Ex Parte Lam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2014

11535441 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/535,441 09/26/2006 Duc Lam 1362001-2043 7561
79292 7590 09/24/2014
Boston Scientific Corporation
c/o Lowe Graham Jones
701 Fifth Avenue
Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98104
EXAMINER
IP, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3777
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DUC LAM,
SHASHIDHAR SATHYANARAYANA, and TAT-JIN TEO1
__________

Appeal 2012-004547
Application 11/535,441
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
imaging system and method. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 14-16, 18, 19, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, and 30 are
pending and on appeal (App. Br. 5). Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows (emphasis added):

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Boston Scientific
Corporation (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-004547
Application 11/535,441

2
1. A medical imaging system comprising:
an imaging catheter having proximal and distal sections;
an imaging device coupled to the distal section of the imaging
catheter, said imaging device configured to rotate at a uniform angular
velocity, the imaging device comprising first and second imaging
transducers configured to emit energy pulses; and
a computer-usable medium, electrically coupled to the imaging
device, having a sequence of instructions which, when executed by a
processor, causes said processor to execute a process including generating a
plurality of vectors, for each of the first and second imaging transducers, as
the imaging device rotates to form an image, estimating an instantaneous
angular velocity of the imaging device as the imaging device rotates by
comparing at least one vector of the plurality of vectors generated by the
first imaging transducer with at least one vector of the plurality of vectors
generated by the second imaging transducer, remapping the plurality of
vectors whose estimated instantaneous angular velocity differs from the
uniform angular velocity, and generating an image using the remapped
plurality of vectors.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 19, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Teo2 in view of Baba3 (Ans. 4).
Claims 6, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Teo in view of Baba and Lenker4 (id. at 7).
Claims 9, 10, 16, 18, 24, 26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Teo in view of Baba and Kimura5 (id.).

2 Teo, US 6,267,727 B1, July 31, 2001.
3 Baba, US 4,374,525, Feb. 22, 1983.
4 Lenker, US 2003/0229286 A1, Dec. 11, 2003.
5 Bruce J. Kimura et al., Distortion of Intravascular Ultrasound Images
Because of Nonuniform Angular Velocity of Mechanical-Type Transducers,
132 AM. HEART J. 328-336 (1996).
Appeal 2012-004547
Application 11/535,441

3
The Examiner relies on Teo for disclosing
a medical imaging system comprising an imaging catheter
having proximal and distal sections; an imaging device coupled
to the distal section of the imaging catheter . . . , said imaging
device configured to rotate at a uniform angular velocity . . . ,
and a computer-usable medium, electrically coupled to the
imaging device . . . , having a sequence of instructions which,
when executed by a processor, causes said processor to execute
a process including generating a plurality of vectors, as the
imaging device rotates to form an image . . . , estimating an
instantaneous angular velocity of the imaging device as the
imaging device rotates . . . , remapping the plurality of vectors
whose estimated instantaneous angular velocity differs from the
uniform angular velocity . . . , and generating an image using
the remapped plurality of vectors.
(Id. at 4.)
The Examiner relies on Baba for teaching “two rotating ultrasound
transducers used in an imaging procedure” (id. at 5). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious “to apply the teaching of Baba to
Teo, as to provide additional ultrasonic reflectance data afforded by the use
of more than one transducer element and to reduce image acquisition time”
(id.).
ISSUE
The following issue is dispositive for all three rejections: Has the
Examiner set forth a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to
estimate an instantaneous angular velocity by comparing at least one vector
of the plurality of vectors generated by the first imaging transducer with at
least one vector of the plurality of vectors generated by the second imaging
transducer?
Appeal 2012-004547
Application 11/535,441

4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner acknowledges that “Teo does not specifically
disclose . . . comparing at least one vector of the plurality of vectors
generated by the first imaging transducer with at least one vector of the
plurality of vectors generated by the second imaging transducer” (Ans. 5).
In addition, although Baba discloses two transducers, the Examiner does not
find that Baba discloses comparing at least one vector generated by each of
these transducers (id.). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner does
not adequately explain how Teo and Baba suggest “comparing at least one
vector of the plurality of vectors generated by the first imaging transducer
with at least one vector of the plurality of vectors generated by the second
imaging transducer” (App. Br. 15).
In particular, the Examiner finds that “the limitations dealing with
comparing vectors, is clearly taught by Teo” (Ans. 9). However, it is
undisputed that Teo “discloses comparing two imaging vectors from the
same transducer” (App. Br. 15). Therefore, even if a second transducer is
included in Teo’s device based on the teachings in Baba, the Examiner has
not adequately explained why it would have been obvious to compare at
least one vector generated by the first imaging transducer with at least one
vector generated by the second imaging transducer.
The Examiner relies on Lenker and Kimura for disclosing features of
dependent claims (Ans. 7-8). However, the Examiner does not adequately
explain how either of these references suggests comparing at least one vector
generated by a first imaging transducer with at least one vector generated by
a second imaging transducer (id.).
Appeal 2012-004547
Application 11/535,441

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case that it would have
been obvious to estimate an instantaneous angular velocity by comparing at
least one vector of the plurality of vectors generated by the first imaging
transducer with at least one vector of the plurality of vectors generated by
the second imaging transducer. We therefore reverse the obviousness
rejections.

REVERSED

kmm