
2 Application Serial No. 90881906, filed August 13, 2021, seeking registration on the
Principal Register, based on an allegation of a bona fide intention to use the mark in
commerce, under Trademark Act Section 1(b), 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b). On June 2, 2023,
Applicant amended the application to allege use of the proposed mark in commerce claiming
April 2022 as both the date of first use anywhere and the date of first use in commerce. See
Trademark Act Sections 1(a) and 1(c), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(a), (c). On the same day, Applicant
amended the application to seek registration on the Supplemental Register.
3 December 24, 2023 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 2-6. While the new nonfinal Office
Action did not explicitly say so, the new refusal under Sections 23(c) and 45 effectively
replaced, and thus mooted, the initial Section 2(e)(1) refusal. See TRADEMARK MANUAL OF
EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 714.05(a)(i) (May 2026) (indicating that an acceptable amendment
to the Supplemental Register can overcome and thus moot a Section 2(e)(1) refusal).
Applicant and the Examining Attorney addressed only the issue of genericness in their briefs.
Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 8 TTABVUE 5; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 3.
The Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) and TTABVUE in this opinion refer
respectively to the downloadable pdf. version of the electronic application file and to entries
in the Board’s electronic docket. For TTABVUE citations, the number preceding the
TTABVUE designation is the docket entry number and any numbers following indicate the
relevant page numbers within the docket entry.

Serial No. 90881906
- 3 -
a request for reconsideration. The Examining Attorney denied the request, the appeal
resumed, and both Applicant and the Examining Attorney have filed briefs.4 For the
reasons explained below, we affirm the refusal to register the proposed mark.
I. Relevant Law
“Generic terms are common names that the relevant purchasing public
understands primarily as describing the genus of goods or services being sold.” In re
Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations
omitted). They are “by definition incapable of indicating source, are the antithesis of
trademarks, and can never attain trademark status.” In re Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner, & Smith, Inc., 828 F.2d 1567, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Accordingly, generic
terms are ineligible for registration on either the Principal Register or Supplemental
Register. See USPTO v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549, 551 (2020) (“A generic
name—the name of a class of products or services—is ineligible for federal trademark
registration.”); In re Jasmin Larian, LLC, No. 87522459, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 99, at
*44 (“Our finding that the proposed mark is generic is an absolute bar to its
registration on either the Principal or Supplemental Register.”).
Whether a proposed mark is generic rests on its primary significance to the
relevant public. In re Am. Fertility Soc’y, 188 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Magic
Wand Inc. v. RDB Inc., 940 F.2d 638, 640 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Making this determination
“involves a two-step inquiry: First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue?
Second, is the term sought to be registered . . . understood by the relevant public
4 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE.

Serial No. 90881906
- 4 -
primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l
Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 990 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Importantly, to find genericness, the evidence need not show that the term at issue
refers to a whole category of goods, i.e., the entire genus, because genericness may
also be found if the term refers to a part or subcategory of the claimed genus of goods
or a key aspect of them. See In re Cordua Rests., Inc., 823 F.3d 594, 605 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
A. What is the Genus of the Goods at Issue?
The first part of the genericness inquiry requires us to determine the genus of the
goods at issue. Marvin Ginn, 782 F.2d at 990. Generally, because the identification
of goods in an application defines the scope of rights that will be accorded the owner
of any resulting registration under Section 7(b) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1057(b), “a proper genericness inquiry focuses on the description of [goods
or] services set forth in the [application or] certificate of registration.” Cordua, 823
F.3d at 602 (quoting Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 640).
Here, both Applicant and the Examining Attorney agree that the relevant genus
is appropriately defined by the identification of goods:5
Patient monitoring sensors; medical devices, namely, patient monitors
and patient sensors for monitoring and measuring physiological
parameters; medical apparatus and instruments for wirelessly
monitoring physiological parameters; medical apparatus and
instruments for monitoring blood oxygen saturation, vital signs and
respiratory events, and recorded software for recording, processing and
transmitting medical data, for use therewith, sold as a unit.
5 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 6; Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 5.

Serial No. 90881906
- 5 -
Applicant goes a bit further, distilling the genus to “patient monitoring sensors” or
“patient monitors and patient sensors.”6 We find that the latter option, “patient
monitors and patient sensors,” adequately specifies the relevant genus for purposes
of our analysis. See Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 640.
B. Does the Relevant Public Understand PULSE DECOMPOSITION
ANALYSIS to Primarily Refer to the Genus of the Identified Goods?
Turning to the second part of the inquiry, we must initially define who the
relevant public is. As the Examining Attorney correctly notes, the relevant public
consists of the “consuming public for the identified goods.”7 See Magic Wand, 940 F.2d
at 641 (“[T]he relevant public for a genericness determination is the purchasing or
consuming public.”). According to the Examining Attorney, that means that the
relevant public here “comprises health and medical professionals, because the goods
consist of devices, apparatuses, and instruments for medical use.”8 Applicant
similarly states that “the relevant public is likely to be medical doctors, and
healthcare professionals who use Applicant’s patient monitoring sensors for the
delivery of patient care.”9 Based on the evidence of record discussed further below,
we agree.
Thus, the ultimate inquiry here is whether healthcare and medical professionals
understand PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS to refer to a class or category of
6 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 6.
7 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 5.
8 Id.
9 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 7.

Serial No. 90881906
- 6 -
“patient monitors and patient sensors,” or to a key aspect or subcategory of those
goods. Loglan Inst. Inc. v. Logical Language Grp., Inc., 962 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (quoting Magic Wand, 940 F.2d at 641).
Regarding that inquiry, “[e]vidence of the public’s understanding of the term may
be obtained from any competent source, such as purchaser testimony, consumer
surveys, listings in dictionaries, trade journals, newspapers and other publications.”
Merrill Lynch, 828 F.2d at 1570; see also Cordua, 823 F.3d at 599. We may also
consider Applicant’s own use of the term. See In re Empire Tech. Dev. LLC, No.
85876688, 2017 TTAB LEXIS 232, at *26-27, *64-65 (considering use of the relevant
phrase “by both Applicant and the public” in determining that the phrase was
generic). And when assessing what such evidence shows with respect to the public’s
understanding of the mark, we must consider the mark as a whole. See In re
Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, “[e]ven if each of the
constituent words in a combination mark is generic, the combination is not generic
unless the entire formulation does not add any meaning to the otherwise generic
mark.” Id.; see also Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay North Am., Inc., 786 F.3d
960, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Regardless of whether the mark is a compound term or a
phrase, the applicable test is the same and the Board must consider the record
evidence of the public’s understanding of the mark as a whole.” (citing Am. Fertility
Soc’y, 188 F.3d at 1348-49)).

Serial No. 90881906
- 7 -
Here, Applicant’s amendment of the application to the Supplemental Register10 is
an admission by Applicant that, as a whole, PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS
is, at a minimum, not inherently distinctive as applied to the identified goods. See,
e.g., In re Clorox Co., 578 F.2d 305, 308 (CCPA 1978) (“[A]n application for
Supplemental Registration of a particular term is an admission of descriptiveness.”).
And Applicant expressly concedes that the proposed mark is at least merely
descriptive, stating that it “serves to identify Applicant’s particular type of patient
monitoring sensors or at most to describe a function or application of Applicant’s
patient monitoring sensors.”11 But, because Applicant seeks registration on the
Supplemental Register, we must go further to assess whether PULSE
DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS, as a whole, is capable of serving as a trademark for
the goods. See Trademark Act Section 23(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1091(c) (indicating that “[f]or
the purposes of registration on the supplemental register . . . [a] mark must be capable
of distinguishing the applicant’s goods or services”).
On that point, the Examining Attorney argues that the evidence of record shows
that PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS is generic, and thus is incapable of
serving as a trademark for Applicant’s goods, because “the relevant public would
understand this designation to refer primarily to the genus of goods [in that] it
identifies the key aspect or feature of [the goods].”12 According to the Examining
10 See June 2, 2023 Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 1.
11 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 7.
12 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 12.

Serial No. 90881906
- 8 -
Attorney, that key aspect or feature is the measurement of blood pressure through a
particular method of analyzing a patient’s pulse.13 In support, the Examining
Attorney points to evidence establishing that the phrase “pulse decomposition
analysis” refers to a method for analyzing a patient’s pulse waves to measure, inter
alia, blood pressure and other vascular characteristics.
For example:14
• An article from the SPIE Digital Library (spiedigitallibrary.org), titled
“Blood Pressure Estimation using Sech Functions Pulse
Decomposition,” explains that “[p]ulse decomposition analysis
(PDA) is a non-invasive, cuffless, method to measure pulse transit
time (PTT), which correlates with blood pressure.”15
• An article from the Applied Sciences journal, available at mdpi.com,
states that “Pulse Decomposition Analysis (PDA) is a non-invasive
method of measuring blood pressure without a cuff,” and explains that
“[t]he pulse in PDA is a wave resulting from blood pressure and
volume changes in the peripheral vasculature, and associated with
one heartbeat.” According to the article, “[t]he pulse wave is usually
measured non-invasively using a device called a
photoplethysmograph,” which “is an optical device that measures light
transmission, typically on a finger or earlobe.”16
• A blog post on the website for Finapres Medical Systems
(finapres.com) discusses “different methods for continuous non-
invasive blood pressure measurement” and states that “[p]ulse
decomposition analysis (PDA) uses a pulse contour analysis
13 See id. at 5-6.
14 In all the examples that follow, the emphasis on certain words and phrases is ours. We are
not considering any of the cited examples for the truth of the statements they contain, but
instead as evidence of the nature of the use of “pulse decomposition analysis” and thus how
the relevant consumers of Applicant’s goods may perceive that phrase. See Merrill Lynch,
828 F.2d at 1570; Cordua, 823 F.3d at 599.
15 March 2, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 26.
16 Id. at 35.

Serial No. 90881906
- 9 -
approach to quantify hemodynamic parameters such as blood pressure
and arterial tone changes.”17
• An article published in the “2020 IEEE International Symposium on
Circuits and Systems,” which is available on the IEEE Xplore website
(ieeexplore.ieee.org), proposes a “weighted pulse decomposition
analysis . . . for cuffless blood pressure assessment.” The article
explains that “decomposition of the PPG pulse, called pulse
decomposition analysis, is an alternative to realize hemodynamic
state affected by aging and vessel stiffness and to estimate [blood
pressure].”18
• An article originally published in the Computers in Biology and
Medicine journal and available on the ScienceDirect website
(sciencedirect.com) states that “[a]nalysis of pulse waveform is a low
cost, non-invasive method for obtaining vital information related to
the conditions of the cardiovascular system,” notes that “[i]n recent
years different Pulse Decomposition Analysis (PDA) methods have
been applied to disclose the pathological mechanisms of the pulse
waveform,” and explains that “[a]ll these methods decompose single-
period pulse waveform into a constant number . . . of individual
waves.”19
• An article in the Journal of Hypertension, available at
journals.lww.com, states that “[p]ulse decomposition analysis of
photoplethysmography (PPG) signals can be used to estimate blood
pressures.”20
• The PubMed website (pubmed.ncbi.nim.nih.gov), maintained by the
National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National
Library of Medicine, includes an article with the title “Respiratory
Rate Derived from Pulse Photoplethysmographic Signal by Pulse
Decomposition Analysis,” explaining how a patient’s respiratory
rate may be determined by using a “pulse decomposition analysis
technique” to measure “morphological features of the PPG pulse that
are known to be modulated by respiration.” The article states that
“[p]ulse decomposition analysis (PDA) aims to improve the
robustness of different morphological measurements of the PPG
17 December 31, 2024 Subsequent Final Office Action at TSDR 16-29.
18 March 2, 2023 Final Office Action at TSDR 14-15.
19 Id. at 18-22.
20 Id. at 40-41.

Serial No. 90881906
- 10 -
pulse,” and “consists of modeling the PPG pulse as a superposition of
different waves under the hypothesis . . . that it is formed by a main
wave superposed with several reflective waves.”21
• A chapter from The Handbook of Cuffless Blood Pressure Monitoring,
with the title “Pulse Decomposition Analysis Techniques,” explains
that “[p]ulse decomposition analysis (PDA) uses a pulse contour
analysis approach to quantify hemodynamic parameters such as blood
pressure and arterial tone changes,” “based on the concept that two
central reflection sites are responsible for the shape of the pressure
pulse envelope of the upper body.”22
The Examining Attorney has also provided evidence regarding the aspects
and features of Applicant’s identified goods. For instance:
• A patent, which Applicant claims to own,23 covers “[a]rterial pulse
decomposition analysis for vital signs determination” and claims a
“method of determining physiological life signs using a non-invasive
plethysmograph having a heartbeat pulse sensor and a memory
component . . . bringing a heartbeat pulse sensor . . . into contact with
the surface of a patient’s skin at point proximate [to] an artery . . .
[and] measuring . . . at least one of arterial blood vessel displacement
and blood pressure changes.” The patent notes that “[w]ith regard to
the breathing rate . . . pulse decomposition analysis is particularly
suitable” because certain pulse intervals “are particularly susceptible
to the blood pressure-modulating effects of respiration.” The patent
also refers to a method of a claim by which “breathing rate is
determined by pulse decomposition analysis.”24
• The same above-referenced chapter from The Handbook of Cuffless
Blood Pressure Monitoring also refers to Applicant’s “CareTaker
physiological monitor,” noting that it “utilizes PDA as its operational
principle.”25
• An excerpt from Applicant’s Caretaker Medical website
(caretakermedical.net) advertises a “low-pressure, disposable finger
21 Id. at 7-13.
22 May 24, 2022 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 6.
23 See Applicant’s Appeal Brief, 8 TTABVUE 8.
24 May 24, 2022 Nonfinal Office Action at TSDR 8-11.
25 Id. at 6.

Serial No. 90881906
- 11 -
sensor [that] measures continuous pulse pressure waveforms for
PDATM Algorithm Processing,” as well as “Pulse Decomposition
Analysis TechnologyTM (PDA)TM” that “derives continuous
hemodynamic parameters by analysing reflective pulsewave
morphology within the arterial tree.”26
• Another excerpt from Applicant’s website indicates that “Pulse
Decomposition Analysis (PDA) . . . is a physiological model that:
Analyzes the pulse pressure waveform at 500 times per second[;]
Isolates the individual central aortic pulses that give rise to the
observed pulse shape[;] Reads central aortic measurements[,]
therefore eliminating the effects of hydrostatic pressure[;] [and]
Tracks vascular tone, central aortic pressure and advanced
hemodynamics continuously.”27
• An article available on Applicant’s website explains that Applicant’s
VitalStream physiological monitor measures “blood pressure,
hemodynamics, heart rate and respiration” based on “the Pulse
Decomposition Analysis (PDA) algorithm that analyzes the
components of the arterial pressure envelope.”28
• A user manual for Applicant’s “Caretaker Platform” states that
Applicant’s CT5 device “uses a proprietary algorithm called Pulse
Decomposition Analysis to calculate . . . blood pressure readings.”29
Based on the record, including Applicant’s own materials, we find that PULSE
DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS, as a whole, has a specific meaning in the context of
patient monitors and patient sensors. See, e.g., In re Gould Paper Corp., 834 F.2d
1017, 1018-19 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (affirming the Board’s finding that SCREENWIPE is
generic based, in part, on applicant’s own generic use of the proposed mark); Empire
Tech., 2017 TTAB LEXIS 232, at *64-65 (finding COFFEE FLOUR generic based on
26 Id. at 12.
27 November 4, 2025 Denial of Request for Reconsideration at TSDR 16.
28 Id. at 5, 16.
29 Id. at 12, 14.

Serial No. 90881906
- 12 -
use of the phrase by “both Applicant and the public”). In simpler terms, the phrase
refers to a way of measuring blood pressure and other vascular characteristics based
on a patient’s pulse. The evidence, which includes technical articles and other
materials directed to healthcare and medical professionals who may use sensors and
monitors for measuring blood pressure, establishes that pulse decomposition analysis
is utilized by some such sensors and monitors. Thus, as to those sensors and monitors,
healthcare and medical professionals would recognize PULSE DECOMPOSITION
ANALYSIS not as an indicator of source for the identified goods, but as identifier of
a key aspect or subcategory of them.
We therefore reject Applicant’s assertions that the proposed mark cannot be
deemed generic because “[t]here is no evidence of record that shows ‘pulse
decomposition analysis’ being used as the name of a patient sensor or medical device,
and thus “[t]he record does not show that one could go to a medical supply store and
ask to purchase a ‘pulse decomposition analysis’ or go to a hospital and ask that a
‘pulse decomposition analysis’ be brought into the room.”30 Nor are we persuaded by
Applicant’s arguments that PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS cannot be
generic because it refers only to “the method applied by Applicant”31 or “a function
that can be applied to data collected by a sensor.”32
30 Applicant’s Brief, 8 TTABVUE 7.
31 Id. at 10.
32 Id. at 11.

Serial No. 90881906
- 13 -
Applicant’s arguments rely on an unduly narrow application of the genericness
standard. See In re PT Medisafe Techs., 134 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (noting
that statutory genericness language “must be read expansively to encompass
anything that has the potential but fails to serve as an indicator of source” (quoting
Sunrise Jewelry Mfg. Corp. v. Fred S.A., 175 F.3d 1322, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). As
the Examining Attorney points out, “[a]ny term that the relevant public understands
to refer to a particular genus of goods and/or services is generic.”33 See In re
1800Mattress.com IP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A]ny term that
the relevant public understands to refer to the genus of ‘online retail store services in
the field of mattresses, beds, and bedding” is generic.’). And, as already mentioned,
that would include a term that identifies a key aspect or subcategory of the relevant
genus. See Cordua, 823 at 605; In re Twenty-Two Desserts, LLC, No. 86586833, 2019
TTAB LEXIS 269, at *4 (“Any term that the relevant public uses or understands to
refer to the genus of goods, or a key aspect or subcategory of the genus, is generic.”).
Thus, Applicant’s arguments that the proposed mark identifies a method or function
by which the sensors and monitors measure blood pressure are unavailing, because
the evidence shows that that method or function is a key aspect of such goods and
identifies a type of such goods. Therefore, returning to Applicant’s examples, we find
it is more than plausible that a healthcare professional would use the phrase PULSE
DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS in a medical supply store or hospital to identify the
33 Examining Attorney’s Brief, 10 TTABVUE 13.

Serial No. 90881906
- 14 -
subcategory or type of patient monitor or sensor the healthcare professional is
seeking.
We are also unpersuaded by Applicant’s argument that the evidence of record
“include[s] multiple examples” of use of the proposed mark by Applicant or otherwise
in connection with Applicant’s goods.34 We interpret this argument as suggesting that
PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS cannot be generic because it is used only by
Applicant, or only in connection with Applicant’s goods. However, while evidence that
a term is used by competitors, if it exists, may be relevant to a genericness analysis,
it is not required where, as here, other evidence shows that consumers will
understand the term to refer to the genus. Gould Paper, 834 F.2d at 1018-19
(affirming the Board’s genericness finding despite the absence of evidence of third-
party use of the relevant term); Empire Tech., 2017 TTAB LEXIS 232, at *62-63
(“Applicant's current status as the only user of ‘coffee flour’ ‘does not justify
registration if the only significance conveyed by the term is that of the category of
goods.” (quoting In re Greenliant Sys., Ltd., No. 78724139, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 416, at
*15)); cf. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111, 122
(2004) (noting “the undesirability of allowing anyone to obtain a complete monopoly
on use of a descriptive term simply by grabbing it first.”).
II. Conclusion
We conclude that PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS, as a whole, is
generic because the evidence establishes that the relevant purchasers of patient
34 Id. at 8-10.

Serial No. 90881906
- 15 -
monitors and patient sensors would readily understand the term to refer to a key
aspect, subcategory, or type of such goods, namely, patient monitors and sensors that
use a particular non-invasive method of measuring blood pressure and other vascular
characteristics by analyzing the patient’s pulse. See, e.g., Royal Crown Co. v. Coca-
Cola Co., 892 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[I]f the public understands ZERO
when used in combination with a designated beverage name to refer to a sub-group
or type of beverage that carries specific characteristics, that would be enough to
render the term generic.”); In re Cent. Sprinkler Co., No. 74505190, 1998 TTAB
LEXIS 386, at *14 (“[B]ecause the term ATTIC directly names the most important or
central aspect or purpose of applicant’s goods, that is, that the sprinklers are used in
attics, this term is generic . . . .”); cf. In re A La Vieille Russie Inc., No. 75609153, 2001
TTAB LEXIS 541, at *14 (finding RUSSIANART generic for particular type of art
and thus also generic for dealership services involving that art).
And, because PULSE DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS identifies a key aspect,
subcategory, or type of patient monitors and patient sensors, the term should remain
“freely available for use by competitors” who offer the same type of goods. Cent.
Sprinkler Co., 1998 TTAB LEXIS 386, at *14; see also In re Trek 2000 Int’l Ltd., No.
77099785, 2010 TTAB LEXIS 425 (“The protection of the public interest includes
ensuring that sellers who must use a particular term to compete effectively can do
so.”) (pinpoint citation unavailable).

Serial No. 90881906
- 16 -
Decision: We affirm the refusal to register Applicant’s proposed mark PULSE
DECOMPOSITION ANALYSIS on the Supplemental Register under Trademark Act
Sections 23(c) and 45 because it is generic as applied to the identified goods.