Ex Parte Lam et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201411535441 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation